Y2K Bug Drastically Changes US Climate Data

Rocket River · Aug 12, 2007

Brando2101 said:

Keep trying to convince the world that the Earth is flat Rocket River. As you say, questioning is good for all sides.
Click to expand...

Keep kneeling at the temple of men in white coats
and
blindly accepting what they say

They are your Shaman, Mulas, Ayatolla, etc
I understand completely. . .you have your religion . . I have mine

Rocket River

pppbigppp · Aug 12, 2007

KingCheetah said:

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought)
______

This is just the 'evolution revisited' thread in the D & D ~ the fringe will pounce on this saying global warming is not happening when in fact we are talking about a 1-2% correction.
Click to expand...

I would like to point out the ambiguous language used in the article is misleading(the one you put in bracket). The correction only affects US for the time period of 1996-2004 by hundredths degree. That can be no way translated as 1-2% global correction. The change to global record is actually statistically insignificant, in other word, nil.

MadMax · Aug 12, 2007

KingCheetah said:

Before we get too deep into this -- is there another source besides a blog?
Click to expand...

i'm not aware. that's why my first response was asking if it were true.

rimrocker · Aug 13, 2007

Jim Hansen of NASA... the guy responsible for the data...

Recently it was realized that the monthly more-or-less-automatic updates of our global temperature analysis (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2001/Hansen_etal.html) had a flaw in the U.S. data. In that (2001) update of the analysis method (originally published in our 1981 Science paper – http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/... we included improvements that NOAA had made in station records in the U.S., their corrections being based mainly on station-by-station information about station movement, change of time-of-day at which max-min are recorded, etc.

Unfortunately, we didn't realize that these corrections would not continue to be readily available in the near-real-time data streams. The same stations are in the GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) data stream, however, and thus what our analysis picked up in subsequent years was station data without the NOAA correction. Obviously, combining the uncorrected GHCN with the NOAA-corrected records for earlier years caused jumps in 2001 in the records at those stations, some up, some down (over U.S. only). This problem is easy to fix, by matching the 1990s decadal-mean temperatures for the NOAA-corrected and GHCN records, and we have made that correction.
The flaw did have a noticeable effect on mean U.S. temperature anomalies, as much as 0.15°C, as shown in Figure 1 below (for years 2001 and later, and 5 year mean for 1999 and later). The effect on global temperature (Figure 2) was of order one-thousandth of a degree, so the corrected and uncorrected curves are indistinguishable.

Contrary to some of the statements flying around the internet, there is no effect on the rankings of global temperature. Also our prior analysis had 1934 as the warmest year in the U.S. (see the 2001 paper above), and it continues to be the warmest year, both before and after the correction to post 2000 temperatures. However, as we note in that paper, the 1934 and 1998 temperature are practically the same, the difference being much smaller than the uncertainty.
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/8/11/72959/3572/65#c65
Click to expand...

Also, note that 5 of the 11 hottest years on record in the US have still occurred since 1990.

By the way, I'm not as concerned with US temps as I am with this...

Analysts See ‘Simply Incredible’ Shrinking of Floating Ice in the Arctic
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/10/science/earth/10arctic.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

The area of floating ice in the Arctic has shrunk more this summer than in any other summer since satellite tracking began in 1979, and it has reached that record point a month before the annual ice pullback typically peaks, experts said yesterday.

The cause is probably a mix of natural fluctuations, like unusually sunny conditions in June and July, and long-term warming from heat-trapping greenhouse gases and sooty particles accumulating in the air, according to several scientists.

William L. Chapman, who monitors the region at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and posted a Web report on the ice retreat yesterday, said that only an abrupt change in conditions could prevent far more melting before the 24-hour sun of the boreal summer set in September. “The melting rate during June and July this year was simply incredible,” Mr. Chapman said. “And then you’ve got this exposed black ocean soaking up sunlight and you wonder what, if anything, could cause it to reverse course.”

Mark Serreze, a sea-ice expert at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., said his center’s estimates differed somewhat from those of the Illinois team, and by the ice center’s reckoning the retreat had not surpassed the satellite-era record set in 2005. But it was close even by the center’s calculations, he said, adding that it is almost certain that by September, there will be more open water in the Arctic than has been seen for a long time. Ice experts at NASA and the University of Washington echoed his assessment.

Dr. Serreze said that a high-pressure system parked over the Arctic appeared to have caused a “triple whammy” — keeping away clouds, causing winds to carry warm air north and pushing sea ice away from Siberia, exposing huge areas of open water.

The progressive summertime opening of the Arctic has intensified a longstanding international tug of war over shipping routes and possible oil and gas deposits beneath the Arctic Ocean seabed.

Last week, Russians planted a flag on the seabed at the North Pole. On Wednesday, Stephen Harper, the Canadian prime minister, began a tour of Canada’s Arctic holdings, pledging “to vigorously protect our Arctic sovereignty as international interest in the region increases.”
Click to expand...

B-Bob · Aug 13, 2007

LMAO -- thanks rim.
Everyone can judge the red versus green for themselves. No need to worship or attack white lab coats. Just look and see what you think.

Forums

Y2K Bug Drastically Changes US Climate Data

Rocket River Member

pppbigppp Member

MadMax Member

rimrocker Member

B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"
Supporting Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

Y2K Bug Drastically Changes US Climate Data

Rocket River Member

pppbigppp Member

MadMax Member

rimrocker Member

B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer" Supporting Member

Share This Page

B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"
Supporting Member