GISS emails Released Under FOI

[hairball]

Judicial watch has 215 A4 sheets of emails that it got from Hansen et al under Freedom of Information.
First one, cc'd to Hansen reads awfully.

Oops, didn't link the JW site: www.judicialwatch.org/news/2010/jan/judicial-watch-uncovers-nasa-documents-related-global-warming-controversy

.pdf scan (big enough at 10mb) is here: www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2010/783_NASA_docs.pdf

WUWT: wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/14/foiad-emails-from-hansen-and-giss-staffers-show-disagreement-over-1998-1934-u-s-temperature-ranking/

Sender of the second mail might be found here: www.realclimate.org/


WUWT is hosting the file too if you want it now and can't get through on JW: wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/783_nasa_docs.pdf

[hairball]

Possibly more trouble for GISS and NCDC, a Weather Channel special tonight will claim to show that they both manipulated data.

[poitsplace]

I wonder how much of the data has undergone these "corrections" that skeptics have been pointing out for the last year or two. Any others besides the US, Australia and New Zealand?

[hairball]

I'm guessing if Europe was warm (which it certainly was) and everywhere was near normal, Siberia must have been cold. Hmm, who was collating the Siberian data again?

[hairball]

The Weather Channel documentary is up now at WUWT: wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/14/john-colemans-hourlong-news-special-global-warming-the-other-side-now-online-all-five-parts-here/

[hairball]

That documentary is a masterpiece, and I've only seen the first part. Perfect primer for a recovering warmist's reeducation. The quiz at the end of part I is a real logic-chopper though. Heather Moore you ask? In an act.

Magnum opus.

[poitsplace]

I thought it was a little oversimplified...but then, its for normal people that haven't been studying this stuff for months or years

[nikmb]

It needs to be simple.
The masses have been brainwashed into believing what they're told just like Britain being anti Europe as this is what they read in the papers every day.

The masses need to be coaxed into starting to think for themselves again.

There's plenty of complex details already for those who wish to find and read them

[steve]

Why are these emails interesting.

From the judicial watch website:

Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASA's handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 that exaggerated the reported rise in temperature readings in the United States. According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA's rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list.

1. The error was about 0.01C.
2. Most "press reports" and Anthony Watts completely misunderstood the change and thought it referred to global temperatures, not US temperatures. Surely it should be important to correct this significant misconception.
3. Nobody is perfect. Anyone who knows anything about data analysis would know that a 0.01C difference here in data that covers 2% of the world is of minor importance. Since McIntyre and Watts made such a fuss it suggests that they don't know anything about data analysis

[boxman]

Jan 15, 2010 10:48:37 GMT steve said:

Why are these emails interesting.

From the judicial watch website:

Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASA's handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 that exaggerated the reported rise in temperature readings in the United States. According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA's rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list.

1. The error was about 0.01C.
2. Most "press reports" and Anthony Watts completely misunderstood the change and thought it referred to global temperatures, not US temperatures. Surely it should be important to correct this significant misconception.
3. Nobody is perfect. Anyone who knows anything about data analysis would know that a 0.01C difference here in data that covers 2% of the world is of minor importance. Since McIntyre and Watts made such a fuss it suggests that they don't know anything about data analysis

I already thought it was US temperatures when i first saw it. But that does absolutely not make it any better. If US temperatures are adjusted like that, then there most likely is such manipulation with other station data as well. These people should be fired and punished for the crime they have done.

[steve]

I already thought it was US temperatures when i first saw it. But that does absolutely not make it any better. If US temperatures are adjusted like that, then there most likely is such manipulation with other station data as well. These people should be fired and punished for the crime they have done.

Ridiculous. It was an error. All the data has been "manipulated" to generate the various plots that are presented. If you look at the raw data the "manipulation" doesn't much affect the overall trend in warming. They are *paid* to manipulate the data, because manipulating the data most likely reduces rather than increases biases that have occurred over the decades as the station site has changed in character. Some biases go up and some go down.

[sfbmikey]

since US temperatures are arguably the highest quality data we have, and a "small" error of .01 degrees was enough to make 1934 the warmest year, what does that say about the warming over that 64 year period? it would seem to indicate that there has been little actual warming since 1934........

[boxman]

Jan 15, 2010 13:45:53 GMT steve said:

I already thought it was US temperatures when i first saw it. But that does absolutely not make it any better. If US temperatures are adjusted like that, then there most likely is such manipulation with other station data as well. These people should be fired and punished for the crime they have done.

Ridiculous. It was an error. All the data has been "manipulated" to generate the various plots that are presented. If you look at the raw data the "manipulation" doesn't much affect the overall trend in warming. They are *paid* to manipulate the data, because manipulating the data most likely reduces rather than increases biases that have occurred over the decades as the station site has changed in character. Some biases go up and some go down.

Perhaps when the world is full of perfect people like you, boxman, then we can afford to apply criminal standards to minor, irrelevant, imperfections.

Can you please explain to me how removing station increases the accuracy of data?? Why have i seen with my own eyes US temperatures being changed with each new revision?? The older releases from GISS showed US temperatures in 30-40s to be noticeable higher than present temperatures. With each new revision the 30-40s have been adjusted DOWN. I really dont see how you can defend this shit, but i guess logical reasoning is not present in persons who have religious beliefs. I have seen this with my own very eyes for years now. I never said the US based temperature data would significantly affect the global trend. But if such "corrections" are common then it will in end also affect global temperature data. Now we know that both CRU and GISS have adjusted the data.

Such small adjustments have been going on for years and it all adds up to the bigger picture in the end.

[steve]

Jan 15, 2010 13:46:40 GMT sfbmikey said:

since US temperatures are arguably the highest quality data we have, and a "small" error of .01 degrees was enough to make 1934 the warmest year, what does that say about the warming over that 64 year period? it would seem to indicate that there has been little actual warming since 1934........

Prior to the analysis, both 1998 and 1934 were within 0.01C of each other in the US. I can't remember which one was said to be warmer, but I the emails suggest they had at least one publication that had 1934 ever so slightly warmer than 1998.

Currently, GISSTEMP is running at about 0.5C warmer than 1934. So a 0.01C change won't make much difference to the conclusion.

[steve]

I really dont see how you can defend this shit, but i guess logical reasoning is not present in persons who have religious beliefs.

What has it got to do with "logical reasoning"? There is no logic that says older answers must be better (or worse) than newer answers.

There are plenty of analyses that show that whatever manipulation has gone on makes virtually *no* difference to the overall global trend over the last 50 years. I've not looked at much info prior to that, so I don't know about the 1940's US temperature.