FOX: NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, Space Agency Admits

[Eredar Warlock]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/

NASA was able to put a man on the moon, but the space agency can't tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA's temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data.

E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) -- the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails -- and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center.

The e-mails from 2007 reveal that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA's data "was more accurate" than other climate-change data sets, NASA's Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said "the National Climatic Data Center's procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate," admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings.

"My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDC's data for the U.S. means and [East Anglia] data for the global means," Ruedy told the reporter.

"NASA's temperature data is worse than the Climate-gate temperature data. According to NASA," wrote Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who uncovered the e-mails. Horner is skeptical of NCDC's data as well, stating plainly: "Three out of the four temperature data sets stink."

Global warming critics call this a crucial blow to advocates' arguments that minor flaws in the "Climate-gate" data are unimportant, since all the major data sets arrive at the same conclusion -- that the Earth is getting warmer. But there's a good reason for that, the skeptics say: They all use the same data.

"There is far too much overlap among the surface temperature data sets to assert with a straight face that they independently verify each other's results," says James M. Taylor, senior fellow of environment policy at The Heartland Institute.

"The different groups have cooperated in a very friendly way to try to understand different conclusions when they arise," said Dr. James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in the same 2007 e-mail thread. Earlier this month, in an updated analysis of the surface temperature data, GISS restated that the separate analyses by the different agencies "are not independent, as they must use much of the same input observations."

Neither NASA nor NOAA responded to requests for comment. But Dr. Jeff Masters, director of meteorology at Weather Underground, still believes the validity of data from NASA, NOAA and East Anglia would be in jeopardy only if the comparative analysis didn't match. "I see no reason to question the integrity of the raw data," he says. "Since the three organizations are all using mostly the same raw data, collected by the official weather agency of each individual country, the only issue here is whether the corrections done to the raw data were done correctly by CRU."

Corrections are needed, Masters says, "since there are only a few thousand surface temperature recording sites with records going back 100+ years." As such, climate agencies estimate temperatures in various ways for areas where there aren't any thermometers, to account for the overall incomplete global picture.

"It would be nice if we had more global stations to enable the groups to do independent estimates using completely different raw data, but we don't have that luxury," Masters adds. "All three groups came up with very similar global temperature trends using mostly the same raw data but independent corrections. This should give us confidence that the three groups are probably doing reasonable corrections, given that the three final data sets match pretty well."

But NASA is somewhat less confident, having quietly decided to tweak its corrections to the climate data earlier this month.

In an updated analysis of the surface temperature data released on March 19, NASA adjusted the raw temperature station data to account for inaccurate readings caused by heat-absorbing paved surfaces and buildings in a slightly different way. NASA determines which stations are urban with nighttime satellite photos, looking for stations near light sources as seen from space.

Of course, this doesn't solve problems with NASA's data, as the newest paper admits: "Much higher resolution would be needed to check for local problems with the placement of thermometers relative to possible building obstructions," a problem repeatedly underscored by meteorologist Anthony Watts on his SurfaceStations.org Web site. Last month, Watts told FoxNews.com that "90 percent of them don't meet [the government's] old, simple rule called the '100-foot rule' for keeping thermometers 100 feet or more from biasing influence. Ninety percent of them failed that, and we've got documentation."

Still, "confidence" is not the same as scientific law, something the public obviously recognizes. According to a December survey, only 25 percent of Americans believed there was agreement within the scientific community on climate change. And unless things fundamentally change, it could remain that way, said Taylor.

"Until surface temperature data sets are truly independent of one another and are entrusted to scientists whose objectivity is beyond question, the satellite temperature record alone will not have any credibility," he said.

 

[Fig]

Re: NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, Space Agency Admits

Go, go misrepresenting title!

You're taking a 2007 assessment - BEFORE anyone knew about Climategate - that the methodology of NASA was less likely to result in perfectly accurate measurements than the (alleged) methodology of East Anglia.

Then you twist it to say that instead Nasa's data is less accurate than allegedly "corrupted" and "twisted" data from the so-called Climategate.

Whether NASA would make the same assessment IF it turns out that the East Anglia measurement were really twisted and falsified (and not merely presented in such a way to underline what the scientists thought was significant), as you and Fox are trying to imply, is...somewhat open to question.

Certainly, at this point in time, it's dishonest on both your part and Fox's

 

[evkl]

Re: NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, Space Agency Admits

"Until surface temperature data sets are truly independent of one another and are entrusted to scientists whose objectivity is beyond question, the satellite temperature record alone will not have any credibility," he said.

Might as well say...

"Until I find people who have no connection to positions I disagree with, I will not agree with the conclusions of climate scientists."

 

[Eredar Warlock]

Re: NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, Space Agency Admits

Go, go misrepresenting title!

You're taking a 2007 assessment - BEFORE anyone knew about Climategate - that the methodology of NASA was less likely to result in perfectly accurate measurements than the (alleged) methodology of East Anglia.

Then you twist it to say that instead Nasa's data is less accurate than allegedly "corrupted" and "twisted" data from the so-called Climategate.

Whether NASA would make the same assessment IF it turns out that the East Anglia measurement were really twisted and falsified (and not merely presented in such a way to underline what the scientists thought was significant), as you and Fox are trying to imply, is...somewhat open to question.

Certainly, at this point in time, it's dishonest on both your part and Fox's

I'm not being dishonest. I was just repeating the title.

 

[Fig]

Re: NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, Space Agency Admits

True. I'm sorry, that was out of line from me.

Fox, though, is decidedly dishonest in their phrasing of the title.

 

[RavenKingSage]

Re: NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, Space Agency Admits

Fox, though, is decidedly dishonest in their phrasing of the title.

It's things like that which make Fox News seem unintelligent. The most honest of anyone on Fox News is probably... oh hell who am I kidding, Fox News is nothing BUT liars.

On another note, could you maybe change the title to something less misleading, Evil Figment?

 

[Eredar Warlock]

Re: NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, Space Agency Admits

It's things like that which make Fox News seem unintelligent. The most honest of anyone on Fox News is probably... oh hell who am I kidding, Fox News is nothing BUT liars.

Why is that? Because they give a chance for the Right to actually debate? Unlike the other networks? Even CNN has lost all of its supposed objectiveness. Remember, they're the ones that drove out Glenn Beck - where he went right to Fox and his ratings skyrocketed. They also drove out Lou Dobbs.

However, we're off topic. And in record time, too.

 

[Fig]

I've taken the liberty to do a slight but meaningful edit to your thread title to more accurately reflect the content of the thread, Arcane (Added "FOX:" in front of it).

 

[RavenKingSage]

Why is that? Because they give a chance for the Right to actually debate? Unlike the other networks? Even CNN has lost all of its supposed objectiveness. Remember, they're the ones that drove out Glenn Beck - where he went right to Fox and his ratings skyrocketed. They also drove out Lou Dobbs

We've been hearing the Right wing over the Left for centuries. Now it's the Left's turn to say something for a change.

However, we're off topic. And in record time, too.

Holy shit, off-topic on the first page? Maybe you should post the source material again, maybe that'll get us back on track.

 

[Fig]

That will do, Geno.

 

[RavenKingSage]

That will do, Geno.

I can't tell if you're saying that my suggestion will do, or if you're trying to tell me that I've posted off-topic enough times already.

So the temperature records of NASA when man first landed on the moon have no credibility now... I can't say that's GOOD, since history should be accurate, but it's not really BAD. Is it?

 

[Fig]

I'm trying to tell that your previous post sounded highly sarcastic as far as the suggestion went, and that the thread could probably do with a little less sarcasm.

That said, Fox's credibility is not all that off-topic, given the core issue here is Fox taking a 2007 NASA statement entirely out of context and applying a ridiculous level of hindsight to make it say something NASA never said.

(BTW, the British parliament comitee charged to investigate Climategate has cleared the scientists of wrongdoing, though it has recommended improvement in their handling to better handle future accusations. Now, it's only one of three investigations, and not all of them may end up agreeing, but...)

 

[Big Lutz]

(BTW, the British parliament comitee charged to investigate Climategate has cleared the scientists of wrongdoing, though it has recommended improvement in their handling to better handle future accusations. Now, it's only one of three investigations, and not all of them may end up agreeing, but...)

Amazing work they were able to do with only one day of oral testimony, especially for a controversy as wide reaching and spanning as Climategate. Gotta admit those Brits work fast, usually in the US one day of oral testimony tends to amount to nothing. Then again they did admit that it was a rushed report, to get it out before the next election. But hey it's not like Climategate is important or anything.

As for the overall topic, it does show that there are fundamental flaws with the raw data as a whole.

 

[Fig]

Well, you're about one word shy of being right.

It shows that there are flaws in the raw data. No question about it. That these flaws are fundamental, though, is your spin.

 

[Big Lutz]

It shows that there are flaws in the raw data. No question about it. That these flaws are fundamental, though, is your spin.

You can take what ever spin you like, there is clear evidence that the data is damaged. And that could be for many reasons including the heat island effect, or the moving of sites, or any number of reasons. The problem is that because of the problems in the data, and the systemic problems that exist in the CRU analysis, all 3 organizations are affected: NASA, UEA CRU, and NCDC. One of the most damming things about this article is that we find out not just that the data has problems with it, but that all three cooperated with eachother, instead of each one being independent. So the problems with the CRU can very well bleed over into NASA and the NCDC. So for example, problems in the CRU's "below standard" Computer modeling, could very well bleed over into NASA and the NCDC's reports. Same with problems with say NASA's procedures that led to less accurate readings.

 

[Every Breaking Wave]

Their data was so bad to begin with that this wasn't even worth reporting. Honestly, who cares? It's just a bit of carbon. At least we're getting a lot of money from it with the tar sands.

 

[Fig]

Their data was so bad to begin with that this wasn't even worth reporting. Honestly, who cares? It's just a bit of carbon. At least we're getting a lot of money from it with the tar sands.

The tar sands are a disgrace. And now basically you're going to be riding on Quebec's shoulders to try and clean up your emissions, because, get this, we're the only ones bothering to actually meet our kyoto targets in Canada.

Well, that will backfire on you once we get out, let me tell you. Then Canada will get what's coming for it.

VIVE LE QUEBEC LIBRE!

 

[Every Breaking Wave]

The tar sands are a disgrace.

At least they're bringing in jobs and money; there's a reason Alberta is one of the richest provinces.

And now basically you're going to be riding on Quebec's shoulders to try and clean up your emissions, because, get this, we're the only ones bothering to actually meet our kyoto targets in Canada.

Oh, you mean that failed document that the Liberal government completely ignored? Huh. And last I checked, Ontario was pledging cuts too. To be fair, it's just so much easier for you than for any other province; you've got the trees to suck up the carbon; we don't. We've just got all the manufacturing jobs.

Well, that will backfire on you once we get out, let me tell you. Then Canada will get what's coming for it.

VIVE LE QUEBEC LIBRE!

Oh, are you still planning on using Canadian passports after you've gone?

Quebec's no more special than any other province. If you've got that much of an inferiority complex that you think you deserve special treatment, then I say good riddance. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[Fig]

At least they're bringing in jobs and money; there's a reason Alberta is one of the richest provinces.



Oh, you mean that failed document that the Liberal government completely ignored? Huh. And last I checked, Ontario was pledging cuts too.

We're not pledging cuts, we've already made them. And now YOUR conservative government of Anglo-fascists want us to make even more because, hey, everyone has to contribute "equally" to the goals. Except we're the only province that's actually gone down since Kyoto.

Oh, are you still planning on using Canadian passports after you've gone?

Fuck no. Or your money, either; it'd be about time to get rid of that stupid British bitch that's polluting our money with her ugly mug.

EDIT:

And

Quebec's no more special than any other province.

Hey, at least we have something to distinguish us from being US State 51 through 59. That's more than you Anglos can say.

 

[Every Breaking Wave]

We're not pledging cuts, we've already made them. And now YOUR conservative government of Anglo-fascists want us to make even more because, hey, everyone has to contribute "equally" to the goals. Except we're the only province that's actually gone down since Kyoto.

Yeah, pretty stupid of you, aye? Instead of going ahead and saying "oh look at us, we're so special we're going to do all these wonderful things because we're QUEBEC", maybe you should have actually sat up and noticed what everybody else was doing. A country works best when it works together, not when one part of it runs blindly ahead and then complains that they're carrying the rest of the nation because they were too stupid to work with everybody else.

Fuck no. Or your money, either; it'd be about time to get rid of that stupid British bitch that's polluting our money with her ugly mug.

Oh, so what new plans do you have then? Last I heard (last year) you were asking the government if you could keep using the passports for the first few years because you didn't have any plans (or the ability) to make your own. Aww, poor Quebec. You wanna get out of here but you have to keep relying on Canada even if you do. BooHoo.

And am I the only one notices the irony in a seceeded Quebec having a team called the Canadiens????

Hey, at least we have something to distinguish us from being US State 51 through 59. That's more than you Anglos can say.

You say that like it's a bad thing. And it would be more State 51 through 62, since I assume the territories would be like little extra Alaskas.