This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
I have been following the NASA/GISS farce which started with NASA/GISS declaring October 2008 the hottest October on record. If you have not been following the farce NASA/GISS published data for October 2008 which turned out to contain Septembers numbers.
Rather than coming clean and say "oh deary me", NASA/GISS compounded the farce by declaring that they had found a hotspot in Siberia. During one of the coldest times of the year, so far, NASA/GISS find a hotspot.
Eventually a GISS spokesperson said that they did not have the resources to validate the data that they receive!!
Wait a minute!
This is Goddard Institute for Space Studies one of NASA's flagship institutions and beyond reproach. These are the people who have proved global warming; these are the people we trust.
Now call be naive, but I thought or was I told, that NASA/GISS used satellites to make millions of world wide measurements. If its NASA then it is 100% accurate and uses only the very best technology. That is what I have always believed. But it now appears GISS gathers data from a world wide network of ground weather stations, including nine in the UK. Yes only nine.
The data is not checked or validated!
What is the point of this senseless exercise and why publishing data which cannot be trusted?
What other authoritative data do we trust that is total fiction?
Why would any Scientific organisation use data which has not been validated? It is pointless!
How many times in the past has NASA/GISS used erroneous data?
Dear Mr Kerr,
You are wrong. Egregiously wrong. So I'm going to teach you a little about scientific data gathering.
1. If the data shows warming, it's not necessary to validate it. We all know that global warming is happening, therefore data that shows warming is self-validating.
2. If the data shows cooling, then it must be validated because we all know that global warming is happening, therefore data that shows cooling is clearly wrong and must be validated. But since we know it's wrong, we don't really have to validate it. We just adjust it to show what is really happening which, as we all know, is warming.
Sorry, I forgot to tell you a small, unimportant detail. The above is for "climate" scientific data gathering.
All that the data shows is that the cooling is masking the warming. We all know that. The cooling is only a masquarade (spellcheck please).
Whoa there, chaps.
This has been well discussed on Antony Watts splendid site, www.wattsupwiththat.com, to which I refer all interested parties.
NASA/GISS use data from ground stations. For satellite data, use the University of Alabama, Huntsville (through WUWT, above).
When they talk about "hotspots", that is in terms of temperature anomalies, i.e. the difference from what is expected. Here the choice of baseline value is of course critical, since by picking a baseline too low you can show continuous warming, and vice versa. Even in a Siberiuan "hotspot', it's still not the place for a brass monkey to go on holiday.
Anyone see that the ocean data (which showed the oceans cooling) has been now corrected. Turns out that the older data was too warm and the new data from the new robots is too cold, which made the combined data set look like it was overall too cold. Therefore it is really warming.
I know that past data can't be recaptured because it is past, but sometimes I get really worried about scientists who remanipulate the data to get it to match what is expected.
When I was studying nuclear power in the navy, they told us that E=mc^2 predicted the anti-neutrino because there was a small bit of missing mass in the equation. An excellent use of a model finding errors in the real world. This seems to have been extended to GCM's. If the data from the real world doesn't match, go back and mangle it till it does. The first reaction of scientists is not "Wow, the data sort of says that we are wrong", but "We can't be wrong, fix the data!"
Agree, except E=mc^2 did not cause data to be mangled, it predicted (as you say) the existence of the anti-neutrino thus making us find previously unknown but existing particles. Therefore it has not been extended to GSM's. Their users manipulate the data to fit the models. They refuse to seek the equivalent of "existing particles."
Which is what I was trying to say.
If you want another example of NASA doing something suspicious with data in connection with global warming, there is an example from about 30 years ago with space probes sent to Venus. The Pioneer Venus Orbiter appeared to show that Venus was radiating 15% more energy than it received from the Sun. This suggested that Venus could have an internal heat source, which in turn might account for it's unusually high surface temperature of over 400 deg C, but NASA decided there must be some instrumental error and preferred the Carl Sagan explanation for venus' high surface temperature, that it was due to a runaway greenhouse effect.
The story goes that NASA didn't like the idea that Venus could be a naturally hot planet as it tended to give support to the theory of the pseudoscience book writer Immanuel Velikovsky that Venus might be a young, recently-formed planet, only a few thousand years old. Sagan was rumoured to have invented the runaway greenhouse effect explanation for a hot Venus in the 1970s just to get something else on the table besides Velikovsky's theory. Sagan even organised a 1970s conference called 'Scientists Confront Velikovsky'. I don't subscribe to the young Venus theory myself, but I don't rule out the idea that there might be a radioactive heat source that is much more significant than anything seen on Earth. Naturally occurring nuclear fission reactors have been discovered in some geological conditions on Earth, notably at a place called Oklo in Africa, and something like that on a much bigger scale could be happening on Venus.
The so-called runaway greenhouse effect on Venus is one of the biggest motivations for the global warming alarmists here on Earth.
One of the recent probes exposed the fact that the solar wind was stripping out all the other gases from the atmosphere leaving the heavier molecules like CO2. The primary reason being a lack of a liquid core which is what generates our own protective magnetic field.
I don't want to say anything bad about Sagan, but he seems to have found a couple of ways to leverage Mencken hasn't he. I can't blame him there either. It's akin to the Publish or Perish mantra. If you don't stay visible somehow, you won't be on the speed dial.
NASA didn't like the temperature data?
Sound like they'd have been at home in Chernobyl.
The Nov 1980 New Scientist article "The mystery of Venus' internal heat" is too old to be available online, but I managed to find the text for it:
"Two years surveillance by the Pioneer Venus orbiter seems to show that Venus is radiating away more energy than it receives from the sun. If this surprising result is confirmed, it
means that the planet itself is producing far more heat than the earth does.
F.W. Taylor of the Clarendon Laboratory at Oxford presented these measurements at a Royal Society meeting last week. Venus surface temperature is higher than any other in the
solar system, at 480 C. The generally accepted theory is that sunlight is absorbed at Venus' surface, and re-radiated as infrared. The later is absorbed in the atmosphere, which thus
acts as a blanket, keeping the planet hot. It is similar to the way a greenhouse keeps warm.
Pioneer has shown that there is enough carbon dioxide and the tiny proportion of water vapor needed to make the greenhouse effect work -- just. If this is the whole story, the total
amount of radiation emitted back into space, after its journey up through the atmospheric blanket must be exactly equal to that absorbed from sunlight (otherwise the surface temperature would be continuously changing).
But Taylor found that Venus radiates 15 percent more energy than it receives. To keep the surface temperature constant, Venus must be producing this extra heat from within.
All the inner planets, including earth, produce internal heat from radioactive elements within their rocks. But Taylor's observations of Venus would mean that the planet is producing
almost 10,000 times more heat than the earth, and it is inconceivable according to present theories of planetary formation, that Venus should have thousands of times more of
the radioactive elements than Earth does. At last weeks meeting, Taylor's suggestion met with skepticism - not to say sheer disbelief - from other planetary scientists.
Taylor himself has no explanation for his result. He simply points out that the discrepancy seemed at first to be simply experimental error - but with more precise measurements, it
refused to go away. More measurements are needed before astronomers accept the result, and most planetary scientists are obviously expecting - and hoping - that the embarrassing
extra heat will disappear on further investigation."
Now in the UK we have operated a type of nuclear reactor called the 'Magnox' reactor. It uses natural uranium fuel (0.7% U235, not enriched), a carbon (graphite) moderator and high pressure carbon dioxide as a coolant to take heat away. The way I see it, Venus with its high pressure CO2 atmosphere may not be that different to a sort of naturally occurring Magnox reactor. The CO2 would permeate the Venus soil and could act as both a moderator and coolant for uranium ore deposits on Venus.