Christopher C. Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data dating as far back as the 1930s.


"I assume that what is there is highly damaging," Mr. Horner said. "These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this."


The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed its data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for the hottest years, with 1934 listed as slightly cooler.

 

NASA has admitted to a data error that skewed temperatures since 2000.

According to the new estimates, the hottest year since 1880 is 1934 instead of 1998, which is now second. 1921 is now third, followed by 2006, 1931, and 1999.

The error was brought to NASA's attention by Steve McIntyre, a Canadian blogger for Climate Audit.

The change has little effect on global temperature records and the average temperatures for 2002-2006 (at 0.66 ºC) is still warmer than 1930-1934 (0.63 ºC) in the United States. NASA said there is still evidence that temperatures are trending upward.

 

How can scientists who report measurements of the earth's temperature within one one-hundredth of a degree be unable to concur if the temperature is going up or down over a ten year period? Something appears to be inconsistent with the NASA data - but what is it?

One clue we can see is that NASA has been reworking recent temperatures upwards and older temperatures downwards - which creates a greater slope and the appearance of warming. Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre has been tracking the changes closely on his Climate Audit site, and reports that NASA is Rewriting History, Time and Time Again.


Particularly troubling are the years from 1986-1998. In the 2007 version of the graph, the 1986 data was adjusted upwards by 0.4 degrees relative to the 1999 graph. In fact, every year except one from 1986-1998 was adjusted upwards, by an average of 0.2 degrees. If someone wanted to present a case for a lot of recent warming, adjusting data upwards would be an excellent way to do it.

Looking at the NASA website, we can see that the person in charge of the temperature data is the eminent Dr. James Hansen - Al Gore's science advisor and the world's leading long-term advocate of global warming.

Both of the satellite data sources, as well as Had-Crut, show worldwide temperatures falling below the IPCC estimates. Satellite data shows temperatures near or below the 30 year average - but NASA data has somehow managed to stay on track towards climate Armageddon.


We saw a global cooling scare in 1924, a global warming scare in 1933, another global cooling in the early 1970s, and another warming scare today


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05..._thermometers/

 

Global Warming is a political thing more than a scientific thing. As a mechanical engineer and general fan of the environment I think it is a good impetus to look at how we do things and make all aspects of our lives more efficient. However, the "scientific" evidence behind any of the theories is very questionable. There is questionable relation between carbon content and temperature. Also, there is no way for us to tell if these changes in temperature are due to our interaction. For example, even though every one blames Ozone depletion for the melting of the polar ice caps, the truth is that they are much more sensitive to water temperature changes than they are to solar radiation. So the question is why is the water heating up? It could be a natural thing or it could be something we did. Either way there are ways that we could reverse major temperature shifts (i.e. create cool periods during times in which the earth's temperature increases) but they mostly involve discharging various gases into the stratosphere and no one who cries about Global Warming likes these solutions because they consider them POLLUTION. It is an idealogical and political creation just like so many other things in our lives.

 

always follow the money.
this is no exception.



.

 

Indeed. The sad thing is I truly do believe that Al Gore and the rest of the proponents of Global Warming have the best intentions but the lack of technical knowledge or the application of salient scientific data when it comes to decision making scares me.

 

all we have to do is to look at the environmental changes in Mars, where we have no say on the changes or the outcome. NASA data.

al gore knew the data was wrong and still, he did what he did.
when confronted, he dismissed the problem of fraud .. as trivial.
he reminded me of Dan Rather and his disgraceful comments .. "the docs might have been made up but the facts are true .. "

al gore ==> fame ==> power == $$$

global warming crowd ==> fame ==> laws & power ==> environmental contracts ==> power ==> $$$ + $$$


congrats .. this country needs more engineers, imho

BTW ... ... BSME, Cal Poly S.L.O.
USAF, NASA, USAF BMO, USAF Radars, USN Sonar systems
GE, TRW, Mitutoyo, Kichler, etc.

 

Thanks man. Glad to find a fellow BSME on here. It really is sad when people get so crazy over these things that they wind up acting worse than any one that they are trying to stop. There's an interesting passage in the book Superfreakonomics where there authors discuss a company up in Seattle that is proposing using Sulfur Dioxide and simply directing up into the stratosphere in metered doses (if it ever does seem that there is a serious problem with temperature rise) in order to mimic the effects of a massive volcanic eruption and cool the earth for a while.

 

ahhh .. a man made ICE AGE ! what a concept. we could speed up the

did you know that one of the few mega super-volcanoes is right here in the US? i'll kick off an new thread on that.

BTW, would you like to know what the latest chatter is in the astronomy sites? solar flares, serious increase in solar activity and solar spots.