Comments on: Does Hansen’s Error “Matter”?

By: NASA: “Hide this after Jim checks it” « Climate Audit

NASA: “Hide this after Jim checks it” « Climate Audit — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 05:31:39 +0000

[...] the issue. For my own take on the significance of the incident, see my contemporary editorial here where I argued: My own view has been that matter is certainly not the triviality that Gavin [...]

By: Temperature, Measurements, and Engineering « Another View on Climate

Temperature, Measurements, and Engineering « Another View on Climate — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 01:53:07 +0000

[...] James Hansen of NASA made an error about the temps at one point. Does it matter? [...]

By: 1934 Warmer than 1998? Yes, No, Yes, No… « Another View on Climate

1934 Warmer than 1998? Yes, No, Yes, No… « Another View on Climate — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 02:20:38 +0000

[...] Naturally the alarmist crowd said that the adjustments (boosting 1934) were insignificant. CA has more discussion on this issue, including this one: Does Hansen’s Error ”Matter”? [...]

By: Nevermind, October is Not Hottest on Record | Right Wing Nut Job

Nevermind, October is Not Hottest on Record | Right Wing Nut Job — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 03:42:18 +0000

[...] in the past, including having to admit that the warmest decade in the 20th century was actually the 1930’s and not the 1990’s as he previously [...]

By: John Segal

John Segal — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 15:41:18 +0000

You should do research on historical records because the Northwest passage has indeed opened before.

By: Steven13

Steven13 — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 05:14:58 +0000

Willis Eschenbach’s graph of the changes looks too much like Mann’s “Hockey Stick” graph to me. I’m not one to get caught up in conspiracy theories, but I can’t help but wonder if this is not a coincidence. Could it be that “Hansen’s Y2k Error” was a deliberate attempt to massage the numbers to fit a false paradigm certain people were determined to project?

Steve: I doubt that it was deliberate. It was probably just sloppiness. However, I think that there’s a bias in their alertness to error detection: if the error had gone the other way, I have no doubt that they’d have cross-examined the data and code to try to locate it.

By: Geoff

Geoff — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 05:39:41 +0000

The article I discuss earlier as "in press" here has now been published as is available in full for US$ 9 here. I look forward to their follow up article "Explaining the record US warmth of 1934".

By: OpenMarket.org » Quelle horreur!

OpenMarket.org » Quelle horreur! — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:24:57 +0000

[...] couple of weeks ago The Washington Post ran a story about the recent correction of surface temperature measurements the wonderful Steve McIntyre brought to NASA’s attention. [...]

By: Jean S

Jean S — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:25:13 +0000

Willis, that's NOAA and the correction applies to GISS numbers. NOAA data is available here. I quickly calculated their "hottest USA years" and the top ten I got (in order): 1998, 2006, 1934, 1999, 1921, 1931, 2001, 1990, 2005 and 1953. The new GISS list is: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938 and 1939. Since they are supposingly using the same data, the differencies are coming from different adjustment methods.

By: Willis Eschenbach

Willis Eschenbach — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:00:51 +0000

Here’s how Hansen’s error matters. The NOAA Magazine for August 28th 2007 has an article headlined

GREENHOUSE GASES LIKELY DROVE NEAR-RECORD U.S. WARMTH IN 2006

in which they say

The annual average temperature in 2006 was 2.1 degrees F above the 20th Century average …

when in fact it was 1.85°F above the average …

It’s a very “all hell is breaking loose” article, driven by the incorrect numbers reported (and finally corrected) by Hansen.

My question is … how can they still be peddling this bovine waste product weeks after acknowledging the error … yeah, they’re real scientists all right, up to date on the latest findings …

PS – I’ve written to the two contact people listed in the article as follows:

Dear friends:

Don’t you read your own press releases? Don’t you read the papers? The error in the NOAA US temperature record has been all over the news, and despite that, you are publishing incorrect information.

It was bad enough that NOAA didn’t discover the mistake yourselves … why are you compounding it by repeating the erroneous data in your magazine ?

This is a serious question. How could you have missed this? I lost a lot of faith in NOAA when the error was discovered, but your continued hyping of the bogus information after the news of it has gone ’round the world firmly puts you in the non-scientific camp.

Do you plan to publish an erratum or otherwise acknowledge your erroneous claims, or do you plan to just pretend it never happened?

An answer would be greatly appreciated. A published retraction, in the same magazine, would salvage your scientific reputation. What action do you plan to take?

All the best,

w.

PS – an honest examination of the problem would have to include a complete reanalysis of the computer simulations of the US temperatures viz greenhouse and El Nino forcings. As it stands, they are built on wildly incorrect data, and thus cannot be trusted. Do you plan to do that as well?

We’ll see what they do