I would love to know how they determined which data was in error and why. They don't say except that they found all cooler temp data to be erroneous.

He must have gone to the Dr. James Hansen School of Data Manipulation. I really do believe that his data is corrupt. There is no way in H*** that the oceans could have cooled. Right?

Amazing how the only data that is ever wronge is that that does not agree with the theory.

In the article Willis did not want to admit the melt water from the north was cooling the ocean. This water has to go somewhere! They even used NASA's gravity measurements that showed the ice sheets melting and pumping the cool water into the Atlantic, but did think it should cause the ocean to cool. Why do they think the ice is melting but not releasing any melt water? These "scientists" say this so the feds. keep paying them. Science has lost its true meaning, it is sad.

Josh Willis may have corrected earlier errors or he may have simply changed the data to fit the model - we'll never know for sure. I remain skeptical mostly because others at NASA like Dr. James Hansen have been caught red-handed "cooking the books."

Also, it's not a good career move for scientists to publish findings which are contrary to the conventional wisdom of global warming as funding tends to dry up.

Did the warmer water raise sea levels significantly? Should we evacuate inhabited coastal areas or is this simply a natural cycle and of no real consequence to mankind?

I feel like Diogenes searching for warmth in a cooling world or perhaps searching for an "honest scientist."

The ARGO data didn't agree with the models and AGW orthodoxy, so simply adjust the data. It was so easy and all too predictable. Another measurement tool comes under the control of the House of Hanson.

Providing their own "adjustments" to the satellite based MSU TLT measurements will be next.

Surface temperature analysis in Eurasia, Eastasia and Oceana are clearly rising exactly as the IPCC models have predicted.

Here is an interesting article in USA Today reporting on evidence that northern tropical cyclone activity has reduced over the last few years (all regions, not just North Atlantic).

Reply: Recent studies suggest that global warming may lead to more intense storms, but not increase the number of storms, and in some cases reduce the total . Nothing shocking here.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2008-11-12-northern-hemisphere-hurricane-activity_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Could it be possible that global warming may reduce cyclone hazards to mankind? Since it has been proven that global warming has no positive benefits, there must be problems with the cyclone data set that these people used and corrections will be necessary. I am also sure that Al Gore will jet to one of the hurricane or cyclone landfall locations to prove that the entire supposition is clearly false and we need to cut carbon use, esepcially other people's jet travel.

Any comments from the Accuweather Huricane Center team?

Willis' discovery is rather old news. This correction was made a couple of years ago. The data that it was made to only went to 2004. It was to make heat content correspond to the sea level rise. But for the last three years, there has been no sea level rise.

Reply: I did not say it was new news. The scientific process in this story was very interesting.

http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/06/university-of-colorado-global-sea-level.html

So what are they going to do now, adjust the sea level rise up so that it corresponds to the heat content data that they adjusted up to match the sea level rise?

Hansen was just caught "Cooking the Books" AGAIN !!!

Once again it is Climate Audit's Steve McIntyre, who this time found that Hansen used September's temp data for October in all of Russia, after the October data was corrupted. Doing so led to a huge Northern Hemisphere "warm anomaly" and proclamations that October was the warmest on record !!!

Of course after McIntyre alerted GISS to the problem, within an hour the October data was replaced. No explanation, and no acknowledgement to McIntyre for his discovery.......... No surprise there, of course !

After GISS October was readjusted, the complex, convoluted, and highly secret, algorithms for GISS temperature adjustments changed certain data values all the way back to 2005 !!!

See the full details at a repost of the news article at ICECAP.US.

Hansen should be in jail !

Oh, and Brett, why is there no link to ICECAP in the "Interesting Links" column to the right of the blog ? Can you get the webslingers to add one since it too is a very good news and tech site for all things climate ?

Reply: It should be there. I had requested about 10 months ago for our web people to put that link on there. I will get it on. Sorry.

I think GISSTEMP NASA temp has lost all credibility with this latest fiasco (which by the way has not been even considered in this blog) LOL
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13410&red=y#366381

Mr. G. | November 12, 2008 11:08 AM & Rick Ressler | November 12, 2008 11:29 AM & D Caldwell | November 12, 2008 11:39 AM --- Recall that early GCMs did not agree with the data from Antarctica becuase the atmospheric chemistry wasn't known; when determined and added to the models, the GCMs agreed (and continue to agree) with Antarctic data.

There are several examples where the GCMs, based on fundamental physics, do not agree with the data and subsequently the data is found to be in error; this is one of those cases.

Mr. G. | November 12, 2008 11:08 AM & Rick Ressler | November 12, 2008 11:29 AM & D Caldwell | November 12, 2008 11:39 AM --- Recall that early GCMs did not agree with the data from Antarctica becuase the atmospheric chemistry wasn't known; when determined and added to the models, the GCMs agreed (and continue to agree) with Antarctic data.

There are several examples where the GCMs, based on fundamental physics, do not agree with the data and subsequently the data is found to be in error; this is one of those cases.

Here's another fun one: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/will-next-ice-age-be-permanent/?hp

The question being asked here is whether or not we are in a temporary up-cycle in between ice ages where the temperatures are essentially vibrating around a norm with the potential of heading into a steady-state continental glacial condition.

If this is true, then adding greenhouse gases would be necessary to avert a devastating re-glaciation.

While he may well be telling the truth and there really is no oceanic cooling, the nest has been fouled many times already by Hansen and Mann et al. to the point that I think the original measurements were right all along and there was pressure on him to make the cool data conform to the hypothesis of AGW.

I don't see why you think this article is "excellent," Brett. It's a fine example of vigorously looking for *only* the adjustments that support your preconceived conclusions, which is hardly what "any good scientist" should do. Repeated attempts to continually prop up models and predictions that are falling on their face due to Earth's climate refusing to follow the script smacks more of prevarication than it does of science.

Just like the Pacific Ocean's Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the Atlantic Ocean also has a natural cycle of cooling and warming called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). The PDO is now in its cool mode, but the AMO switched to its warm mode in 1995 and will be warming the Atlantic for the next few decades. Does Josh Willis even consider the AMO in his study? Or any other factors such as the North Atlantic Oscillation or or the Icelandic Low or the likely dozens of other factors at play in this vastly complex system? If not, then I can't take his research seriously. For these so called scientists, if it warms it's manmade, if it cools it's natural.

Bad data! Bad data!

The raw data which didn't conform to our expectations was corrected and sure enough the doctored...... er corrected (by much hard work as would be expected of any good scientist) data shows exactly what we thought.

Excuse me, but PUH LEASE. Don't try to sell this nonsense to people who think, take it to Washington where the power is.

And until the carbon police cruise my neighborhood with their thermal camera checking out the energy loss around my double hung windows you can take junk like this and ..... and...... I don't know. Do with it what you will, but don't expect me to ever fall for it.

Aaron

The Climate-Change Reformation

Al Gore - outdone only by L. Ron Hubbard in his ability to weave science fiction into a religion - is reforming the climate change faith, and turning it toward the discussion of energy independence and American financial viability.

The truth, alas, has proved too inconvenient to ignore. Among non-partisan researchers, there is now little doubt that human-generated carbon dioxide makes only an insignificant contribution to climate change. More importantly, there is agreement among virtually all climatologists that the planet is experiencing the beginnings of a cold spell, expected to last as long as 30 years, due to a decrease in solar activity.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/greenwald/42322

Tilo: I believe the correction you're refering to was a different correction and only had to do with the last few years of cooling. These corrections covered the term of the data, including the hump in the 1970s.

Josh Willis is not James Hansen. Why is he subjected to such doubt?

Science involves the careful scrutiny of data. If Josh Willis hadn't carefully gone over his data, wouldn't others have discovered the same flaws, through the process of Peer Review? Why are people so cynical?

I'll tell you why.

The current SNAFU at GISS demonstrates what an utter and complete mess Hansen has made. Please consider one tiny reality the SNAFU exposes:

We mere mortals might think 2005 is over, and nothing that happens today can change the temperatures recorded back then. However the blunder that was made by GISS, recording data from Siberia in 2008, actually did change the recorded data from 2005.

Of course, we are just peons, and cannot understand the subtlety of Hansen's science. (NASA actually has created a time machine, and Hansen can go back to 2005 and change reality.)

The joke is that all you need to do is correct the Siberian data from 2008, and the data from 2005 changes yet again.

Forgive me for being blunt, but this is absurd. It reduces the definition of the word "data" to a farce.

Hansen has created a situation that must have NASA writhing in shame. He has earned himself a broad brush of scorn which paints not merely himself, and not only Mann and his bulldog Gavin, but scientists who may well be honest, such as Josh Willis.

Scientists at NASA have to now expect extra scrutiny. True science not only can withstand such scrutiny; it welcomes it.

What must be hard to withstand is the scorn. People no longer see Climate Science as scientific, but rather as political. Changes are not seen as corrections, but as political repositioning, (especially after an election.)

True scientists do not "position themselves," for truth is not a "position." It is The Reality.

I can`t help but to wonder if Josh had discovered that the ocean temperatures were much colder than than the Argo data suggested would he have written about it....and being the skeptic that I am would those findings ever make it to this blog?

Reply: Yes they would Jack.

"I think GISS has lost all credibility with this latest fiasco (which by the way has not been even considered in this blog)"

Reply: I will do a piece on it, but would like to see a response from the GISS crew or Hansen himself if possible. I have done blogs in the past on some of the questionable GISS observing sites with the help of Anthony Watts. Also, notice that I did not post the GISS results this month. I am still looking at the situation. Brett

You know, it amazes me. The moderator here states the reason that he doesn't post as much skpetical stuff is because he can't find any. Yeah right!

So much for breaking through the hype. I wonder if the man-made warming bias on this blog has anything to do with the sponsors, the moderator or both?

Many posters here post MANY links to skeptical information. Take your pick moderator.

I am sorry but it does sound fishy that all the hard digging was done only because the data were too cool. One is left with the lingering feeling that no such an effort ever materializes for data that shows warming (talk about WARMING BIAS there...)

One question for Brett. You say that "Recent studies suggest that global warming may lead to more intense storms, but not increase the number of storms, and in some cases reduce the total . Nothing shocking here.".

I believe you. Then could you please help me answer this question: is there any observation of any sort that can be done anywhere on Earth, that would not be explainable by global warming using "recent studies"?

Hi Brett,

We are expected to believe that all these changes in data, etc., are due to better technology, yet they are all going even warmer. Maybe an article on how many times data manipulation has been caught recently is in order to put things in perspective. Something is very much amiss as we have seen no warming since 1998 so why wouldn't the oceans actually cool. Brett, even someone with no vested interest in AGW can smell something rotten going on here. Thanks.

Man made "Global Warming" is a big hoax. Behind the hoax is simply political agendas driving Climatologists and those in the academic world who support them. Anyone who disagrees can't openly dissent without being railroaded out of the scientific community. Does anyone recall what happened to a certain ex-head of the National Hurricane Center who spoke out against the "Global Warming community"? Those who want funds from the government are creating a "boogeyman" to scare taxpayers into giving them money. The government is happy to have a "boogeyman" to scare people into dishing out more money. It looks like the upcoming winter will expose the "global warming" fraud for what it is. It will be interesting to see whether climatologists will keep crying about "Global Warming" as thousands freeze to death in eastern North America and Europe.

Sea surface temperatures for climate
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/nwp/satellite/imagery/sst.html

named storms in the Atlantic and Northern Hemisphere sea surface temperature
http://residualanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/08/graph-of-nh-ssts-and-named-storms.html

I find it troubling when "scientists" accept a theory as fact. Josh Willis is "in the tank" on AGW so his research and conclusions cannot help but be influenced by his ideology. Two articles of interest are linked below.

The first appeared in Canada's National Post and is entitled, "Josh Willis on climate change: Global warming is real." In this article, Mr. Willis states:

"The real debate is not over whether global warming exists, but how we as a society will address it. The climate system is already committed to a certain amount of warming from carbon dioxide emissions of the past, but the worst effects of global warming can still be avoided. It only requires the will to look toward the future and to curb our addiction to fossil fuels. That's not alarmist, it's just common sense."

Here is the link: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/03/31/josh-willis-on-climate-change-global-warming-is-real.aspx

In the second article, Mr. Willis is listed as a co-author with none other than AGW activist Dr. James Hansen. The media release for this article was entitled, "Earth's Energy Out of Balance: The Smoking Gun for Global Warming." Here is the link: http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/hansen_imbalance.pdf

Declaring that man-made CO2 is causing the climate to warm as though this were a scientific law is not only bad science, it's dishonest. I guess if you say something over and over long enough then you start to actually believe it and forget that it hasn't been proven yet.

BTW, in the earlier article, Mr. Willis defended the Argo data (prior to his revision of same) which showed cooling as being consistent with the model. So, why did he go back, claim he found errors, and revise it? How can you reach the same conclusion using two different and opposite datasets unless you are a committed AGW true believer? Why bother with these pesky details if you have already reached your conclusion?

What is really troubling to someone like me, who is trying to decide for themselves what is going on with the weather if anything by using hopefully unbiased test results, is this is yet another case where the end result numbers get changed. I would think scientists would be so concerned for their credibility that they would spend extra time making sure their FIRST numbers were correct.

Reply: Not at all uncommon in any scientific research that the first, second or third numbers end up incorrect. Happens all the time.

Its tough knowing what to believe anymore.

Chris F: If you look at the second graph they presented on page 4 of the linked article, you'll see that the cooling from 2003 didn't disappear. It's just less than it used to be.

Patrickcyclonebuster: He has a real solution to
Global Warming. Everyone likes to use Hansen as the reason for the whole world to believe in Global Warming. Not one person above will argue the science. It is easy to use a scapegoat, to lie about some random cooling coming from somewhere, that will usher in the next ice age. While the world keeps warming, what will America do.Sit down and put our hands over our ears, or look for alternate sources of energy. Why don't we capitalize on alternate energy, and make some money, because if it does continue to warm at this rate we will need to defend ourselves and feed our children. KIPP

Here's a link to the original paper:

http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf

Willis and Lyman should be commended for thier hard work in finding and correcting the errors in the Argo Network.

Man Made global warming is just another way for the British government to collect tax revenue from its citizens and unfortunately is also supported by the democrats from Washington. Why would the British government and the Democrats not try to hype up and conduct fear mongering campaigns over global warming when they know the very high potential of tax revenue they would get from the people. Come on people the British government in the 17th and 18th centuries had a �window� tax on people who had a certain number of glass windows. Just take a look at the Countries and political parties that support the theory of Man Made global warming�they also support and love high taxes to pay for their social programs and entitlements. Creating carbon trading scams and other stupid programs are just a smoke screen to collect massive amounts of tax payer dollars!

There is good reason why coaches do not referee their own game.

Josh Willis was co-author of 'Hansen et al 2005'.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2005/Hansen_etal_1.html

Why is anyone surprised he would defend his own work?

Maurizio: "(I)t does sound fishy that all the hard digging was done only because the data were too cool."

That wasn't why. The problem was that if the cooling was correct, then a much higher rate of ice melt was implied. The required rate seemed very inconsistent with observations. The other possibility was error by the then-*brand new* ARGO network.

Ironically, it would have been truly alarming if the original Willis et al supposition of much increased melt had stood up to review. Attacking their correction as alarmist is just silly.

Thanks KIPP your to kind!

If someone were to model the Tunnels that would prove my theory of how they can regulate our climate for the good of mankind. What we are doing now is the opposite of what we should be doing and it doesn't bode well for our children. Unregulated EMISSIONS cause unregulated climate conditions.We are starting to pay for that now in more ways than we can calculate.

You can't keep "correcting" data to promote your theory forever. Don't give up your day job Brett!

Goldfinger:

"I would think scientists would be so concerned for their credibility that they would spend extra time making sure their FIRST numbers were correct."

Goldfinger and Brett,
Sorry Brett but Goldfinger is correct. Please understand in a real field of science the First numbers would be correct or they would not have been published. As a matter of fact the buoys should have been tested and calibrated before the data was even gathered. This is an inexcusable mistake. It also proves that anything in this field can be "PEER REVIEWED and PUBLISHED!"
This whole fiasco is the sign of a field with poor discipline,no oversight or thought about their reputation. But, then as we have said before that would be the case if this was real science. The published papers being put out on this subject, peer reviewed or otherwise, is abysmal for quality.
This proves just how incompetent the "Peer Review" system is in this field. How can we continue to allow these folks to waste our money? Why are we funding adjustable science? The real question is why did they didn’t think of these issues before they published and what Quality assurance program did these jokers have in place to make sure their equipment worked? How could they have made hundreds of these buoys before being absolutely sure they worked correctly?
This entire debacle just proves that there is no oversight and the continuing adjustments to any data just add to a prudent person’s rightful skepticism.
If you notice on the last page the picture of the team are there all proudly smiling. For a second I was wondering why? After all they spent millions and wasted how much time only to have their work be forever suspect of onerous chicanery. Then it dawned on me. Somebody probably told them that if they did this in an actual field of science like pharmacology and submitted their original findings to the FDA, they would all now be posing for the picture in federal prison wearing orange jumpsuits and sporting leg irons.
I guess that gives them reason to smile. LOL
The science is just so BAD!

More idiotic nonsense from Ted's Dreamland.

No, you Ted are wrong. Brett is right.

Ted, you sir, need to read, learn and understand before you spout off more nonsense here on this blog.

Brett: there is a rather long comment of mine waiting to be moderated, or in the spam queue...could you please check? thanks - maurizio

Reply: I looked through it an did not find it. Sorry.