Whoops! NASA corrects its GW data; 1934 actually hottest year on record, not 1998!

[fossten]

A New Leaderboard at the U.S. [Temperature] Open
By Steve McIntyre
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1880

There has been some turmoil yesterday on the leaderboard of the U.S. (Temperature) Open and there is a new leader.

A little unexpectedly, 1998 had a late bogey and 1934 had a late birdie. (I thought that they were both in the clubhouse since the turmoil seemed to be in the 2000s.) In any event, the new leader atop the U.S. Open is 1934.

2006 had a couple of late bogeys and fell to 4th place, behind even 1921. I think that there’s a little air in the 2006 numbers even within GISS procedures as the other post-2000 lost about 0.15 strokes through late bogeys, while it lost only 0.10 strokes. It is faltering and it might yet fall behind 1931 into 5th place.

Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. (World rankings are calculated separately.) Note: For the new leaderboard see http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt. The old data has been erased; by sheer chance, I had the old data active in my R-session but I can’t give a link to it.)

GISS U.S. Temperatures (deg C) in New Order

Year Old New
1934 1.23 1.25
1998 1.24 1.23
1921 1.12 1.15
2006 1.23 1.13
1931 1.08 1.08
1999 0.94 0.93
1953 0.91 0.90
1990 0.88 0.87
1938 0.85 0.86
1939 0.84 0.85

Here’s the old leaderboard.

Year Old New
1998 1.24 1.23
1934 1.23 1.25
2006 1.23 1.13
1921 1.12 1.15
1931 1.08 1.08
1999 0.94 0.93
1953 0.91 0.90
2001 0.90 0.76
1990 0.88 0.87
1938 0.85 0.86

 

[Marcus]

Sorry to rain on your parade, but those are US temperatures ONLY, not global temperatures. The "skeptics" have been using that trick for years. Here's the proper one to use:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.txt

Notice that 2005 turns out to have been even hotter than 1998 (in fact it is the hottest on record), which pokes a hole in the argument/lie that it's been getting cooler in the past few years. Also note that the spikes in the 1930's are eliminated.

Furthermore, even if one were to use the US temperatures, a few spikes don't prove or disprove anything. Just like the Dow, it's the overall TREND that matters. In this case, notice that you have fewer and fewer negative numbers the further down (later) you go.

And yes Virginia, they DO take into account the "Urban Heat Island" effect.

What I find humorous is that you guys can't even stick to an argument. One minute you reject that the earth is warming at all (which is getting harder and harder to deny), the next you admit it is happening, but deny that humans have anything to do with it. Or maybe it's happening but it's nothing to worry about, perhaps even a GOOD thing. So which do you think it is Fossten?

 

[shagdrum]

again...
1990's Siberian measuring stations close; global temp artifically inflated

 

[Marcus]

again...
1990's Siberian measuring stations close; global temp artifically inflated

You just won't give up on that one huh? Despite the fact that I can find no credible documentation to back up your claim, let's assume it's true.

Do a google on "Siberia Warming". You will find thousands of articles on the evidence that Siberia is warming. Peat bogs are thawing. Roads and buildings are sinking into the ground that had formerly stood on solid ground for 50 years. Satellite images show that Siberian spring is arriving earlier than before.

Even if you go back to the US-only figures, it clearly shows a trend upwards over the last 20 years or so. Notice where the vast majority of the positive numbers are. Like I said, use the Dow as an analogy. One or two isolated spikes or dips don't make a trend. A series of them do.

 

[TheDude]

I forgot where I read it, but someone used the Big Tabacco's tactics as an analogy to the emerging Anti-Global Warning crowd. Deny, deny, deny... when denying doesn't/can't work anymore, change tactics... "Okay, it's bad, but how bad is it really?"

 

[fossten]

You just won't give up on that one huh? Despite the fact that I can find no credible documentation to back up your claim, let's assume it's true.

Do a google on "Siberia Warming". You will find thousands of articles on the evidence that Siberia is warming. Peat bogs are thawing. Roads and buildings are sinking into the ground that had formerly stood on solid ground for 50 years. Satellite images show that Siberian spring is arriving earlier than before.

Even if you go back to the US-only figures, it clearly shows a trend upwards over the last 20 years or so. Notice where the vast majority of the positive numbers are. Like I said, use the Dow as an analogy. One or two isolated spikes or dips don't make a trend. A series of them do.

There you go again with your anecdotal evidence. All I have to do is bring up the FACT that the antarctic icepack is thickening (which is a TREND) and we're all back to square one, which is YOU HAVE NO MORE PROOF of your side than I do of mine. So whatcha gonna do now, Gaia worshiper?

 

[shagdrum]

gotta love that unjustified intellectually arrogant liberal elitism...
...that way, they don't have to argue substance, just assume they r better than u

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

NASA Revisions Create a Stir in The Blogosphere

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...4/AR2007081401677.html?nav=rss_print/asection

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 15, 2007; Page A06

NASA has slightly revised its record of average annual temperatures in the United States since 2000 -- modifications that researchers say are insignificant but that some conservative commentators and bloggers have seized upon to assert that global warming has been hyped as a problem.

The revisions, which were first posted on the Web site of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, stemmed from an error noticed by Canadian blogger and global warming skeptic Stephen McIntyre. James Hansen, director of the institute, said McIntyre brought the error to the institute's attention, and the error was corrected.

Average annual temperatures are based on readings collected from many different sites. To compare these readings over time, scientists adjust them to take into account factors such as urbanization. Hansen said the mistake occurred because NASA scientists thought some readings they used in determining the average annual temperature after the year 2000 had been adjusted, when they had not been.

Hansen said that the corrected figures show that the past six years were 0.15 degrees centigrade cooler than reported. Hansen said that the change is insignificant in terms of global warming and altered the overall global mean temperatures by one-one-thousandth of a degree.

Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh used reports of the revisions to argue that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by scientists with liberal agendas.

"We have proof of man-made global warming," Limbaugh said on his show last Thursday. "The man-made global warming is inside NASA. The man-made global warming is in the scientific community with false data."

Hansen said that the critics were "making a mountain of a molehill."

"The change does nothing to our understanding of how the global climate is changing and is being used by critics to muddy the debate," he said.

Hansen said that NASA generally does not release or discuss national weather statistics because it is more concerned with global patterns. The agency that pays more attention to American temperature trends is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which has said that most of the warmest years in the past century have been in the past 12 years.

Hansen said the revised data do nothing to change that overall trend.

Climate researchers have long known that the mid- and late 1930s were quite warm and that 1934 may have been the hottest year of the century -- although average temperatures in 1998 were statistically just as high. The revised data do not affect the debate over which of those years was warmer.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported earlier this year that global warming is definitely occurring and that greenhouse gases created by humans are the most likely cause.

Staff writer Christopher Lee contributed to this report.

Typical RWWs, pounce on a spec of fly poop in a weak attempt to make their case. *yawn*

 

[MAC1]

Kaufman's just another Liberal liar. If he wanted to be truthful he would pay attention to what he writes. Instead, he delibrately mistates Limbaugh's view concerning GW. To this end, as you can see by Limbaugh's quote which Kaufman put in his article, Limbaugh does not disput GW in general, rather he disputes the so-called "consensus" concerning "man-made"/C02 GW.

 

[Marcus]

Kaufman's just another Liberal liar. If he wanted to be truthful he would pay attention to what he writes. Instead, he delibrately mistates Limbaugh's view concerning GW. To this end, as you can see by Limbaugh's quote which Kaufman put in his article, Limbaugh does not disput GW in general, rather he disputes the so-called "consensus" concerning "man-made"/C02 GW.

Well perhaps if you guys would stick to an argument there wouldn't be so much confusion. One day there is no GW at all, the next it IS happening but it's not the fault of humans. The next, well it might or might not be caused by humans, but warming is a GOOD thing after all. Make up your minds and you'd have a little more credibility.

 

[shagdrum]

gotta love blatant mischaracterization...

 

[Marcus]

gotta love blatant mischaracterization...

OK then, which do you believe?

 

[shagdrum]

I have conveyed my position many times in previous threads...

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

BUSTED once again spreading LIES:

Whoops! NASA corrects its GW data; 1934 actually hottest year on record, not 1998!

From Hansen's 2001 report:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf

It's very easy to see the distortions (LIES) propigated by the thread starter and his ilk. Referring to the graphs below, NASA never claimed that 1998 was the hottest year in the United States, but 1998 was and remains (despite these recent "adjustments") the hottest year across the GLOBE. As pointed out by TommyB, 2005 was even hotter globally than 1998.

Hansen's 6-year old report clearly shows 1934 was the warmest year in the US (and only slightly warmer than 1998). There was no attempt to "cover up" any claim to the contrary.

Hansen's 6-year old report clearly shows 1998 was the warmest year GLOBALLY.

The recent adjustments affected temperature measurments from 2000 on, NOT earlier measurements. So there was no change in the "US TEMP LEADERBOARD".

For more.........

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_LightUpstairs_70810.pdf

Contrary to some of the statements flying around the internet, there is no effect on the rankings of global temperature. Also our prior analysis had 1934 as the warmest year in the U.S. (see the 2001 paper above), and it continues to be the warmest year, both before and after the correction to post 2000 temperatures. However, as we note in that paper, the 1934 and 1998 temperature are practically the same, the difference being much smaller than the uncertainty.

*owned*

 

[fossten]

Well perhaps if you guys would stick to an argument there wouldn't be so much confusion. One day there is no GW at all, the next it IS happening but it's not the fault of humans. The next, well it might or might not be caused by humans, but warming is a GOOD thing after all. Make up your minds and you'd have a little more credibility.

We don't have to do that. The onus is on you GWers to prove your case. Your argument is threefold:

1. Global Warming is a reality.
2. Global Warming is caused by humans.
3. Global Warming is harmful.

You must first prove the first before the second comes into play, and so on. It just happens that we are countering all points at the same time.

1. There is NOT sufficient evidence to PROVE that global warming is a certainty at this time. Even the temperature measuring stations are of dubious reliability.
2. There is NO proof that humans cause global warming.
3. Even if there were global warming, there is no solid proof that it would cause the global destruction which you fearmongerers gleefully promote.

Here's an idea - why don't you religious zealots focus on one point and prove it, rather than running around scatterbrained, trying to throw out a bunch of disinformation?

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

We don't have to do that. The onus is on you GWers to prove your case. Your argument is threefold:

1. Global Warming is a reality.
2. Global Warming is caused by humans.
3. Global Warming is harmful.

You must first prove the first before the second comes into play, and so on. It just happens that we are countering all points at the same time.

1. There is NOT sufficient evidence to PROVE that global warming is a certainty at this time. Even the temperature measuring stations are of dubious reliability.
2. There is NO proof that humans cause global warming.
3. Even if there were global warming, there is no solid proof that it would cause the global destruction which you fearmongerers gleefully promote.

Here's an idea - why don't you religious zealots focus on one point and prove it, rather than running around scatterbrained, trying to throw out a bunch of disinformation?

You just *owned* yourself (again)..........

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showpost.php?p=132084&postcount=1

Global Warming is not a myth.

:bowrofl: Keep on digging flip-flopper, I'm reloading.

 

[shagdrum]

Johnny, you are stretching things there. The thread you linked too quotes Fosten as saying that Global warming is not a myth. However the quote you highlight is Fosten saying that GW is not a certianty at this time. That is a big distinction, whether you care to accept it or not.

No one with half a brain doubts that the earth warms and cools, therefore, global warming and global cooling are very real. The issue at question is "are we currently in a warming trend"?

 

[MAC1]

Although there appears to be GW there is no proof at this time it represents a fundamental change to Earth's long-term climate outlook. It’s up to GW advocates to prove GW actually exists in light of conflicting data, and whether the apparent warming trend is more than a mere temporary anomaly. Since GW advocates, like the so-called “consensus” scientists and Al Gore, contend Earth is doomed unless human CO2 carbon emissions are substantially reduced, it’s apparent that this group believes GW is a permanent problem that must be dealt with immediately, which Al Gore has reiterated on numerous occasions. Nevertheless, the so-called “consensus” is not only unscientific but is dubious at best given that human produced CO2 represents only 4% of Earth’s total CO2 emissions. So I agree that GW advocates must prove:

1. Global Warming is a reality – [as argued by GW advocates]
2. Global Warming is caused by humans.
3. Global Warming is harmful.

 

[daves2000ls]

Manbearpig is real and it IS coming to get you.
I'm super serioul.