Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This news WAS covered by mainstream media, that's how I learned about it. And the reason it's not a noteworthy story is that a re-calculation of the data was only applicable to ONE year, not the entire decade of the 1930s, and the net result was a shift of 0.15 degrees.
But if that gets you really excited about how wrong scientists are and how brilliant Rush Limbaugh is then don't let me rain on your parade.
The bigger question is how we can compare data from one decade to the next when the techniques for measurement are constantly changing and the theories underlying procedures are constantly shifting. If you take that angle, you'll have more success with your denial of the fact that nations are scrambling to secure shipping rights to the soon-to-be-ice-free North Pole.
And I guess we should ignore the fact that every glacier in Europe and the USA is retreating, and the snows of Kilimanjaro will soon be a legend rather than a reality. One year. 0.15 degree error. And you're heaping praise upon a drug addict --- err --- Rush Limbaugh for his brilliant analysis. Yes, I'm sure he's much smarter than anyone at NOAA or NASA. Can you point me to any scientific articles he's written that aren't scripted by the right wing propagandists who bought his independence 20 years ago when he used to be an interesting talk show host?
TheHarvester, what is with all the hate? I must have really hit a nerve here. If there is any truth about global warming you won't need fudged numbers to prove it.
"This news WAS covered by mainstream media, that's how I learned about it. And the reason it's not a noteworthy story is that a re-calculation of the data was only applicable to ONE year, not the entire decade of the 1930s, and the net result was a shift of 0.15 degrees."
I did a Google news search of all media sources and only a paper in Canada, IBD and Fox News covered it. I bet most people are not aware of it.
So, according to your own words, a small change in calculation knocked 1998 off the top spot as the hottest year? I thought things were heating up so dramatically? Now it turns out the 1930's were hotter.
You are wrong here on so many points, where to begin? More than one year had to be corrected, see below:
Top 10 GISS U.S. Temperature deviation (deg C) in New Order 8/7/2007
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
"1934 is now the hottest, and 3 others from the 1930's are in the top 10. Furthermore, only 3 (not 9) took place since 1995 (1998, 1999, and 2006). The years 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 are now below the year 1900 and no longer even in the top 20."
And I really don't care about Rush Limbaugh, so I don't know why you are harping on that. It's sad that the mainstream media ignored this blunder totally. I would say that Steve McIntyre appears to be smarter than NASA or NOAA since he discovered the error that they did not see. It's too funny since he has been a thorn in the side of Al Gore and James Hansen and GISS had to publicly thank him for discovering their error.
It makes me question the honesty of the Global Warmists. Lets audit worldwide temperature data. Lets open the books at NOAA and look at the "secret" computer computer source code and formula that they will not release. if it is all above board and correct why hide it?
Like I said if you are correct on this no need to be so hostile, but if some doubts are creeping in, well I can understand your behavior.
Last edited by Winkelman; 08-15-2007 at 09:48 AM..
TheHarvester, what is with all the hate? I must have really hit a nerve here.
Sorry for coming across as hateful. I get impatient with these types of posts and debates because I immerse myself in science journals and there simply isn't a major dispute about global warming other than what is played out in mainstream media. It's actually the media you claim are pumping up global warming who are also pumping up the so-called "controversy" about it. They make money off of every form of sensationalism and their only agenda is to get high ratings and advertising dollars. So they're playing both sides of the game.
I agree with you about the 1930s and I have debated with many people in the same way you're doing with me because there's a tendency for people to think that "unusual weather" is proof of something. It isn't. "Usual" weather doesn't exist. We each have an idea in our heads about what a "normal summer" or "normal winter" might be, and when it deviates from the norm then we get all worked up about it. So I like to bonk non-scientists who accept global warming when they say naive things like "It's really hot today, this proves global warming." No, it proves that it's hot today.
My problem with all the anti-GW arguments is that they're sourced from the same places and I see them on every website where the topic arises. It's probably best for me to refrain from debating it because it seems to be a matter of faith for those who don't accept it and debating goes nowhere. I do accept the fact that the scientific consensus is often wrong, so you may be right. I probably put too much faith in science journals. But they seem more credible as information sources than Fox News or the handful of climatologists like Dr. Gray who dismiss the whole thing. There are also many so-called scientists who have PhD's from phony degree-mills, and one of the most frequently quoted of them happens to be the owner of the unaccredited "university" from which he received his "PhD". So, pardon my attitude. It's not hate towards you, it's irritation towards the flat-earth arguments that come from people who tend to believe that Intelligent Design has actual scientific merit.
And yes, the 1930s gave us the most extraordinarily wild weather in recorded history. No argument there. Climate science takes that into account, it's not as if climatologists don't know about all those stats you quoted.
On a related topic which might interest you, I just read this today in Discover Magazine: "Recent studies show that emissions from ships crossing the Atlantic, forest fires in Canada, and factories in Russia have all made their way to the North Pole, where they generate a warming haze of sulfates, ammonia, soot, and nitrates."
This supports the general skepticism about the overly-simplistic global warming theory that is familiar to the public. And I bet that they'll discover that some of that "warming haze" has a cooling effect as well. It's an extremely complex topic and both sides tend to argue from extremely simple assumptions with little understanding of systems theory and chaos. Something you and I would probably agree on is that we currently have NO WAY of proving ANYTHING about climate change. We only have a "preponderance of evidence" which is constantly changing in various ways. I tend to be science-oriented, perhaps to a fault. After all, the science of one generation is discredited by the science of the next generation, so why should I believe ANY of it?
Again, my apologies for coming across as hostile. It's nothing personal against you, it's the fierce debate side of my personality. I love to debate! But it often offends people.
Again, my apologies for coming across as hostile. It's nothing personal against you, it's the fierce debate side of my personality. I love to debate! But it often offends people.
I sincerely appreciate the way you handled this. If the man in charge of this country had such skills the whole country would be a nicer place to live.
"It's actually the media you claim are pumping up global warming who are also pumping up the so-called "controversy" about it. They make money off of every form of sensationalism and their only agenda is to get high ratings and advertising dollars. So they're playing both sides of the game".
I have to disagree on that. If you are talking about CNN, The New York Times, ABC, NBC, CBS News (including 60 Minutes), Time, Newsweek. Well, I could go on and on, they are pretty much 100% behind Global Warming Alarmists. In fact this weeks Newsweek tries to shoot down the people who question Global Warming as doing it for the money. Not exactly sitting on the fence. There is a lot more money in scaring people then sitting on the fence.
"And yes, the 1930s gave us the most extraordinarily wild weather in recorded history. No argument there."
How about we call the 1930's having the greatest number of top 10 warm years since records have been kept, not the 1990's or this decade which has only one warm year. How is this possible if things are heating up out of control?
My point is if we can't trust the data, then how can we trust the analysis that follows from it. How is it that Hansen and his cronies missed this? And you trust all their future predictions? Was it really a "mistake?" And what about data from other countries? Stephen McIntyre believes world wide data is even more flawed than the U.S. data. It will be interesting when it is cross checked. My guess is a big Al Gore house of cards will fall apart.
Global warming will step up after 2009: scientists: Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?alias=global-warming-will-step&chanId=sa003&modsrc=reuters - broken link)
Now even Global Warming proponents are admitting things are not heating up as fast as they thought: " The real heat will start after 2009, they said".
"Until then, the natural forces will offset the expected warming caused by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, which releases the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide".
Natural forces?
Again, what happened to the runaway heating, the earth has a fever?
Paraphrasing an old Wendy's commercial, "Where's the heat?" If worldwide 1998 is still considered the warmest year, what happened the past few years? Will it turn out 1998 was not even really that warm?
In ten years when enviromental Armageddon fails to happen, and the natural cycle of climate cools, Global Warming Alarmists will find something else to fight for, just like "Hug a Tree", "Save the Whales" and all the other stuff that came before.
I sincerely appreciate the way you handled this. If the man in charge of this country had such skills the whole country would be a nicer place to live.
regards...Franco
Some people will criticize "the man in charge of this country" no matter what he does. He can cure cancer single-handed and people would still criticize him ("why didn't he cure it 2 years ago?").
Very interesting info you posted, Winkelman. It is proving that "Global Warming" is being blown out of proportion.
I always thought there was a lot of sensationalism with Global Warming Believers. Now its been proven the data itself has been distorted. And if NASA has fudged figures, what's the chances that the United Nations IPCC is being honest?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
