Because of the corrections to the GISS data 1998 and 1934 went from being in a virtual tie, to being in a virtual tie.. This, of course, has not stopped global warming denialists from endlessly hyping it as a big change.

For example, Glenn Reynolds:

Ace wonders why nobody’s talking about the NASA climate data revision.

Because the change is trivial. Duh.

UPDATE: Well, here’s a bit of notice.

The link goes to James Taranto, who gets his facts wrong, confusing the US temperature with the global temperature. Reynolds doesn’t notice.

ANOTHER UPDATE: More here: “Will the mainstream media report the corrected story with as much gusto as they initially reported the claim that 1998 was the warmest on record? Doubtful. But they should. Good public policy can not be made on bad data.”

In the linked post, Bill Hobbs originally claimed:

NASA’s much-ballyhooed data showing that 1998 was the warmest year on record for the Earth was, uh, wrong.

Which was, uh, wrong. He “corrected” it to write:

NASA’s much-ballyhooed data showing that 1998 was the warmest year on record for the USA was, uh, wrong.

Which is, uh, also wrong. How about we look at how the 1998 numbers were reported:


NASA Says Global 1998 Temperatures Highest On Record
12 January 1999
Dow Jones News Service

WASHINGTON (AP)–Last year was the hottest year on record, according to NASA researchers who say the rising temperatures are further evidence that the world is heating up.

“Global surface temperatures in 1998 set a new record by a wide margin,” NASA said.

In announcing its findings on the Internet, NASA said Monday the average global temperature last year was 0.34 of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than the previous record, in 1995. “And unlike many recent years, the warmth is beginning to hit home; the United States this year is experiencing its warmest year in the past several decades.” …

While temperatures in the United States were the warmest in at least 40 years, final figures aren’t complete, NASA said. But, the agency added, it is clear that 1998 did not match the record warmth of 1934, which occurred during the Dust Bowl era.

NASA’s data about 1998 being the warmest in the US was not “much-ballyhooed”. Because NASA actually reported that it wasn’t as warm as 1934. In 2001, NASA’s James Hansen wrote:

The U.S. annual (January-December) mean temperature is slightly warmer in 1934 than in 1998 …

In comparing temperatures of years separated by 60 or 70 years the uncertainties in various adjustments (urban warming, station history adjustments, etc.) lead to an uncertainty of at least 0.1°C. Thus it is not possible to declare a record U.S. temperature with confidence until a result is obtained that exceeds the temperature of 1934 by more than 0.1°C.

Because the 1998 and 1934 numbers were so close, minor adjustments could easily change their ordering. This is what happened with the GISS numbers released this year. In that data set, 1998 was a tiny amount warmer than 1934. This change was not much ballyhooed. Nor was it a little ballyhooed. In fact, it wasn’t mentioned by anyone at all. Because it didn’t matter. When the data correction made 1998 and 1934 flip back, this change was much-ballyhooed by Steve McIntyre, even though he knew that it didn’t matter.

In a new post he tries to argue that the flipping back really does matter and comes up with this:

Obviously much of the blogosphere delight in the leader board changes is a reaction to many fevered press releases and news stories about year x being the “warmest year”. For example, on Jan 7, 2007, NOAA announced that

The 2006 average annual temperature for the contiguous U.S. was the warmest on record.

This press release was widely covered as you can determine by googling “warmest year 2006 united states”. Now NOAA and NASA are different organizations and NOAA, not NASA, made the above press release, but members of the public can surely be forgiven for not making fine distinctions between different alphabet soups.

Different organization, different year. Near enough for McIntyre.

Comments

  1. #1 sod
    August 12, 2007

    MORE: This comment at Ecotality distinguishes hottest years in America from hottest years globally, but I always understood this to be about American, not global, records. And I think I was right. As I noted in my earlier post, it indicates problems with the data sets. More here:

    jup, global warming always was about america. i don t know wether this is funny or scary.

  2. #2 sod
    August 12, 2007

    Google News Search Reveals Only One MSM Mention — FoxNews, Of Course — Of NASA’s Dramatically-Revised Temperature Records

    a 0.02 change to the temperature records from 1934 is DRAMATIC.

    the current climate developments are NOT.

    world, upside down.

  3. #3 Steve Bloom
    August 12, 2007

    Tim, that next to last paragraph needs to be fixed so it shows as a continuation of the McIntyre quote.

  4. #4 nanny_govt_sucks
    August 12, 2007

    Now NOAA and NASA are different organizations …

    One big bureaucratic/political blob trying to force information down our throats as far as I’m concerned.

  5. #5 Boris
    August 12, 2007

    I guess confusing the U.S. with the world should be expected from folks who think looking at Mars’ temperature is the best way to measure the sun.

    But seriously, every denialist out there has made the US/world mistake. What does that say about them?

  6. #6 Xel
    August 12, 2007

    Mark Steyn took the “opprtunity” given by said correction to call us “warm-mongers”! That’s a moniker I’ll gladly wear if it describes people who try to spread accurate, forceful info about AGW, no matter the negative sound of it…

  7. #7 z
    August 12, 2007

    “I guess confusing the U.S. with the world should be expected from folks who think looking at Mars’ temperature is the best way to measure the sun.”

    Not to mention finding on Jupiter “nothing less that global warming, at least in the neighborhood of the Red Spot”

  8. #8 dhogaza
    August 13, 2007

    One big bureaucratic/political blob trying to force information down our throats as far as I’m concerned.

    Nags opposed to public science education, surprise, surprise.

  9. #9 dhogaza
    August 13, 2007

    If anyone has had any doubt as to the lack of sincerity and objectivity of the denialist camp, this should lay it to rest permanently.

    Smart policy makers are going to look at this tempest and pay even less attention in the future as to what they have to say.

  10. #10 Herb West
    August 13, 2007

    “The link goes to James Taranto, who gets his facts wrong, confusing the US temperature with the global temperature.”

    I read your link. Nowhere did Taranto confuse US with global temperature. His block quote explicitly refers to “US temperature data”.

  11. #11 Tim Lambert
    August 13, 2007

    Herb, “US temperature data” in his quote is a reference to surfacestations.org. Since Taranto refers to “global warming” twice, it seems clear that he thought the “1998 is no longer the warmest” thing refers to global temps.

  12. #12 Jeff Harvey
    August 13, 2007

    Have any of the sceptics bothered to compare the 1934 GLOBAL mean surface temperature (compared with the 1951-1980 global mean surface temperature) chart from NASA/GISS, and then compare the years after 1990? For example, let’s compare 1934 and 2005 (each figure represents the monthly deviation from the 1951-1980 mean):

    1934: -1 7 -18 -23 18 -2 17 19 2 6 15 19; Overall year mean is +0.05 C above 1951-1980 mean

    2005: 86 76 86 77 64 72 66 65 86 85 76 72; Overall year mean is +0.76 C above 1951-1980 mean

    This reveal the desperate depths to which the sceptics have sunk in mangling the empirical evidence – in other words the FACT – that the planet is indeed warming and that the rate is unprecedented in recorded history.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

  13. #13 Mike M.
    August 13, 2007

    It’s just sickening how badly you people WANT man to be responsible for global warming. If someone found indisputable evidence tomorrow that man had little or no influence on global temps you would fight tooth and nail to discredit it. The science is not settled. Each week brings more studies on albedo, aerosols, sulfates, land use, ocean currents, indirect solar forcing, precipitation, and all the other factors you must consider in climatology. For those of you with guts, go here.
    http://climatesci.colorado.edu/

  14. #14 cce
    August 13, 2007

    I think what’s really sickening is the assumption that climatologists don’t know anything about “aerosols, sulfates, land use, ocean currents, indirect solar forcing, precipitation, and all the other factors,” and are somehow ignoring them.

    Go to realclimate.org and learn something.
    Read NewScientist’s compilation of common denialist claims:
    http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
    Look through the AR4 WG1 report, all 1000 pages:
    http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

    No one “wants” this to be true, other than a sadist.

  15. #15 sod
    August 13, 2007

    It’s just sickening how badly you people WANT man to be responsible for global warming. If someone found indisputable evidence tomorrow that man had little or no influence on global temps you would fight tooth and nail to discredit it. The science is not settled. Each week brings more studies on albedo, aerosols, sulfates, land use, ocean currents, indirect solar forcing, precipitation, and all the other factors you must consider in climatology. For those of you with guts, go here. http://climatesci.colorado.edu/

    sorry Mike, but you just demonstrated that you lack basic understanding. your contrasting “human influence” with “other factors”, that show MASSIVE human influence.

    i think that this is an extremely problematic trend. the thesis

    there is no global warming”

    has become

    you can t proof that human CO2 production is the major force in climate change.

    climate sceptics abuse other human influence to belittle the effect of CO2. a pretty bizarre tactic, but rather effective among the uneducated. the same people who were fighting filtering smoke some years ago, now use the success of that measure to fight action on CO2. bizarre.

    ——————-

    your link to Pilke shows another type of absurd spin:

    on the subject of melting arctic ice, he writes:

    Thus, it is regional warming, not “global warming” that appears to be the reason for this melting

    two posts below, his article about the 1934 “change” doesn t mention any “regional”-cautioner.

  16. #16 dhogaza
    August 13, 2007

    I think what’s really sickening is the assumption that climatologists don’t know anything about “aerosols, sulfates, land use, ocean currents, indirect solar forcing, precipitation, and all the other factors,” and are somehow ignoring them.

    Especially given that it’s climatologists who are investigating and publishing papers on these things in the first place.

    Don’t worry, my guess is that Mike also finds it sickening that we believe that DDT causes eggshell-thinning in raptors, that we believe that geology and physics point to an earth older than 6,000 years, and that we believe that evolutionary processes are adequate to explain the complexity of life on earth.

    Because all of science is, after all, a commie-pinko, anti-patriotic, godless conspiracy.

    After all, who do you think built those Black Helicopters, anyway? ENGINEERS! And what principles do they use to build them? AERODYNAMICS! And who developed aerodynamics?

    SCIENTISTS!

    Case closed. Science is a commie plot!

  17. #17 dhogaza
    August 13, 2007

    RP, Sr really has little credibility, does he?

    it is important to recognize this is a regional climate issue. As seen on the University of Alabama monitoring of lower tropospheric temperature anomalies in the (see) the north pole region are well above average (+1.67C in June). This warmth is certainly consistent with the large melt of the sea ice.

    However, in terms of relating to the global average lower tropospheric temperature changes, in June 2007 (which is the latest data posted), the global average anomaly is +0.22 after being as high recently as +0.51C in January. Thus, it is regional warming, not “global warming” that appears to be the reason for this melting (Indeed, if it were global warming, we should see a similar reduction in Antarctic sea ice coverage, which, however, is not occurring (see and see).

    Of course, he doesn’t mention that polar amplification is a PREDICTION of GCMs that model CO2-induced warming, and that the surprise would if it were NOT higher than the global average.

    Nor does he mention that greater warming in the northern vs. southern hemisphere is also a PREDICTION of GCMs.

    He does everything in this post to suggest that the observed pattern of warming counters the AGW hypothesis, when in fact it fits the predicted pattern.

    Slimey slug-sucker, that one.

  18. #18 Boris
    August 13, 2007

    These threads are pretty denialist free when Tim shows their latest fixaton to be worthless. Unless of course they avoid the subject altogether. Hi nanny and Mike.

  19. #19 Mr. Hansen
    August 13, 2007

    We are fast approaching 10 years of no global warming. That’s bad for business, of course. I predict a tsunami of papers telling us that this is only a short pause before the heating really kicks in…oh, never mind, it’s already here. Apparently somebody called the Met Office.

  20. #20 Mike M.
    August 13, 2007

    Hi, Boris! This is great. As usual on a far left site I can feel the hate from across the room. I see the usual canards can be found here. I’m opposed to your shaky hypothesis, therefore I must be some knuckle-dragging Creationist. Would that be one of them there ad hominem attacks? I’m a Robert Heinlein agnostic, fool. Keep it up though. That anti-Christian attitude will ensure that “progressives” are a permanent angry minority.

  21. #21 Jeff Harvey
    August 13, 2007

    Mike M said: “It’s just sickening how badly you people WANT man to be responsible for global warming”.

    Yawn. How many times does this tired, discredited, childish rant have to be wheeled out? One thing is for certain, Yolu are not a scientist and do not know how science works. To be honest, I don’t give a damn what or who is primarily responsible for climate change. It’s just that, in spite of what a small coterie of sceptics, shills, and others who appear to hate science say, the human combustion of fossil fuels is all over the current climate change fingerprint. This has been hypotheisized since the late 1980′s, but, since then, the empirical evidence for it has grown exponentially.

  22. #22 Brian
    August 13, 2007

    MikeM says: “It’s just sickening how badly you people WANT man to be responsible for global warming.”

    Firstly, that is illogical…what do ‘us people’ gain? I’m interested to hear. Really.

    Secondly, the head-in-the-sand approach to an important global discussion isn’t gonna cut it anymore. You can’t merely wish (or pray) this away…we have to deal with it. You may find comfort on websites that prop up your preconceived, or desired, reality, but that doesn’t change reality.

  23. #23 dhogaza
    August 13, 2007

    We are fast approaching 10 years of no global warming.

    And 20 years of denialist lies, of which this is one.

  24. #24 dhogaza
    August 13, 2007

    I’m opposed to your shaky hypothesis, therefore I must be some knuckle-dragging Creationist. Would that be one of them there ad hominem attacks?

    Not really. The same methods are used by those who deny evolutionary biology, global warming, the fact that cigarettes cause cancer and heart disease, that HIV causes AIDS, etc.

  25. #25 Mike M.
    August 13, 2007

    Brian..comfort on websites? You must mean how you go to Realclimate! Talk about projection!

  26. #26 Chris O'Neill
    August 13, 2007

    Mike M. said “It’s just sickening how badly you people ..”, followed by “I can feel the hate from across the room”.

    What a hypocrite.

  27. #27 dhogaza
    August 13, 2007

    Mike M sez

    I’m a Robert Heinlein agnostic, fool.

    Another libertarian demonstrates his mastery of science, joining stellar co-believers nags and JC …

  28. #28 Mike M.
    August 13, 2007

    So, Jeff, the evidence has increased exponentially? Like when they found that co2 lagged temperature increase by 800 years in the Vostok ice cores? Well, hey then, the science must be settled.

  29. #29 Mike M.
    August 13, 2007

    Like a “progressive” would understand anything about climatology. Look at how badly you do in economics. Unless, of course, your goal actually is to impoverish all people..

  30. #30 DF
    August 13, 2007

    Mike! Soon we will outnumber them on their own blog! Boris, the absence of deniers in this post is because this issue is settled yet you continue to complain. There is no point in being here in mass when one of your global warming religion gods, NASA, hath spoken! It is not hard to see why your god admitted it was wrong and why 1934 was warmer when our “climate thermometers” look like this http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/Detroit_lakes_USHCN.jpg
    I agree that you should keep up the hate; it will only strengthen our side. I think it is sickening that you have blind faith in “climatologists” and their examination of “aerosols, sulfates, land use, ocean currents, indirect solar forcing, precipitation, and all the other factors.” Especially when I just read of your disaccredit of Civil Engineers in their ability to design a bridge include very similar variables http://climateprogress.org/2007/08/06/did-climate-change-contribute-to-the-minneapolis-bridge-collapse/
    Why would you trust a field of study that has existed for 10 years but not engineering which has been in existence for around 800 years? Take into account that engineering uses the law of physics and climatology uses the quality thermometers linked above. Why do you so readily accept data from that source or you just trust the press releases from realclimate.org? Realclimate….. such an unbiased source, please spare us. Also spare me the argument that climatology has existed longer than that because you all don’t trust meteorologists anyway. I personally would rather trust meteorologists over the phony major anyway, so if you insist we can discuss what meteorologists think.
    Notice I have been respectful… yet I expect the personal attacks to begin shortly. I don’t blame you, you can’t help yourself. It is George Bush’s fault…

  31. #31 Mike M.
    August 13, 2007

    Actually that would fit right in with your goal of destroying the economy to combat global warming! NOW I understand:)

  32. #32 DF
    August 13, 2007

    Communism is progressive Mike. Just look how progressive Vietnam is…

  33. #33 dhogaza
    August 13, 2007

    Like when they found that co2 lagged temperature increase by 800 years in the Vostok ice cores? Well, hey then, the science must be settled.

    Mike M., not content with hinting at his ignorance, has to flaunt it. Flaunting an ignorance so deep, he’s ignorant that he’s flaunting his ignorance.

    OK, Mike M., let’s test your knowledge:

    1. Why wouldn’t CO2 lag temp rises in past warming events?

    2. Where does the CO2 come from, and why, in past warming events?

    3. (tricky, tricky question) Why didn’t the extra CO2 then add to warming, if CO2 is a global warming gas?

    Please, people, let Mike M. answer these, especially #3.

  34. #34 Mike M.
    August 13, 2007

    DF! Got called into work. Carry on as best as you can and remember to shower afterwards.

  35. #35 Mike M.
    August 13, 2007

    Dahogshnazz, I’ll give you your answer later.

  36. #36 dhogaza
    August 13, 2007

    Mike M.

    Carry on as best as you can and remember to shower afterwards.

    Yeah, even Mike M. seems to recognize that the shit you two are flinging around is likely to badly miss its target.

    Gotta love posters who show such a deep level of understanding of science, too. I bet they can divide 5 by 0 and get the right answer 3 out of 5 times!

  37. #37 DF
    August 13, 2007

    Count me in until my vacation next week =) Maybe we can at least rid of some of them by raising their blood pressure. Dhogaza, please answer this, what makes you competent to have correct answers to those questions? I cannot tell how much more elite you are than me by the humbleness of your post.

  38. #38 DF
    August 13, 2007

    You are too kind dhogaza! Since I don’t know you and I worry for your safety, I want to warn you that your head might burst shortly with such talk. Oh man… dang… classes like Statics and thermodynamics didn’t teach me 5/0… you’re right… I made it past that since you seem to know who I am, try again. I know how proud you are but you need to get over your GED requirements of 4 out of 5 times.

  39. #39 Tim Lambert
    August 13, 2007

    I suspect that [this post by Glenn Reynolds](http://instapundit.com/archives2/008128.php) is to blame for the arrival of the commenters who don’t understand the science but are nonetheless certain that NASA is wrong.

  40. #40 dhogaza
    August 13, 2007

    Dhogaza, please answer this, what makes you competent to have correct answers to those questions?

    What makes me competent to know the correct answers?

    I know them.

    Now, onwards and upwards, please. Would you, or one of your buddies, please answer the questions? Now’s your chance to impress us.

  41. #41 dhogaza
    August 13, 2007

    Our esteemed host speculates:

    I suspect that this post by Glenn Reynolds is to blame for the arrival of the commenters who don’t understand the science but are nonetheless certain that NASA is wrong.

    How can you trust an agency that faked the Apollo moon landings?

    Sheesh, dude!

  42. #42 Brian
    August 13, 2007

    MikeM says: “Brian..comfort on websites? You must mean how you go to Realclimate! Talk about projection!”

    Go to my blog you’ll see Climate Audit and Pielke links listed there as well…and I visit them too. I’m not a climate scientist, but I’m trying to follow the various blogs and debates about the details to guide my conclusions. What’s your problem with that?

    You and DF are so very proud of yourselves for thinking your rocking the boat or ‘raising blood pressures’….laughable. Get over yourselves…there’s no substance to your arguments and you know it. You’re not raising blood pressures or shaking any foundations, or whatever it is you think you’re affecting. It’s entertaining and, at the same time, building a nice dataset for social scientists to study delusional disorders.

    Plus, MikeM, in addition to dhogaza’s questions…I’m still very curious about why ‘us people’ want AGW?

    Besides, the whole point of this post is to discuss the implications of the error and correction.
    Go to tamino’s post and challenge it: http://tamino.wordpress.com/

  43. #43 Papertiger
    August 13, 2007

    From the Taranto link – Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data. . . .

    Perhaps a review of a few common terms used in science would be helpful to further this discussion.

    1. PseudosciencePseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific or is made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the basic requirements of the scientific method;
    As it is taught in certain introductory science classes, pseudoscience is any subject that appears superficially to be scientific or whose proponents state is scientific but nevertheless contravenes the testability requirement, or substantially deviates from other fundamental aspects of the scientific method.

    2. Scientific methodScientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning; Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these hypotheses for accuracy. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results. Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called “full disclosure“, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

    Feel free to continue your flame war.
    Here let me start you out.
    “We know the world is warmer because…”

  44. #44 dhogaza
    August 13, 2007

    Well, the algorithms used by NASA have been published in a variety of papers in the peer-reviewed literature, so comments like:

    Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data

    are a bit of a nonstarter.

    We’d expect you to know these things if, um, you knew much of anything.

    “We know the world is warmer because…”

    Of literally dozens of indicators, including direct observation of temperature, that correlate to a very large degree.

    So, let me ask you a question:

    You know the world is NOT warmer because …

    Simply saying “I don’t trust NASA’s analysis of the surface temp record” won’t suffice, because the case is built on, as I mentioned above, literally dozens of indicators (if not hundreds).

    You have to refute each and every one to build your case.

    Good luck!

  45. #45 DF
    August 13, 2007

    Brian, if we are not “rocking the boat” then why does this blog exist? If it is settled let me know why you care so much. What is “laughable” is saying I’m not raising your blood pressure when I can tell I am because of your arrogance.Brian, if we are not “rocking the boat” then why does this blog exist? If it is settled let me know why you care so much. What is “laughable” is saying I’m not raising your blood pressure when I can tell I am because of your arrogance.
    I’m also glad to see we have the type of elitists that feel the need to visit dictionary.com. I already said this once but I’ll say it again, there is no need to flashback to your GED achievements, I understand 3rd grade science since I ignored their AGW brainwashing. I do want to congratulate papertiger though, you win the prize of being the 100th person to post the scientific method in the blogs I’ve been looking at, great job, put it this your resume… “I can copy and paste my religion’s talking points.”
    Dhogaza, I also know the answers, guess that makes me competent also. I’m not in the nutjob appeasing mood so you’ll have to trust me, like I’ll trust you. Once I see a non-conceited response to one of my questions, maybe I will answer yours.
    Answer this: Why should I believe this climate temperature station? http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/DetroitlakesUSHCN.jpg
    Why do you?

  46. #46 DF
    August 13, 2007

    Dhogaza says: “How can you trust an agency that faked the Apollo moon landings? Sheesh, dude!”

    Blasphemy!!! Your gods shall be angry!!!

  47. #47 DF
    August 13, 2007

    Brian says: “Get over yourselves…there’s no substance to your arguments and you know it.”

    This is a start! You have admitted we know something. This is the first step towards enlightenment and humbleness. The next step is to get over your hypocrisy of posting elitism as a basis of an argument. My god, I think deep down your AGW religion gods meant this of you and your friends.
    Unlike you I don’t think the world is going to end in 2 years so I am quite content with my life so I only can imagine how much it must suck to be in your shoes. Damn, George Bush! Remember I don’t blame you…

  48. #48 dhogaza
    August 13, 2007

    I understand 3rd grade science

    Well, at least you’re honest about your level of science education.

  49. #49 jodyaberdein
    August 13, 2007

    Dear All,

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this a science blog? I’d be keen to see the protagonists actually start with some scientific discussion, or is that too much to ask?

  50. #50 dhogaza
    August 13, 2007

    I also know the answers, guess that makes me competent also.

    Good! Then you’ll have no problem answering them, right?

    Oh, wait, you go on to say you won’t answer them …

    Very, very convincing argument you’ve made here.

    Answer this: Why should I believe this climate temperature station? http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/DetroitlakesUSHCN.jpg

    The requested page could not be found.
    Page not found – /watts/images/DetroitlakesUSHCN.jpg

    You win! I can’t trust it! You’ve offered me authoritative evidence, what the hell can I do???

  51. #51 DF
    August 13, 2007

    By the way, please stop using “peer-reviewed.” I’ll assume whatever you post is. Why, because even all my post are peer-reviewed by Dr. Microsoft Word, a peer-reviewed climate expert. It is not going to make me trust your articles any more knowing a biologist wrote a climate article that was peer-reviewed by a biologist. Can we all agree a “climate scientist” needs to have at least a meteorology degree? That would be my definition of someone who actually knows about the climate without playing the childish game of posting an actual definition. Can we also all agree that science is not consensus? If not I like to see some definitions posted from you dictionary holders that says otherwise.

  52. #52 DF
    August 13, 2007

    What makes me competent to know the correct answers?

    Dhogaza says: “I know them.”
    Good! Then you’ll have no problem answering them, right?
    Oh, wait, you go on to say you won’t answer them …
    Very, very convincing argument you’ve made here.

  53. #53 Brian
    August 13, 2007

    DF says: “Unlike you I don’t think the world is going to end in 2 years so I am quite content with my life so I only can imagine how much it must suck to be in your shoes.”

    Very nice argument. I like it…it’s succinct, to the point. If you can’t offer any substance tell them their life sucks! Good times.

    Oh yeah…two years? Is that the rapture?

    (apologies to Tim for my participation in the downward spiral of this thread)

  54. #54 Lance
    August 13, 2007

    As I have suggested before it would reflect favorably upon you AGW folks to admit that the “warmest year in the US” stuff had been used as a rallying cry and move on.

    A few of you have done so.

    To split hairs or misdirect with whether it was NASA or NOAA that used it in their hype is of little consequence. To pretend that it wasn’t hyped just makes you look silly and gives the impression that you will irrationally attack any information that weakens your argument no matter how small the concession or damage to your over all argument.

    You correctly point out that it doesn’t change the over all trends by much when the world data set is included, but it DOES weaken your argument that the temperatures of the last ten years are extremely anomalous, at least in the US. Perhaps that is why you are loath to concede even this small point.

    The rest of the posts in here are unseemly on both sides. I have not been above indulging in overheated rhetorical exchanges in the past. I am trying to keep it all “above the waist” from here on out.

    What point is there in trading insults? I find it tedious.

  55. #55 Brian
    August 13, 2007

    “What point is there in trading insults? I find it tedious.”

    You are indeed right, Lance. Once in a while the mood strikes one to indulge, no? To point out the emotional and nonsensical arguments of others is certainly not constructive for climate science. But, as i’m sure you know, an attempt to ‘keep it above the waist’ often results in retorts of elitism.

    ad infinitum … tedious indeed

  56. #56 Derek Scruggs
    August 13, 2007

    MikeM says: “It’s just sickening how badly you people WANT man to be responsible for global warming,” and then points us to http://climatesci.colorado.edu

    Also found on http://climatesci.colorado.edu/main-conclusions/

    Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate.

    In other words, not even the one (and only) semi-credible scientist that deniers trot out at every opportunity denies that humans are responsible.

  57. #57 dhogaza
    August 13, 2007

    As I have suggested before it would reflect favorably upon you AGW folks to admit that the “warmest year in the US” stuff had been used as a rallying cry and move on.

    Why admit to something that’s not true?

    It’s like saying …

    “why don’t you evolutionary biologists admit that dinosaurs and people walked the earth at the same time, and move on?”

    Gee, Lance, I’m still waiting for the bits of climate science that your personal research have overturned. For something beyond your arguments of personal incredulity.

    Got anything for us?

  58. #58 dhogaza
    August 13, 2007

    You correctly point out that it doesn’t change the over all trends by much when the world data set is included, but it DOES weaken your argument that the temperatures of the last ten years are extremely anomalous, at least in the US.

    It doesn’t change the trend for the US in a statistically significant way, either.

    it DOES weaken your argument that the temperatures of the last ten years are extremely anomalous, at least in the US.

    Really? Just how does a statistically insignificant change do this?

    And the 1930s were not as warm as the last decade, regardless, so the last ten years are still anomalous.

  59. #59 dhogaza
    August 13, 2007

    Actually, Lance, since you’ve not answered my requests to tell us just what you’ve learned about climate science in your independent study that has caused you to believe it’s a bogus field of science …

    Why not take the lazy way out, and answer my three questions above, that Mike M. and DF won’t attempt to answer?

  60. #60 Drekab
    August 13, 2007

    DF: I do want to congratulate papertiger though, you win the prize of being the 100th person to post the scientific method in the blogs I’ve been looking at, great job, put it this your resume… “I can copy and paste my religion’s talking points.”

    He’s on your side, moron, learn to read.

  61. #61 elspi
    August 13, 2007

    Feel free to continue your flame war. Here let me start you out. “We know the world is warmer because…”

    For those with some math there is:

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/05/20/notes-from-underground/

    Consider this a numeracy test. If you respond “yes the world is warming” then you are numerate, and if you respond “no it isn’t” then you are a twit.

  62. #62 Mike M.
    August 13, 2007

    Dhogashazzbat: Sun warms earth. Oceans warm, releasing co2. Increased co2 contributes slightly to even more warming. Ocean currents, precipitation, and cloud formation get back to work and cool earth back down. We argue the percentages of responsibility are not yet known. What’s far more important is what caused the warming in the first place. There’s a reason why scientists have been trying to figure out the connection between sunspot activity and temps for over a hundred years. There clearly appears to be a strong correlation between the two. The clearest example is the Maunder minimum. No sunspot activity and we froze our asses off for years. Don’t anyone on this board tell me that issue is settled. A bunch of those scientists you say don’t exist are using a $2.4bn particle accelerator to test Svensmark’s hypothesis on the connection between cosmic rays and cloud formation. The sun has always been the most obvious culprit behind climate change. Now go check out the predictions for solar cycle 25. Probably going to be the weakest in our lifetimes. Pray to Algore that we’ve heated the atmosphere up enough to prevent another 1979. More background here from those non-existent scientists..
    http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Content/Chapters/Spotlight/SpotlightCloud-en.html

  63. #63 Mike M.
    August 13, 2007

    And here’s a much more erudite explanation on the 800 year lag from your favorite physicist..
    http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/04/co2-lags-temperature-how-alarmists.html

  64. #64 Mike M.
    August 13, 2007

    And is anyone ever going to explain to me why you WANT man to be responsible for global warming? I mean all of your reactions just prove my point. There is no person or set of facts that could possibly sway you from your beliefs. Any opposition is met with unbridled anger. And what does that accomplish for you? Nothing. If you really thought we were facing calamity as a species is that how you would go about convincing your fellow man? With arrogance and hatred? I could prevent legislation indefinitely by sticking you all on TV and putting a microphone in front of your faces every time a Global Warming bill came up for a vote. Keep up the good work!

  65. #65 Brian
    August 13, 2007

    MikeM…let’s get this clear. Your last comment appears to convey this position: you accept the data for warming, just not the anthropogenic cause?

    Is this correct?

    If so, we don’t need to debate the accuracy of the warming trend, right? Just the cause of it.

    Unless you think it’s all hogwash…in which case please tag your complaint/challenge/question with “warming data” or “attribution”.

    Do you have a problem w/ this suggestion?

  66. #66 Crissa
    August 13, 2007

    Look, there’s a reason why dhogaza’s questions have answers: Because the answers were observations. In conservative parlance, facts.

    Anyhow, the change of temperature in the datasets was 0.03 at most; the margin of error (or tolerance) was 0.1. That means the change did not qualify as significant

  67. #67 luminous beauty
    August 13, 2007

    MikeM says:

    “And is anyone ever going to explain to me why you WANT man to be responsible for global warming?”

    It isn’t that anyone WANTS mankind to be responsible for global warming, it’s that IF mankind is causing global warming, and there is very, very, very strong evidence (in spite of the majestic hand-waving of the likes of Lubos Motl, Mir Shaviv, Steve McIntyre, et alia) that we are, some of us (mature adults) feel we should face the facts and accept responsibility for what we’ve done, maybe even make the effort to think and to plan with an eye to ameliorate the worst of the potential damage that may lie in store.

    Can you answer why you WANT so much NOT to be responsible? Why do you WANT the future world to go to hell in a hand basket?

  68. #68 Boris
    August 13, 2007

    20:

    “I’m opposed to your shaky hypothesis, therefore I must be some knuckle-dragging Creationist.”

    I don’t hate you Mike M. I just pointed out that you avoid talking about anything that Tim posted. Then you did it again. And perhaps you should look at your “you people” post before accusing someone else of hating you. Have a nice evening!

  69. #69 Tamara
    August 13, 2007

    True, it was a very minor change. But, then it was a very minor difference before the change as well. Was it fair to say that 1998 was the hottest on record (and I mean the media/bloggers/joe blows on the street who touted that claim), if it was not hotter by a significant degree? Is it fair to say that we are experiencing unprecedented warming when 6 of the top ten hottest years in US history occured before 1960? It wasn’t only the very top spot that was affected by McIntyre’s adjustment. And, Hansen acknowledged the significance by publicizing the correction. On one hand, many of you seem to be claiming that the US temps are not important when it comes to GLOBAL warming, while, on the other hand, you still want to make the case that the US is experiencing unprecedented warming. Which is the case? And, I would ask you whether you are comfortable with the amount of scrutiny that the global temperature record has undergone? As long as you can sit back and claim that the science is settled, you will be the ones standing in the way of science. Most of you won’t bother to take the time to verify the data that is presented to you. But, fortunately, verification is part of the scientific method. You may not appreciate McIntyre, but he has every right to scrutinize the dataset of any scientific paper on the planet. And I hope he and others continue to do so. There are others who are checking the accuracy of the temperature record itself, and they have found glaring problems. It must be nice for you to sit back and create posts, while relying on others who have told you that the science is settled. Very relaxing. I’m not sure how that solves AGW, though. One question, is your computer dynamo-powered?
    And, before you tell me I don’t understand science, I should tell you my beautifully framed degree in Biology is winking at me from above my computer screen.

  70. #70 Dano
    August 13, 2007

    There are others who are checking the accuracy of the temperature record itself, and they have found glaring problems.

    Yeah, this would have thunnnnnnderous import if they were actually measuring temps.

    Since they are not, you look silly making such a statement.

    Best,

    D

  71. #71 Chris O'Neill
    August 13, 2007

    Can someone give me a link to the hype about 2006 being the US’s warmest year on reord? I’m having trouble finding it amongst all the hype about 2006 not being the US’s warmest year on record.

  72. #72 Tamara
    August 13, 2007
  73. #73 Tamara
    August 13, 2007
  74. #74 Brian
    August 13, 2007

    Tamara says: “And, I would ask you whether you are comfortable with the amount of scrutiny that the global temperature record has undergone?”

    Yes!

    I don’t think anybody here is anti-verification…yes, anybody has the right to scrutinize the data. In fact, I am glad they are doing it. I agree w/ you…this is how science is done. An error was found, it was corrected, and you can view the difference it made here.

    If there are more errors, I hope they are found and corrected…don’t assume we are anti-science just because we are exchanging remarks with the nonsensical, emotional partisans that show up from time to time.

    Tamara says: “There are others who are checking the accuracy of the temperature record itself, and they have found glaring problems.”

    I guess you might have to rely on others as you sit back and comment on posts to help you provide the details for that statement.

  75. #75 Brian
    August 13, 2007

    Tamara says: “And, I would ask you whether you are comfortable with the amount of scrutiny that the global temperature record has undergone?”

    Yes!

    I don’t think anybody here is anti-verification…yes, anybody has the right to scrutinize the data. In fact, I am glad they are doing it. I agree w/ you…this is how science is done. An error was found, it was corrected, and you can view the difference it made here.

    If there are more errors, I hope they are found and corrected…don’t assume we are anti-science just because we are exchanging remarks with the nonsensical, emotional partisans that show up from time to time.

    Tamara says: “There are others who are checking the accuracy of the temperature record itself, and they have found glaring problems.”

    I guess you might have to rely on others as you sit back and comment on posts to help you provide the details for that statement.

  76. #76 Chris O'Neill
    August 13, 2007

    Tamara:”Was it fair to say that 1998 was the hottest on record”

    GISS did not claim that 1998 was the hottest on record in the US.

    If GISS didn’t claim it, who did?

  77. #77 Tamara
    August 13, 2007

    “I guess you might have to rely on others as you sit back and comment on posts to help you provide the details for that statement.”

    True. But, then, I’m not afraid the world is ending. If I were, I’d be a little more motivated.

  78. #78 Tamara
    August 13, 2007

    “If GISS didn’t claim it, who did?”

    Here’s one. Is it really necessary to find more? Or, do you think I made the whole thing up to get funding from Exxon.

    “[Last year] was also 0.04ÂșC higher than 1998, the previous hottest year in US history, the Data Centre said.”

    http://iafrica.com/news/worldnews/569012.htm

  79. #79 Tamara
    August 13, 2007

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901949.html

    Maybe someone can explain to me why I can find so many articles that claim last year was the hottest on record, when even the old GISS data puts it at #3? Just because NASA doesn’t directly claim something, doesn’t mean the media won’t misinterpret or misconstrue it.

  80. #80 elspi
    August 13, 2007

    Tamara

    Does Alaska ring a bell?
    The continental US includes Alaska, and (being close to the pole) it is warming much faster than the rest of the country (as explained ONLY by AGW). The correction only affected the lower 48 (and only a tiny amount). Since Alaska is so large it pulls the average up.

    In the future think before you post

  81. #81 Brian
    August 13, 2007

    Tamara says: “I’m not afraid the world is ending. If I were, I’d be a little more motivated.”

    huh?

  82. #83 Tamara
    August 13, 2007

    http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/Climate/Extremes/index.html

    I see it was 100 degrees at Fort Yukon…. in 1915.

  83. #84 Tamara
    August 13, 2007

    Brian,

    i.e. I already have a job, and it isn’t disproving bogus climate data. I just do this for a laugh.

  84. #85 Tamara
    August 14, 2007

    elspi,

    Actually, the quote says “contiguous” US, not “continental.” Don’t bother giving me a definition of that. I already know what it means.

  85. #86 luminous beauty
    August 14, 2007

    Tamara,

    This graph may be more useful in concluding the effect of Alaska being or not being included in national temperature anomaly measurements relative to 1934 and 1998.

    http://tinyurl.com/247as3

  86. #87 elspi
    August 14, 2007

    You LIAR

    here is the cut and past from the link

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901949.html
    Climate Experts Worry as 2006 Is Hottest Year on Record in U.S.
    By Marc Kaufman
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, January 10, 2007; Page A01

    Last year was the warmest in the continental United States in the past 112 years — capping a nine-year warming streak “unprecedented in the historical record” that was driven in part by the burning of fossil fuels, the government reported yesterday.

  87. #88 Lee
    August 14, 2007

    A fairy tale for Mike M.

    Scene: a party of 30-some civil engineers in a river bottom, looking worriedly upstream at a large earth-fill dam, measuring and monitoring the growing wet patch on the front face.
    Engineer 1 – Dayyum, the face of that wet spot just started spouting a small fountain!!
    Engineer 2 – Not looking good – better notify the downstream towns to evacuate.
    Engineer 3 – several more fountains are emerging at the left edge of that spot – looks like were seeing branching and a piping system.
    Engineer 4 – Central fountain just grew – fuck almighty, its already spouting 50 feet!!!
    All engineers in unison – time the get the hell out of here, folks.

    They climb in their trucks as faint whispers of civil alert sirens start echoing up the canyon, and start hauling ass fast down the canyon, trying to get to where the road climbs out the river bottom.

    Scene two – caravan of wild-ass fast engineers in pickups rounds corner in canyon, just out of site of the dam, and come upon a stock truck parked across a narrow spot, blocking the road completely. Skid to a stop, start honking horns. Cattle drover steps out of stock truck. Faint sound of downstream alert sirens and rising river water clearly heard.

    Cattle drover – whatchy’all’s hurry?

    Engineer 1 – dam is failing. Back that trailer up out the way, and climb in – we gotta get out of here fast!

    Cattle drover – dam ain’t never failed before.

    Engineers 2-17, in unison – hear those frickin’ sirens? See the river – the waters already climbing over the bank. WE gotta get he fuck out of here now.

    Cattle drover – Rivers climb lots o’ times without floods. I aint convinced.

    -more sirens start sounding downstream, as alarm spreads-

    All engineers, now somewhat panicked – Hear those sirens? They’re warning that the dam is going!!!!! Get out of the damn way and let us by!!!

    Cattle drover – those sirens go off every Friday noon, and the dam never failed before when they went off. Y’all cant extrapolate from that – clearly you’re misinterpreting the data.

    - sounds of rumbling upstream -
    All engineers distinctly panicked now – here that rumbling!!! The damn is collapsing RIGHT NOW!!!

    Cattle drover – Yeah, there’s a correlation between shaking ground, rumbling sounds and failing dams, but I ain’t convinced it is causal. We need more data. Why do y’all want that damn to be failing so bad.

    Scene three – river bottom scoured clean to bedrock, search parties looking for what’s left of engineers trucks and cattle trailer. Clearly, it’s all because the engineers wanted so badly to be right…

  88. #89 Lee
    August 14, 2007

    Quotes from that WashPost link stating the single year records by themselves dotn mean much, and that there is a context of rising global temps:

    Climate experts generally do not make much of temperature fluctuations over one or two years, but Lawrimore said the record 2006 temperatures were part of a long and worrisome trend. For instance, NOAA said, the past nine years have all been among the 25 warmest years on record for the continental United States.

    Advocates for more action to control carbon dioxide emissions also voiced concern.

    “No one should be surprised that 2006 is the hottest year on record for the U.S.,” said Brenda Ekwurzel, a climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a public interest group. “When you look at temperatures across the globe, every single year since 1993 has been in the top 20 warmest years on record.”

  89. #90 papertiger
    August 14, 2007

    I am guessing NOAA doesn’t adjust for UHI.
    Number fluffers don’t do climate alarmists any credit. They just make you look irrational.

  90. #91 Tamara
    August 14, 2007

    elspi,

    Such angst! Actually, I was referring to this quote from the blog entry above:
    “In a new post he tries to argue that the flipping back really does matter and comes up with this:

    Obviously much of the blogosphere delight in the leader board changes is a reaction to many fevered press releases and news stories about year x being the “warmest year”. For example, on Jan 7, 2007, NOAA announced that

    The 2006 average annual temperature for the contiguous U.S. was the warmest on record.

    This press release was widely covered as you can determine by googling “warmest year 2006 united states”. Now NOAA and NASA are different organizations and NOAA, not NASA, made the above press release, but members of the public can surely be forgiven for not making fine distinctions between different alphabet soups.”

    Thank you for pointing out what the Post wrote, though. I am sure they don’t know the difference between contiguous and continental. If they were quoting the NOAA press release, I think you’d have to agree they got it wrong. If you can find out what the source for their statement was, then you can prove me wrong. In fact, when I checked several other articles/blogs they alternated between contiguous and continental (yet in other parts of the article they always stated 48 states). But the graph that was linked was this one:
    http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=070109_2006_temps_02.jpg&cap=National+temperatures+for+the+contiguous+United+States+from+1895+to+2006.+Credit%3A+NOAA+

    In which I see “Contiguous” in the title. So can you show me something that actually states that Alaska was included in the data?

  91. #92 Tamara
    August 14, 2007

    Just for the record, here is what NOAA’s own article says. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2772.htm

  92. #93 elspi
    August 14, 2007

    Tamara
    Let’s try some honesty therapy shall we. Given (tip of the hat to beauty)
    http://tinyurl.com/247as3
    You need to admit that 2006 was the warmest year in the continental united states.

    It is not my job to figure out how someone arrived at the truth. It IS my job to figure out if a statement is true or not.

  93. #94 dhogaza
    August 14, 2007

    Mike M.

    Dhogashazzbat: Sun warms earth. Oceans warm, releasing co2. Increased co2 contributes slightly to even more warming. Ocean currents, precipitation, and cloud formation get back to work and cool earth back down. We argue the percentages of responsibility are not yet known.

    Very, very good. I must admit I’m surprised you can properly answer the questions.

    What’s far more important is what caused the warming in the first place.

    Well, damn, then you go mess it up with this sentence.

    It is important to the understanding of past events, not current events.

    Why?

    Because, as you point out, in the past events, CO2 LAGGED warming, therefore there was another initial cause. CO2 increased because temperature increased.

    As you point out, once release, it contributed to warming. No surprise, this is basic physics.

    Today, though, we *know* that we are the source of additional CO2 in the atmosphere, not warming. Indeed, oceans are still absorbing a large percentage of the CO2 we’re adding to the atmosphere. We’re a long way from equilibrium.

    Since we KNOW CO2′s being added to the atmosphere by us, and we KNOW from basic physics that CO2 aborbs IR and, again from basic physics and also historical evidencde, that it therefore warms the atmosphere, we know that unless there are counterbalancing feedbacks, our activities warm the planet.

    So, no, we don’t need to know about other causes to know that our adding CO2 is going to contribute to warming.

    A bunch of those scientists you say don’t exist are using a $2.4bn particle accelerator to test Svensmark’s hypothesis on the connection between cosmic rays and cloud formation.

    Ta-ta, no one says that.

    Interesting, though …

    1. We have tons of evidence, historical, in the lab, theoretical, that explains what happens when CO2 is added to the atmosphere in large amounts. We’re adding CO2 to the atmosphere in large amounts. You reject the science.

    2. Svensmark has proposed an untested hypothesis, which, as you point out, will IN THE FUTURE be tested. You seem to accept this UNTESTED HYPOTHESIS as being more credible than established science. EVEN THOUGH DIRECT MEASUREMENTS SHOW NO INCREASE IN COSMIC RAYS THE PAST FEW DECADES.

    3. For years, denialists have argued that warming leads to more clouds leads to a cooling feedback that more than balances warming. Now, with Svensmark, suddenly denialists insist that more [unobserved] clouds caused by [unobserved] increases in cosmic rays lead to [observed] warming, not cooling. When it comes to clouds, could y’all make up your minds?

    4. Imagine Svensmark is right. Where’s the CO2 + feedbacks additional energy in the system going, if it’s not causing warming? Your alternative has to account for this.

    The sun has always been the most obvious culprit behind climate change.

    Of course, which is why climate scientists have put a huge amount of effort figuring out how much the sun is contributing to what we observe.

    They’re not blind, you know. Well, most of them. And even those that are can feel the sun on their skin. It’s not like they don’t know the sun exists.

    Now go check out the predictions for solar cycle 25. Probably going to be the weakest in our lifetimes.

    Fluxuations in solar output aren’t sufficient to explain our observations, and solar cosmic rays aren’t the answer either, since we measure them, too (which is why the Svensmark supporters have to hypothesize undetected non-solar sources for cosmic rays as the driver of observed warming).

    So, where’s the energy resulting from CO2 going, since you insist it’s not heating the atmosphere? What’s your answer?

  94. #95 dhogaza
    August 14, 2007

    Mike M.

    And is anyone ever going to explain to me why you WANT man to be responsible for global warming?

    Oh, this lame canard from the denialist camp.

    If one believes inconvenient science, one must WANT that inconvenient science to be true.

    “Thank God it’s csncer, doctor, I was so afraid the tumor was benign”.

    For the record, I was heavily involved in old-growth forest protection work in the pacific northwest in the 1980s and early 1990s.

    Global warming very likely makes the success of that work moot. Down the toilet. Meaningless.

    So, yeah, I REALLY WANT global warming to be true. Like, it’s human nature to jump with joy when reality flushes part of your life work down the toilet.

    Idiot.

  95. #96 dhogaza
    August 14, 2007

    Lubos begins with the most amazing boneheaded mistake:

    However, we know for sure that the temperature was the cause and the CO2 concentration was its consequence, not the other way around. It follows that the greenhouse effect hasn’t been important in the last half a million of years.

    Mike M., your own post refutes this comment. You correctly pointed out that CO2 inserted into the system later added additional warming to that which was triggered by increased solar input into the system. The greenhouse effect was important enough to significantly increase the length of time warming was going on after solar inputs began to decrease.

  96. #97 Brian
    August 14, 2007

    Although the continental vs. contiguous debate is entertaining, as is Lee’s dam story, i’m still trying to understand the point here. As some of us have pointed out several times, this whole brouhaha has infinitessimally affected the global trend.

    Now, the complaint that the media and/or bloggers said this or that…yeah sure, if y’all want to go that path of he-said-she-said, be my guest. I’m sure we could all find examples of ridiculousness across the spectrum.

    What does this error change in the reality of the situation?

    If it’s the poor reporting (or mis-reporting) of information, that is certainly something to fix. But, Tamara, you accept above that the actual data, as it stands now, means little:
    “True, it was a very minor change.”

    So, your beef is the reporting and/or perceived biases in reporting, not global warming in the strict sense (i.e., measurements).

    I’m just trying to get it all straight here. Some challenge the warming, some challenge the cause, some challenge the coverage, some challenge the policy implications. Some just challenge for the hell of it…cuz they hate Gore or some other irrational reason. The most disingenuous arguments switch back and forth among all the above reasons to purposefully muddle the discussion.

  97. #98 dhogaza
    August 14, 2007

    Boneheaded comment by Tamara:

    As long as you can sit back and claim that the science is settled, you will be the ones standing in the way of science.

    Then maybe Watts should start a project called “flatearthphotographs.org”, to document evidence that the science isn’t settled regarding the shape of the earth.

    Because those who claim that the science regarding the flatness of the earth is settled are, after all, “standing in the way of science”.

  98. #99 Tamara
    August 14, 2007

    elspi,

    Luminous beauty’s graph (which only shows Alaska’s data) not withstanding, even before McIntyre’s data correction, NOAA wasn’t making the assertion that 2006 was the warmest on record. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2006/ann/ann06.html

    I’m not sure how you thought that graph proved your point. The fact is that NOAA made the statement that 2006 was the warmest on record, the press ran with that, then NOAA did its final analysis and down-graded 2006 to the 2nd warmest year after 1998. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/hcntmptrends.php

    Do you disagree with me or NOAA? How do you know if something is true if you don’t know how it was arrived at? Do you use your crystal ball?

  99. #100 Tamara
    August 14, 2007

    Brian,

    Some of those reasons are part and parcel. If someone claims that sea-level will rise 80ft in the next century, and that is trumpeted by the media, which makes it a political issue that is championed by the people making our laws, which part of the process will you have a problem with: the original claim, the journalists who don’t check the facts, or the politicians who follow the votes?

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.