Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
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
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.
Posted by: sod | August 12, 2007 2:27 PM
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.
Posted by: sod | August 12, 2007 2:42 PM
Tim, that next to last paragraph needs to be fixed so it shows as a continuation of the McIntyre quote.
Posted by: Steve Bloom | August 12, 2007 4:16 PM
One big bureaucratic/political blob trying to force information down our throats as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: nanny_govt_sucks | August 12, 2007 5:16 PM
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?
Posted by: Boris | August 12, 2007 5:43 PM
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...
Posted by: Xel | August 12, 2007 6:28 PM
"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"
Posted by: z | August 12, 2007 6:58 PM
Nags opposed to public science education, surprise, surprise.
Posted by: dhogaza | August 13, 2007 1:31 AM
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.
Posted by: dhogaza | August 13, 2007 1:33 AM
"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".
Posted by: Herb West | August 13, 2007 1:35 AM
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.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | August 13, 2007 3:19 AM
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
Posted by: Jeff Harvey | August 13, 2007 3:51 AM
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/
Posted by: Mike M. | August 13, 2007 6:55 AM
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.
Posted by: cce | August 13, 2007 7:20 AM
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.
Posted by: sod | August 13, 2007 7:46 AM
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!
Posted by: dhogaza | August 13, 2007 8:28 AM
RP, Sr really has little credibility, does he?
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.
Posted by: dhogaza | August 13, 2007 8:34 AM
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.
Posted by: Boris | August 13, 2007 8:54 AM
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.
Posted by: Mr. Hansen | August 13, 2007 10:24 AM
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.
Posted by: Mike M. | August 13, 2007 10:39 AM
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.
Posted by: Jeff Harvey | August 13, 2007 11:19 AM
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.
Posted by: Brian | August 13, 2007 11:23 AM
And 20 years of denialist lies, of which this is one.
Posted by: dhogaza | August 13, 2007 11:30 AM
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.
Posted by: dhogaza | August 13, 2007 11:32 AM
Brian..comfort on websites? You must mean how you go to Realclimate! Talk about projection!
Posted by: Mike M. | August 13, 2007 11:34 AM
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.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | August 13, 2007 11:48 AM
Mike M sez
Another libertarian demonstrates his mastery of science, joining stellar co-believers nags and JC ...
Posted by: dhogaza | August 13, 2007 12:01 PM
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.
Posted by: Mike M. | August 13, 2007 12:02 PM
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..
Posted by: Mike M. | August 13, 2007 12:05 PM
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/DetroitlakesUSHCN.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...
Posted by: DF | August 13, 2007 12:07 PM
Actually that would fit right in with your goal of destroying the economy to combat global warming! NOW I understand:)
Posted by: Mike M. | August 13, 2007 12:07 PM
Communism is progressive Mike. Just look how progressive Vietnam is...
Posted by: DF | August 13, 2007 12:11 PM
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:
Why wouldn't CO2 lag temp rises in past warming events?
Where does the CO2 come from, and why, in past warming events?
(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.
Posted by: dhogaza | August 13, 2007 12:12 PM
DF! Got called into work. Carry on as best as you can and remember to shower afterwards.
Posted by: Mike M. | August 13, 2007 12:13 PM
Dahogshnazz, I'll give you your answer later.
Posted by: Mike M. | August 13, 2007 12:14 PM
Mike M.
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!
Posted by: dhogaza | August 13, 2007 12:16 PM
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.
Posted by: DF | August 13, 2007 12:19 PM
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.
Posted by: DF | August 13, 2007 12:27 PM
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.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | August 13, 2007 12:31 PM
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.
Posted by: dhogaza | August 13, 2007 12:40 PM
Our esteemed host speculates:
How can you trust an agency that faked the Apollo moon landings?
Sheesh, dude!
Posted by: dhogaza | August 13, 2007 12:41 PM
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/
Posted by: Brian | August 13, 2007 12:48 PM
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.
Pseudoscience - Pseudoscience 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.
Scientific method - Scientific 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..."
Posted by: Papertiger | August 13, 2007 1:13 PM
Well, the algorithms used by NASA have been published in a variety of papers in the peer-reviewed literature, so comments like:
are a bit of a nonstarter.
We'd expect you to know these things if, um, you knew much of anything.
Of literally dozens of indicators, including direct observation of temperature, that correlate to a very large degree.
So, let me ask you a question:
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!
Posted by: dhogaza | August 13, 2007 1:33 PM
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?
Posted by: DF | August 13, 2007 1:45 PM
Dhogaza says: "How can you trust an agency that faked the Apollo moon landings? Sheesh, dude!"
Blasphemy!!! Your gods shall be angry!!!
Posted by: DF | August 13, 2007 1:49 PM
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...
Posted by: DF | August 13, 2007 2:05 PM
Well, at least you're honest about your level of science education.
Posted by: dhogaza | August 13, 2007 2:11 PM
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?
Posted by: jodyaberdein | August 13, 2007 2:13 PM
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.
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???
Posted by: dhogaza | August 13, 2007 2:16 PM
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.
Posted by: DF | August 13, 2007 2:22 PM
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.
Posted by: DF | August 13, 2007 2:27 PM
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)
Posted by: Brian | August 13, 2007 2:33 PM
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.
Posted by: Lance | August 13, 2007 3:09 PM
"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
Posted by: Brian | August 13, 2007 3:36 PM
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/
In other words, not even the one (and only) semi-credible scientist that deniers trot out at every opportunity denies that humans are responsible.
Posted by: Derek Scruggs | August 13, 2007 3:37 PM
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?
Posted by: dhogaza | August 13, 2007 4:04 PM
It doesn't change the trend for the US in a statistically significant way, either.
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.
Posted by: dhogaza | August 13, 2007 4:13 PM
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?
Posted by: dhogaza | August 13, 2007 4:15 PM
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.
Posted by: Drekab | August 13, 2007 4:27 PM
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.
Posted by: elspi | August 13, 2007 5:06 PM
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
Posted by: Mike M. | August 13, 2007 5:36 PM
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
Posted by: Mike M. | August 13, 2007 5:40 PM
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!
Posted by: Mike M. | August 13, 2007 5:50 PM
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?
Posted by: Brian | August 13, 2007 5:51 PM
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
Posted by: Crissa | August 13, 2007 6:03 PM
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?
Posted by: luminous beauty | August 13, 2007 8:42 PM