That portion of the blogosphere that takes no shame in including Ann Coulter in their blogrolls is all atwitter with the news that NASA has “silently” released adjusted temperature records showing that 1934 is the warmest year on record, not 1998 or 2005 or 2006. How will Al Gore, James Hansen and all the other “enviromoonbats” recover from this embarrassing revelation? Probably without breaking a sweat, I would think.
Many of the blogs make no distinction between “warmest year in American history” and “warmest year in world history.” And the difference, as you might expect, is more than a little significant. The revised list, from NASA, does indeed put 1934 as the warmest year — in the lower 48 contiguous members of the United State of America.
But the warmest year globally remains 2005, followed by 1998, 2002 and 2003 and 2004. And the of the 12 hottest years on record, only one — 1990 — does not occur in the last 12 years. (Thank you Mount Pinatubo).
Don’t expect any press releases from NASA or NOAA about this change nor much coverage on the networks or major newspapers.
Which, to be fair, is a pretty good prediction. But only because the revised list,
reportedly due to some kind of Y2K recalculation (see here for real origin), will not affect global averages significantly and is more properly relegated to the footnotes of obscure journals. The revised calculations after all, may have changed the rankings of the top warmest years in the U.S., but only by a wee bit, +0.02 degrees C in the case of 1934. Even in Fahrenheit, that’s only 4/100th of a degree. To put it all in perspective, we’re already 0.7 degrees C above pre-industrial levels globally, with another full degree in the inevitably pipeline due to climate inertia.
But even those who probably do understand the math are happy to make a mountain out of this molehill. Daily Tech’s Michael Asher, who was up front about the fact that we’re dealing with US temperatures only, couldn’t restrain his glee (emphasis mine):
The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge. Then again — maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media.
It would seem this pseudo-scandal started with the help of veteran climate change denialist Steve McIntyre, but my attempts to link to his work at climateaudit.org only generated a WordPress error.
Ah well. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along now.
Update: Check out this headline from KXMB, a CBS television station in North Dakota considers bloggers the equivalent of the wire services: “NASA Drastically Revises Global Temperature Numbers.” Nothing like letting the facts get in the way… oh you know the rest.