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 ServiceWASHINGTON (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.
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.
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.
Tim, that next to last paragraph needs to be fixed so it shows as a continuation of the McIntyre quote.
One big bureaucratic/political blob trying to force information down our throats as far as I'm concerned.
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?
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...
"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"
Nags opposed to public science education, surprise, surprise.
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.
"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".
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.
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
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/
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And 20 years of denialist lies, of which this is one.
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.
Brian..comfort on websites? You must mean how you go to Realclimate! Talk about projection!
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.
Mike M sez
Another libertarian demonstrates his mastery of science, joining stellar co-believers nags and JC ...
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.
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..
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-…
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...
Actually that would fit right in with your goal of destroying the economy to combat global warming! NOW I understand:)
Communism is progressive Mike. Just look how progressive Vietnam is...
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.
DF! Got called into work. Carry on as best as you can and remember to shower afterwards.
Dahogshnazz, I'll give you your answer later.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Our esteemed host speculates:
How can you trust an agency that faked the Apollo moon landings?
Sheesh, dude!
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/
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. 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.
2. 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..."
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!
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?
Dhogaza says: "How can you trust an agency that faked the Apollo moon landings? Sheesh, dude!"
Blasphemy!!! Your gods shall be angry!!!
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...
Well, at least you're honest about your level of science education.
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?
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???
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.
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.
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)
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.
"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
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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/SpotlightCl…
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.ht…
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!
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?
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
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?
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!
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.
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
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.
Dano,
Uh, what?
http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/stories/sir16.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Not temp?
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.
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.
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?
"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.
"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 0.04ºC higher than 1998, the previous hottest year in US history, the Data Centre said."
http://iafrica.com/news/worldnews/569012.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR20070…
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.
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
Tamara says: "I'm not afraid the world is ending. If I were, I'd be a little more motivated."
huh?
Prove it.
http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/7706Change.html
http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/Climate/Extremes/index.html
I see it was 100 degrees at Fort Yukon.... in 1915.
Brian,
i.e. I already have a job, and it isn't disproving bogus climate data. I just do this for a laugh.
elspi,
Actually, the quote says "contiguous" US, not "continental." Don't bother giving me a definition of that. I already know what it means.
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
You LIAR
here is the cut and past from the link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR20070…
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.
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...
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."
I am guessing NOAA doesn't adjust for UHI.
Number fluffers don't do climate alarmists any credit. They just make you look irrational.
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?…+
In which I see "Contiguous" in the title. So can you show me something that actually states that Alaska was included in the data?
Just for the record, here is what NOAA's own article says. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2772.htm
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.
Mike M.
Very, very good. I must admit I'm surprised you can properly answer the questions.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Mike M.
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.
Lubos begins with the most amazing boneheaded mistake:
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.
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.
Boneheaded comment by Tamara:
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".
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?
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?
Tamara says: "Some of those reasons are part and parcel"
Yes, fine...of course. I'm not saying there's no link between the science, conclusions, reporting, policy, and politicking. I think that is all too obvious. What I'm saying is that in the discussions like this, I think a lot of confusion could be cleared up by trying to highlight them separately.
In my experience, when this is done, much more is accomplished.
So...your main beef with this specific issue is with the reporting, non-reporting, mis-reporting?
A few choice cosmic ray quotes:
"Past climate changes have clearly been associated with solar activity. EVEN IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE NOW, it is still important to understand how solar variability affects climate."
Jason Kirkby, CERN
http://www.petedecarlo.com/files/448008a.pdf
"We use the observation of a downward trend in the CR intensity of 2% in the last 35 years and the observation that the solar modulation of the average global temperature is 0.1â¦C. From this the temperature rise due to CR must be less than 0.01â¦C."
Sloan and Wolfendale
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.4294v1.pdf
"Here we show that trends observed in the ISCCP data are satellite viewing geometry artifacts and are not related to physical changes in the atmosphere."
Evan, Heidinger, and Vimont
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/clavr/amato/2006GL028083.pdf
Not that any credible scientist, nor Al Gore, is making any such claim, making your fairy-tale a moot point.
Oh, look at the fear-mongering NOAA piece Tamara uncovered:
Yep, NOAA's out there claiming the sky is falling, yes'm!
I think it's wonderful that the denialist camp is making such a big todo over the fact that 1934 is now thought to be 0.01C degree warmer than 1998, even though the number is statistically significant.
For all you denialist bloggers out there who want to comfort your readers with this fact, here are some photographs that I'm *sure* will make them realize that warmth comparable to that during 1934 is a GOOD thing:
http://blogs.ancestry.com/circle/wp-content/uploads/2006/04/Dust%20bowl…
http://www.gckschools.com/schools/BSIC/geny/gchistory/farmranch/Dust%20…
http://www.skyways.org/orgs/fordco/blacksunday35.jpg
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/FEATURE/images/dustbowl.jpg
Not sure if the point is made is serious or in jest, but no one has predicted that sea levels will rise 80 feet by the end of the century.
Oh, they like to claim (incorrectly) that Al Gore did, in his movie.
Because, you know, he's fat. And, with that beard, he looks sorta like those guys who walk around carrying signs that say "Repent! The End Is Near!"
In the UK last night BBC 2's Newsnight repeated the claim that 1998 was no longer the warmest year on record without qualify that this was actually only for the USA.
Exactly what the denialist camp is hoping to accomplish with their ranting.
Mike M: "It's just sickening how badly you people WANT man to be responsible for global warming."
Can anyone point to anything in Tim's original post or in the discussion up to the point of Mike M.'s comment about the cause of global warming?
As I've noted before, you'd think that views on whether warming is occurring; whether humans are causing it and about the likely costs of it would be independent.
But, oddly, you don't see many Simonian Cornucopians arguing that anthropogenic warming can be solved quickly and easily by a combination of free markets and technological advances.
Similarly, it appears Mike M. can't conceive of anyone who thinks warming is happening who doesn't blame capitalism and want some form of neo-Stalinist tyranny imposed to fix it.
Mr Hansen: We are fast approaching 10 years of no global warming. That's bad for business, of course.
What a confident prediction.
I am equally confident in predicting that even if warming continues for the next decade, Mr Hansen or someone like him will be predicting in 2017 that cooling is just around the corner.
"I'm a Robert Heinlein agnostic, fool. Keep it up though. That anti-Christian attitude will ensure that "progressives" are a permanent angry minority."
Yeah Bob was real big on Christianity, just read Revolt in 2100.
Oh and that "minority" currently appears to include around 70% of the US electorate.
"Like a "progressive" would understand anything about climatology. Look at how badly you do in economics."
Yes, who could forget the soup kitchens, mass mortgage foreclosures and soaring unemployment of the 1990's?
"And is anyone ever going to explain to me why you WANT man to be responsible for global warming?"
I don't WANT 2+2 to equal 4. I don't WANT gravitational acceleration on Earth to approximate to 9.8 metres per second squared.
It's just that all the available evidence leads to me to conclude that these statements are probably correct.
Get the facts as straight as possible first THEN form your opinion.
It's something Bob Heinlein taught me.
Oh and as for Svensmark, his data sets are dubious, his analysis is questionable and his theory falls down because there are plenty of condensing nuclei in the atmosphere at all times regardless of cosmic ray levels and they AREN'T the determining variable for cloud formation rates.
Ian says: "As I've noted before, you'd think that views on whether warming is occurring; whether humans are causing it and about the likely costs of it would be independent."
Well said. It seems whenever I press denialists to explain their position within this context, either (1) a much more civil and constructive debate ensues about policy (which is the true debate to be having at this point), or (2) they are revealed as being a nincompoop with nothing to offer to the discussion at which point they call me a commie and then leave the thread.
So...we could tag the comment w/ (1) warming, (2) attribution, (3) policy, (4) hatred for Al Gore, or (5) incoherent mixture of all of the above. Maybe a color-coded system?
I was depressed this morning when I saw the high today would be 106, but then I saw some pictures on the internet and now I am pleased to know that this is only because of air conditioners. I look forward to my mid-afternoon jog. Might take a sweater.
""Tamara:"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?"""
""GISS did not claim that 1998 was the hottest on record in the US.
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 0.04ºC higher than 1998, the previous hottest year in US history, the Data Centre said."
http://iafrica.com/news/worldnews/569012.htm "
Obviously we have moved on from the original subject of this thread which was to do with GISS. In that case...
You are referring to journalistic reporting of NCDCs report of 2007/01/09 (updated on 2007/05/01) which said:
"The 2006 average annual temperature for the contiguous U.S. was the warmest on record and nearly identical to the record set in 1998. Based on preliminary data, the 2006 annual average temperature was 55°F, 2.2°F (1.2°C) above the 20th Century mean and 0.07°F (0.04°C) warmer than 1998."
Note the words "nearly identical" and "preliminary data". That report also had a table in which 1934 was 0.03°F cooler than 1998. 0.03°F is a bit smaller than 0.07°F, so I'd expect if NCDC had said something about 1934 they would most probably have also said 1934 was "nearly identical". Note that in NCDCs report of 1998, they said:
"Preliminary data indicate that the United States average temperature in 1998 was 54.62 degrees F (12.57 deg C), which placed 1998 in a virtural tie with 1934 as the warmest year in records dating to 1895."
Note the words "virtual tie".
So NCDC in its original report did not state that 1998 was the warmest on record without saying it was in a virtual tie with 1934.
It is not fair comment for journalists or others to selectively quote NCDC's original reports. This does not reflect on the integrity of NCDC's original reports however.
A-HA! Got you Leftists again! Continental Warming is a lie!!! A Lie I tell you!!!
Tamara
From YOUR OWN LINK!!
"In an update to the 2006 average annual temperature for the CONTIGUOUS U.S., NCDC scientists report that 2006 was the 2nd warmest year on record and nearly identical to the record set in 1998. Seven months in 2006 were much warmer than average, including December, which ended as the eighth warmest December since records began in 1895"
So you have what is almost a dead heat between 2006 and 1934 and you look at
http://tinyurl.com/247as3
and you see that the temperature in Alaska in 1934 was 3.5 F colder than it was in 2006. You take a weighted average and you admit that 2006 was warmer than 1934 for the continental US.
It is called honesty. You should try it.
And yes I know that one year proves nothing, but the reason that 2006 just kicked 1934's ass is that the random variation that put 1934 ahead in the lower 48 got run over by the Mac truck that is the AGW at the poles. Tamara was wrong because she has filled her ears with wax and glued her eyelids closed so she could claim she didn't notice the Mac truck.
Actually this brings several problems to light:
1. The actually code, station selection, etc. is not available for reproducing the GISS temp adjustments:
www.realclimate.org
So NASA/GISS pretty much does not make the code, processes, and algorithms available. You can read the papers but they do not lay out which stations are used, which are rejected, and which are modified. Anyone attempting to validate and verify would find reproducing exceptionally hard.
2. The argument is that this is a global problem and that CO2 is a well mixed gas so what happens in one region does not matter but only the whole world.
Well, if CO2 was that well mixed, then why are pretty much all CO2 measurements prior to MLO measuring rejected because they are too close to the source of the CO2? If that is true, then the GHG warming in that area should be greater but the US data shows that did not happen.
We have had CO2 steadily increasing but there has not been any steady heating and we are quickly approaching 10 years of no warming.
"Vanity Fair published a "worst-case scenario" photo illustration of Manhattan drowned by an 80-foot sea-level rise, the skyscrapers poking up from what has become part of the Atlantic Ocean."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR20060…
Brian,
To answer an earlier question you asked, yes, I am sick to death of the misreporting and exaggerations. I am actually quite sure that warming is occuring. But I don't think that the above referenced Vanity Fair article, nor Al Gore's mockumentary are at all useful. Yet, people who claim to adhere to science will continue to defend his and other's blatant hyperbole, because it is "all for the cause." I've read many journal articles, and I've never encountered a subject in which the research indicates as much certainty as AGW. If you've read or written journal articles, you know that it is the usual pratice to word your conclusion so that it only represents facts that can clearly be shown from the data or observations. Most concluding paragraphs contain more uncertainty than anything else. But, when the subject is global warming, suddenly we have total certainty of our hypotheses. That's just not realistic, to put it mildly. Albert Einstein said of his Theory of Relativity, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Do you think he would say the science is settled?
Tamara seems a bit unafraid to make the argument from personal incredulity: "I as a person with a degree in Biology do not understand the science underlying this journal article - I refute it thus!" with snooty handwave.
How about you quit citing Einstein in support of you Tamara and instead back up one of your sweeping assertions with a more relevant reference? "... many journal articles ... when the subject is global warming, suddenly we have total certainty of our hypotheses ..." - you might consider citing a journal article you've read that would exemplify your modest claim?
Tamara says: "...yes, I am sick to death of the misreporting and exaggerations. I am actually quite sure that warming is occuring."
Okay...this is what I'm talking about...it's the coverage and not the data for you. Excellent. I would generally agree with you regarding some of the reporting...they are after headlines and attention after all.
you say: "Albert Einstein said of his Theory of Relativity, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Do you think he would say the science is settled?"
I don't see that as a fair comparison. You can't point to a single person for the 'Theory of Global Warming'...that's the whole point...it is much more like other paradigms that strengthen over time as more studies are done, as more data is collected and analyzed. And as errors like the one that has spawned all the posts and subsequent comments in the past few days are corrected and integrated into the overall understanding.
As for the statements of certainty in magazine and other popular press, I notice well-placed words of uncertainty in a lot of them....take BBC for example: "The changes we've seen over recent years and those which are predicted over the next 80 years are thought to be mainly as a result of human behaviour rather than due to natural changes in the atmosphere."
'thought to be' .... and 'mainly' ...relating to the conclusions based on the available evidence and the relative contribution.
But, maybe it's a matter of perspective...the people out there that truly believe it's a hoax to install a communistic new world order aren't gonna be satisfied with a few words of uncertainty, are you kidding?.
"It doesn't matter, global cooling, global warming; it's crisis; it's we're in trouble; it's we need big government to fix it; we need to punish people; we need to control their lives."
That's Rush Limbaugh...he has a few choir members. So, don't sit there and even pretend that the hyperboles are all coming from those who accept AGW. But, I guess Rush is just saying this 'all for the cause'. The 'faith' of Limbaughites requires them to reject AGW....no matter how much evidence. That's where the discourse has gone, w/ the MikeM's and DF's above. Nonsensical and partisan. Even though I disagree with you, at least your not an irrational loon.
80 feet of sea level rise is the "worst case scenario" and is comparable to what the geologic record tells us we are in for if we continue the BAU scenario. No one says it will happen by 2100.
The theory that we are contributing to climate change is one of the more well founded and established in all of science. The exact degree of warming and the speed at which the feedbacks kick in is where you will find various degrees of disagreement. But given the consequences, we have been and continue to be fools for putting off policy decisions. It's like waiting until the asteroid has a 1 in 2 chance of hitting the earth before building the missile. It is insane.
No one is debating the basics of Newtons laws. The fact that relativity, quantum mechanics or string theory revises our understanding doesn't mean that the apples stop falling from the tree.
Brian,
Thanks for not thinking I'm an irrational loon.
CCE,
Knowing the mechanisms of global warming are at least as important as knowing the mechanisms of gravity, if we are going to make good decisions about it. I freely embrace the idea that humanity's activities are altering the climate. But, it seems that, for the most part, we as a culture have decided to ignore many of our worst affronts to nature in favor of reducing CO2 emissions. Tell me, how much warming results from the CO2 that is produced by burning a forest? How much warming results from the removal of the forest itself? Is burning ethanol in your gas tank better than shipping all that corn to a developing country where desertification is occurring due to local farming practices? Newton knew something about gravity, but he didn't put a man on the moon. (Can we stop an asteroid with a missile?)
The amount of warming due to burning a forest would be equivalent to the warming due to the net CO2 released, minus the avoided warming due to the albedo change.
Corn Ethanol is a boondoggle of epic proportions and very little global warming abatement or energy independence will be gained from it.
NASA put a man on the moon despite many mistakes (deaths, among them) getting there. No one else, not even McIntyre, has done this.
It was a proverbial missile. We can't stop an asteroid with a missile.
"I am sick to death of the misreporting and exaggerations."
So am I. They provide credulists with smokescreens that hide the important facts such as the fact that the world's 14 year average teperature to 2006 is 0.4-0.5°C higher than the 14 year average around 1934 (1928-1941). (You need at least a 14 year average to filter out short term variations.) I wouldn't expect too many people outside the US to be influenced by the fact that the contiguous US had nearly the same average temperatures in 1934, 1998 and 2006. On the other hand a lot of USAians, considering how parochial they are, would probably think this is a very significant fact with respect to global warming.
The only thing "much ballyhooed" is Steve McIntyre, on his own blog -- by himself and by his personal cheer-leading squad.
Chris: Surely, there must be some significance to "the fact that the contiguous US had nearly the same average temperatures in 1934, 1998 and 2006."
"Surely, there must be some significance to "the fact that the contiguous US had nearly the same average temperatures in 1934, 1998 and 2006.""
No, very little, for two reasons. 1. They're only single years. Single years are highly influenced by short term variations e.g. El Nino. 2. The US covers only 2% of the Earth's surface so has very little weight in global average temperature. When climate changes for whatever reason, different parts of the Earth's surface change in different ways.
Tamara
"I am sick to death of the misreporting and exaggerations."
Yes, the denialists are sickening aren't they?
Pathetic, too.
Anyone who believes that a 0.15C correction to the surface temp record of the US means that global warming is not real should have his or her head examined for evidence of brain activity.
"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"
Hah? I haven't had the time to track down the source of the latest parrot screeching, so is that it? The same crowd who whines about the inapplicability of mathematical modeling in science believes in the absolute reliability of reverse engineering an algorithm? And they wonder why we don't give them the keys to the planet's thermostat?
"We know the world is warmer because..."
Group1:
Glaciers are melting.
Large chunks of Antarctica are now floating around the shipping lanes.
The Arctic Ocean is navigable without icebreakers, all of a sudden.
Plants and animals in North America are moving to new territories, further north.
The USDA has just announced a new hardiness climate zone map for the US in which most(? all?) locales now are listed with warmer climates.
Group 2:
The IPCC reports make a good case using valid arguments of the type normally seen in scientific writing, whereas the publications of the "skeptics", whether on an individual basis or all together, not only do not make any kind of coherent case for anything except sophomorically nihilistic "we just cannot know absolute reality with absolute certainty", but in addition are internally inconsistent ("there's no warming, and it's caused by cosmic rays" etc.)
The arguments of the nonscientific authorities who believe in AGW are saner, less paranoid, and in general more convincing than the arguments of the "skeptics" ("It's all a plot by liberals who want to control everybody and ruin the economy and the climatologists who wish to retain their vast wealth which they would lose if AGW were not true")
"Skeptics" seem to get caught in odd errors much more often than people who believe in AGW; confusing radians with degrees, for example. This seems to affect a great majority of their publications, yet they continue to emit publications with the same conclusion but different reasoning at a high rate. This suggests that the conclusion is driving the evidence, rather than vice versa.
The monetary motivation for professional "skeptics" is vastly greater than that for proponents; any decent scientist recognizes the very real phenomenon of unconscious bias, rather than flatly denying it. This, of course, doesn't even bring up deliberate publication of opinion for pay, which is the source of many of the "skeptic" mantras; such as "there is actually no consensus in the scientific community on AGW"
And that's without
1) even looking at NASA temperature measurements or
2) looking at other temperature measurements or
3) noting that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will tend to absorb IR, unless there is something preventing it from doing so.
Tamara said: "Vanity Fair published a "worst-case scenario" photo illustration of Manhattan drowned by an 80-foot sea-level rise, the skyscrapers poking up from what has become part of the Atlantic Ocean."
So, what's the take home lesson here?
How about this? -- "One should not get one's science from Vanity Fair".
Scientists can't be held responsible for the garbage printed by tabloids like Vanity Fair, the Washington Post and the NY Times.
"But, when the subject is global warming, suddenly we have total certainty of our hypotheses."
What are you reading? Everything I read has the usual scientific caveats built in, whereas the "skeptics" deal in absolutes, then declare victory since they are 100% certain and their opponents not.
Looks like most of the Instacrowd has been distracted by its next chance for a group hug, gang rap thing and has pertly decamped elsewhere; Scienceblogs will be the quieter for its passing. That's quality commenting there z and friends.
"Plus, MikeM, in addition to dhogaza's questions...I'm still very curious about why 'us people' want AGW? "
Because, silly boy, it's all about who's smarter than the other person. There is no reality to be discerned, it's a pure test of intellectual superiority, and you science geeks have made us Bushie types feel inferior all our lives, but no more.
z asked: "What are you [Tamara] reading?"
The Washington Post -- that paragon of accuracy on Iraqi WMD, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity and everything else.
I know I get all my science from the Washington Post -- usually from columnits like George Will. I find that it's a lot easier to understand such columns than abstruse math-laden papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals that use statistics and graphs with error bars and all the rest. (Yech!)
George Will's column tells me everything I always wanted to know about global warming but was afraid to ask my kindergarten teacher.
That's why I quit reading the Wall Street Journal's editorial and op-ed page.
So, where were the self-appointed auditors when the credit rating agencies were deciding how to value piggyback mortgage packages? Could they have seen the risk of loss of the billions of dollars that disappeared last week? If their big argument is really that doing something about climate change is too expensive, why aren't they doing something about the financial system? Now _that_ is expensive, and expensive last week, not expensive in some future discounted dollars.
Surely they ought to be talking to the bankers and credit agencies and making sure the financial models are fully disclosed and checked by outside experts. Since we _know_ they melted down.
Toronto Star story sez:
NASA officials have dismissed the changes as trivial. Even the Canadian who spotted the original flaw says the revisions are "not necessarily material to climate policy...." However Stephen McIntyre... ...described his finding as a "a micro-change. But it was kind of fun."
Z said: "you science geeks have made us Bushie types feel inferior all our lives, but no more."
That's a pretty good summary of what has motivated 99% of the decisions in the US (my country) during Bush's reign.
Millions of Americans (several of them in my immediate family, I am sorry to say) voted for him because they liked the idea that he "thinks" like them.
The problem, of course, is that Bush does not really think at all -- not in the usual sense.
Most of his decisions are not motivated by rational thought informed by knowledge, but instead by the desire to prove that he is smarter/better than the competent "smartypants intellectual" types (especially his father) who have been running the show all of his life. He (and the people who voted for him) don't need academic types (especially not scientists) to tell them what to do.
Science is about reality and reality means nothing to them. As one Bushie said, "We are the players who create our own reality and everyone else is left to merely react."
Unfortunately, they were right about the latter. Lots of people have "reacted to" the reality that the Bushies have created. (In other words, lots of people have died)