A change in climate history data at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies recently occurred which dramatically alters the debate over global warming. Yet, this transpired with no official announcement from GISS head James Hansen, and went unreported until Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit discovered it Wednesday
Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900.
See, once again. Why the lying liberals?
This story proves what I have been saying all along about global warming.
The data pool that we are collecting our numbers from is insignificant. The climate changes back and forth. Mini-ice age, mini-heat wave. There is no statistically significant data that says what might be happening now is unique in any way. However, liberals are going to try and cost our economy billions while China and India take over the world economy.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Hottest years on record were in the 1930's
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
35 comments:
Newsbusters?
"China and India take over the world economy."
Muhahaha. I love it when a plan comes together.
hash-It doesn't matter where the link is from if the data is correct. I have read this all over the net.
liberal-liberals never intend to screw everything up, they are just not able to see the lasting consequences of their actions.
Do we really need to list all the failed social programs again?
Global Warming killed Vince Foster.
wow...you got us there...thanks for that high level of liberal intel
This is what... a week old? UP NEXT!! Should we invade Iraq?
Really I hate the idea of stealing peoples words. If you really want, skip down a few posts to Wayward Son:
"Our records also show that the oceans are warming (which is a much larger surface than the whole land mass of the world) and that the troposphere is warming. Plus, despite long time skeptic Roger Pielke Sr. breaking this news on his site, he still reminded a skeptical poster that increased CO2 MUST increase temperatures - science."
'Till then Global Warming is a hoax!!!
Seriously.. Newsbusters?
There are LOTS of varied reports. My point, which I have a great deal of knowledge in, is that the data being used to scare environmentalist into the fetal position is statistically insignificant, period. In the meantime, we have liberals running around telling us to only use one square of toilet paper...
"statistically insignificant"
First.. nobody is in the fetal postition. Second, higher temps are going on around the world and more CO2 (a fact conceded by everybody) mean.. Canadians proved you wrong. Its oh kay.. I'm just going to do my victory dance now. I'll have to borrow your hat for a second. dun dun dun dada dun dun [pause] dun dun dun dada dun dun..
"one square of toilet paper"
I didnt know conservatives used toilet paper. Beacuse [redacted for Lord Game]
I think you may misunderstand what "statistically significant" means. Yes, 1998 and 1934 did swap the #1 and #2 positions after the error correction, but statistically, there is not a great enough difference, either before or after, to conclude the actual relative positioning.
A better indicator is the 5 year temperature averages presented in the raw data. As stock market watchers know, moving averages are a useful tool in identifying trends, and in this case, two periods in the last decade beat out any from the 1930's.
Remember, significant isn't always significant.
Spice
I don't know what the hell parklife is even talking about...
jimspice.
When I am talking about the data population being statistically insignficant, I mean that having data for 100 years when the earth has been around for (even by Bible estimates) 8000 years. If you try and figure out trends from that small a data sample, the results are insignificant. You MIGHT beable to say that the earth is warmer now than in the last 100 years (even that is in question just looking that this story, but you can not say this is a special time in history that is caused by humans.)
I hope you come back and answer, you seem like you might have a clue...but I can see you didn't totally get my point.
Nobody understands me.
:wipes away tear:
Are the trolls ever funny? This putz with the multiples aliases is like some 7 yr old in his level of heckling. I mean he's not even annoying! That's pretty bad when a troll isn't even annoying. It's like he's just there, like old, hard gum on the street.
One of two things happened:
1. They don't have a response
2. My high level of understanding of the topic is too much for them to grasp.
Wouldn't it be simpler and wiser to simply declare additional research on the entire issue of climate change is required, ensure that path is being pursued, and take common-sense precautions that will save us money in the long run anyway?
Yes, I agree...what are these money saving measures?
Not allowing any drilling anywhere causing my gas to cost more?
Putting unnecessary regulations on American business so my products cost more, and jobs leave to countries where there are fewer restrictions?
Having the govt regulate which cities get which kind of gas so that the gas in Milwaukee is made with ethanol crap, making my car run worse and get LOWER gas mileage?
Taking corn and using it to make crap gas, thereby increasing the cost of food and many other products.
All the while doing nothing to stop what is probably a natural event.
what is probably a natural event
Ho-leee crap!
no Jim, the holy crap is someone thinking that we are so damn powerful as human beings to change the entire climate of the earth...it has gotten warmer before...1930's...then it cooled...it will get warmner again...and we can do nothing about it
"The deceit behind the attempts to discredit evidence of climate change reveals matters of importance. This deceit has a clear purpose: to confuse the public about the status of knowledge of global climate change, thus delaying effective action to mitigate climate change. The danger is that delay will cause tipping points to be passed, such that large climate impacts become inevitable, including the loss of all Arctic sea ice, destabilization of the West Antarctic ice sheet with disastrous sea level rise later this century, and extermination of a large fraction of animal and plant species….
Make no doubt, however, if tipping points are passed, if we, in effect, destroy Creation, passing on to our children, grandchildren, and the unborn a situation out of their control, the contrarians who work to deny and confuse will not be the principal culprits. The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no point to joust with court jesters. They will always be present. They will continue to entertain even if the Titanic begins to take on water. Their role and consequence is only as a diversion from what is important.
The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children. The court jesters are their jesters, occasionally paid for services, and more substantively supported by the captains’ disinformation campaigns."
http://climateprogress.org/2007/08/16/must-read-from-hansen-stop-the-madness-about-the-tiny-revision-in-nasas-temperature-data/
The U.S. annual (January-December) mean temperature is slightly warmer in 1934 than in 1998 in the GISS analysis (Plate 6). This contrasts with the USHCN data, which has 1998 as the warmest year in the century. In both cases the difference between 1934 and 1998 mean temperatures is a few hundredths of a degree. The main reason that 1998 is relatively cooler in the GISS analysis is its larger adjustment for urban warming. 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.
More importantly for climate purposes, the longer term US averages have not changed rank. 2002-2006 (at 0.66 ºC) is still warmer than 1930-1934 (0.63 ºC - the largest value in the early part of the century) (though both are below 1998-2002 at 0.79 ºC). (The previous version - up to 2005 - can be seen here).
In the global mean, 2005 remains the warmest (as in the NCDC analysis)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/
<blockquote>A change ... which dramatically alters the debate</blockquote>
My point was that the data correction does not really alter the debate as the shifts were not statistically significant. People often see the term "significant" and consider it in its everyday meaning, that is "it matters" or "it is important". But statistical significance simply means we can be sure, with a relative degree of confidence, that the observed phenomenon is real and not a result of measurement error.
So, a .02 degree rise in temperature may be statistically significant, i.e. it is real, whether it is significant in the larger sense, i.e. important, is a matter of opinion and outside the venue of science.
As far the 120+ year sample set not being representative of earth history, that is correct, and you would never hear a scientist suggest it was. It would be sort of like the gingerbread men thinking they were making the oven hot (ooooh, a new take on Plato's Cave). You would need a actual observations over the entire period, or a random sampling thereof, upon which to draw an inference.
But lacking those observations, we must rely on proxy measures, and I would suggest there are many valuable ones, ice core samples being the most obvious. So I would suggest your conclusion that "there is no statistically significant data that says what might be happening now is unique in any way" is flawed.
Game.. your a freaking riot.
"My point, which I have a great deal of knowledge in"
Do you care to share anything with us? Or just keep all that knowledge bottled up inside. You know, thats not good for you. Really.. your getting taken to task right now on your own blog... again. Time to step up? Wouldnt you think.. Between MA and yourself.. you have only provided snarky comments. I think a link is in order.
I'm not here to convince anybody about global warming. Dig your head in the sand for all I care. Realism and Spice already do a great job of proving THE GAME!! wrong.. or a conservative liar.. or whatever you want to call it. I just want to see the earth cleaned up. Regardless of how hot it is. Since when did all you fundamentalists skip the age of enlightenment? Always cracks me when the anti-science crowd tries to use science.
again, I have shown and written how the data is flawed. I do not know how to write it at a grade level that you can understand.
Game, read it and be educated.
Everyone know that the earth has warmed and cooled over the eons. Everybody (almost) also agrees that the current warming is caused or accelerated by human activity. You think that humans can't change climate?
Or is your entire meme of denial tied to the cost out of your pocket for milk and gasoline?
parklife made another smart ass comment that did not refute anything I have said.
Don't make supid comments, tell me how I am wrong. I will lower it down to about 4th grade this time.
When you are looking at a big picture issue, and you only take a snap shot of a small amount of time, you can not determine the long term future of that item or issue. Scientist screw this up all the time. Atlast Jim and Jimspice admit that the data is not of a long enough period...they just conclude that it doesn't matter. parklife makes it seem like he does not even understand the arguement...probably because he is a very emotional liberal, and gets really really worked up when global warming comes up...
Do you have any verifiable evidence that backs up your position, that climate change does not exist?
What are we to believe about the evidence we have heard so far, and the scholars that have put forth evidence?
What would their motivation be, to misrepresent their case?
My dear God.
Liberals like to SAY they are smart, but you can not understand my simple message.
Show me where I said climate change does not exist?
That is MY POINT.
It happens all the time.
What caused the heat waves in the 1930's? What changed after that?
I never said the temps were not going up.
I am not buying into the hysteria that you obviously subscribe to.
Hash is showing, that even at a 4th grade level explanation, he does not understand my very, very simple point.
When you add liberal emotionalism, I guess thinking is out of the question.
Take some pills guys, count to ten, then THINK about what I have said about the small amount of time we are talking about in the grand scheme of things, then respond.
"I am not buying into the hysteria that you obviously subscribe to."
What "hysteria" do I "obviously subscribe to", game?
All I said was;
"Do you have any verifiable evidence that backs up your position, that climate change does not exist?
What are we to believe about the evidence we have heard so far, and the scholars that have put forth evidence?
What would their motivation be, to misrepresent their case?"
I'm afraid you'd be hard-pressed to find any "liberal emotionalism" in that!
Now, answer the questions instead of insulting people. Use the Newsbusters story if you have to, and you believe what it says!
Everybody is going to have their own opinion, game.
See my last post for answers to all your questions that I have answered a few times already...not doing it again.
You did not answer one single question.
Forget it, Game. Global warming is their religion. The Goracle told them so and they believe.
I think the bottom line here is that the right believes in keeping the earth clean, but for corps that have existed before this climate fear-mongering began, we'd like to find ways of dealing with polution and such without crippling an industry or the economy. The left thinks that we can survive such debacles for the sake of reducing our already infinitesimal contribution to the warming that was gonna happen anyway. Yeah, let's do things in a cleaner way. But let's do it in a way that preserves the jobs and revenue that took so long to build up. For now, the left should worry about not throwing crap out of their car windows and stuff like that. Clean your own house, encourage your friends, and realize the bigger shit will take longer to change. And please, stop saying "most" scientists. It isn't any better than saying "all" scientists, since there's still been no poll released to support the statement.
Then maybe you might want to read this if you think the consensus isn't pretty strong.
"...the right believes in keeping the earth clean, but for corps that have existed before this climate fear-mongering began, we'd like to find ways of dealing with polution and such without crippling an industry or the economy."
What evidence is there, that demonstrates this statement to be true?
Or, what gives you this impression?
Post a Comment