Why doesn't this stuff make the news?
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Pag...L20070816b.html
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=197342
I've read a couple stories regarding a Canadian blogger that managed to call attentions to miscalculations on temperature information beginning in 2000. There was a spike in the data beginning then that didn't match other temperature records.
Apparently NASA has been including incorrect temperature data in their calculations and after pressure has rectified this. The average change is temperatures since this was altered has been a drop by ~0.15C, which now places 1934 as being the hottest year in U.S. history and this correction leaves little of any evidence suggesting that there are any trends in temperature over the last century. Temperatures peaked in the 30s and then dropped again (which led to the Ice Age scares in the 70s and 80s) and have since returned to close to highs (with the resulting Warming scares ... we'll probably be back to worrying about the next Ice Age in a couple decades).
I find it fairly amazing that the majority of the articles about this use NASA as the scapegoat for the error.
The error was made by James Hansen.
He is the manager of GISS and IN CHARGE of the data that was wrong.
Also the articles seem to minimize the work of Steven McIntyre.
He is NOT just a "blogger", he is a well respected SCIENTIST with a major in STATISTICAL ANALYSIS and mathematics.
Something that is apparently SERIOUSLY lacking in the climatologists camp.
Twas outsider McIntyre's work that directly led to finding the flaws in the Mann Hockey Stick and the methodology for computing same, even though he was DENIED access to the original algorithms (he reverse engineered them).
Arthur
The error was made by James Hansen.
He is the manager of GISS and IN CHARGE of the data that was wrong.
Also the articles seem to minimize the work of Steven McIntyre.
He is NOT just a "blogger", he is a well respected SCIENTIST with a major in STATISTICAL ANALYSIS and mathematics.
Something that is apparently SERIOUSLY lacking in the climatologists camp.
Twas outsider McIntyre's work that directly led to finding the flaws in the Mann Hockey Stick and the methodology for computing same, even though he was DENIED access to the original algorithms (he reverse engineered them).
Arthur
Science, Schmience. The hottest year was 1998.
Al Gore told me so.
Al Gore told me so.
I remembered thinking before that some of the hype for a while wouldn't matterbecause we'd drop back to lower temperatures and then it would seem hard for people to claim that it's a trend.
But I'd also considered that if historical data is continually altered to create a trend in the "evidence", then we could have a problem where it never actually gets warmer yet the information presented continually says new higher and higher records are being set.
I assumed the second version wasn't possible because you'd assume some people would be keeping stable records and not trying to rewrite history and then point out the mismatches if someone was playing games, especially considering the current level of interest in the subject.
I admit that this article makes me consider that the second possibility is more likely than I'd initially assumed. It leaves you wondering where the data is collected from and who's compiling it and how many parallel and independent sources truly have an ability to present information publicly. The internet is a great tool (I'd hate to see it become regulated in content as you might end getting the same news on the internet as presented on a few media channels)
But I'd also considered that if historical data is continually altered to create a trend in the "evidence", then we could have a problem where it never actually gets warmer yet the information presented continually says new higher and higher records are being set.
I assumed the second version wasn't possible because you'd assume some people would be keeping stable records and not trying to rewrite history and then point out the mismatches if someone was playing games, especially considering the current level of interest in the subject.
I admit that this article makes me consider that the second possibility is more likely than I'd initially assumed. It leaves you wondering where the data is collected from and who's compiling it and how many parallel and independent sources truly have an ability to present information publicly. The internet is a great tool (I'd hate to see it become regulated in content as you might end getting the same news on the internet as presented on a few media channels)
QUOTE (StevenA+Aug 25 2007, 04:46 AM)
Why doesn't this stuff make the news?
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Pag...L20070816b.html
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=197342
I've read a couple stories regarding a Canadian blogger that managed to call attentions to miscalculations on temperature information beginning in 2000. There was a spike in the data beginning then that didn't match other temperature records.
Apparently NASA has been including incorrect temperature data in their calculations and after pressure has rectified this. The average change is temperatures since this was altered has been a drop by ~0.15C, which now places 1934 as being the hottest year in U.S. history and this correction leaves little of any evidence suggesting that there are any trends in temperature over the last century. Temperatures peaked in the 30s and then dropped again (which led to the Ice Age scares in the 70s and 80s) and have since returned to close to highs (with the resulting Warming scares ... we'll probably be back to worrying about the next Ice Age in a couple decades).
It doesn't make the news because alarmists like Heidi Cullen and Al Gore, along with the people funding them, would look like idiots.
so yes, 5 of the 9 most intense atlantic hurricanes in history occurred in the past 3 years.
But that is a warped statistic because we dont know how powerful the "average" hurricane was 50 years ago, or really even 30 years ago, there simply wasn't reliable means to measure most storms unless they happened to hit right on top of a weather observation station. Who knows, there may have been hurricanes 500 years ago which had sustained winds over 200 mph, there simply is no way to know. The claim by the Weather Channel and the NHS that this "proves" global warming is happening and its making hurricanes worse is just bogus.
To me the real proof is in history anyway. All one needs to do is study the midieval warm period and the "little ice age" to see that man's puny influence on the environment is nothing compared to a few volcanic erruptions. We are currently "in the ballpark" of the medieval warm period conditions, we may peak out a little warmer, or a little cooler, but then the cycle will go on its down trend, or there will be another series of erruptions and we will once again see Ice Bergs in the Delaware, and then Heidi Cullen and Al Gore, if he is still alive, will have a heart attack and go on a "stop global cooling" campaign.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Pag...L20070816b.html
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=197342
I've read a couple stories regarding a Canadian blogger that managed to call attentions to miscalculations on temperature information beginning in 2000. There was a spike in the data beginning then that didn't match other temperature records.
Apparently NASA has been including incorrect temperature data in their calculations and after pressure has rectified this. The average change is temperatures since this was altered has been a drop by ~0.15C, which now places 1934 as being the hottest year in U.S. history and this correction leaves little of any evidence suggesting that there are any trends in temperature over the last century. Temperatures peaked in the 30s and then dropped again (which led to the Ice Age scares in the 70s and 80s) and have since returned to close to highs (with the resulting Warming scares ... we'll probably be back to worrying about the next Ice Age in a couple decades).
It doesn't make the news because alarmists like Heidi Cullen and Al Gore, along with the people funding them, would look like idiots.
so yes, 5 of the 9 most intense atlantic hurricanes in history occurred in the past 3 years.
But that is a warped statistic because we dont know how powerful the "average" hurricane was 50 years ago, or really even 30 years ago, there simply wasn't reliable means to measure most storms unless they happened to hit right on top of a weather observation station. Who knows, there may have been hurricanes 500 years ago which had sustained winds over 200 mph, there simply is no way to know. The claim by the Weather Channel and the NHS that this "proves" global warming is happening and its making hurricanes worse is just bogus.
To me the real proof is in history anyway. All one needs to do is study the midieval warm period and the "little ice age" to see that man's puny influence on the environment is nothing compared to a few volcanic erruptions. We are currently "in the ballpark" of the medieval warm period conditions, we may peak out a little warmer, or a little cooler, but then the cycle will go on its down trend, or there will be another series of erruptions and we will once again see Ice Bergs in the Delaware, and then Heidi Cullen and Al Gore, if he is still alive, will have a heart attack and go on a "stop global cooling" campaign.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 27 2007, 01:26 PM)
Who knows, there may have been hurricanes 500 years ago which had sustained winds over 200 mph, there simply is no way to know. The claim by the Weather Channel and the NHS that this "proves" global warming is happening and its making hurricanes worse is just bogus.
So did your god on a stick give you some special insight into this?
Maybe we could invent some real idiotic fantasy, like a flood that covered the whole world
and then we could save everything by putting two of each species on a little boat 
So did your god on a stick give you some special insight into this?
Maybe we could invent some real idiotic fantasy, like a flood that covered the whole world
and then we could save everything by putting two of each species on a little boat
It would appear that the statistic "number of named storms" is being inflated based upon our ability to detect/measure storms over the entire atlantic basin.
Consider this year, subtropical storm Andrea developed off the southeastern coast of the United States on the 9th of May.
But Andrea had maximum sustained winds of only 40 mph and immediately weakened to a tropical depression by the very next day and was gone by the next.
Similarly on July 28th, an area of low pressure developed near the Bahamas. It was upgraded to a tropical depression late on the 30th, by the 31st, the system reached tropical storm strengh south of Nova Scotia with peak winds of 50 MPH and named Chantal, but Chantal didn't remain a tropical storm for even 24 hours.
Prior to satellites, its UNLIKELY that we would have even known about paltry, ocean only, storms such as Andrea or Chantal, and the fact that they just eaked past the point where we give them a name.
Arthur
Consider this year, subtropical storm Andrea developed off the southeastern coast of the United States on the 9th of May.
But Andrea had maximum sustained winds of only 40 mph and immediately weakened to a tropical depression by the very next day and was gone by the next.
Similarly on July 28th, an area of low pressure developed near the Bahamas. It was upgraded to a tropical depression late on the 30th, by the 31st, the system reached tropical storm strengh south of Nova Scotia with peak winds of 50 MPH and named Chantal, but Chantal didn't remain a tropical storm for even 24 hours.
Prior to satellites, its UNLIKELY that we would have even known about paltry, ocean only, storms such as Andrea or Chantal, and the fact that they just eaked past the point where we give them a name.
Arthur
QUOTE (N O M+Aug 27 2007, 02:55 AM)
So did your god on a stick give you some special insight into this?
Maybe we could invent some real idiotic fantasy, like a flood that covered the whole world and then we could save everything by putting two of each species on a little boat
My God isn't on a stick.
However, whatever wisdom I do happen to possess is from God, as is whatever wisdom you possess as well, if you would only choose to use it.
It is not proper to predict long term trends based on short term anomalies that have happened since the invention of devices capable of recording those anomalies. I too have made this mistake on several occasions. It would be quite refreshing and interesting to see the global warming alarmists admit their mistake and start working on something constructive for once.
Maybe we could invent some real idiotic fantasy, like a flood that covered the whole world
and then we could save everything by putting two of each species on a little boat My God isn't on a stick.
However, whatever wisdom I do happen to possess is from God, as is whatever wisdom you possess as well, if you would only choose to use it.
It is not proper to predict long term trends based on short term anomalies that have happened since the invention of devices capable of recording those anomalies. I too have made this mistake on several occasions. It would be quite refreshing and interesting to see the global warming alarmists admit their mistake and start working on something constructive for once.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 28 2007, 05:29 AM)
However, whatever wisdom I do happen to possess is from God, as is whatever wisdom you possess as well, if you would only choose to use it.
That's clear. Because your "wisdom" is as imaginary as your little friend.
That's clear. Because your "wisdom" is as imaginary as your little friend.
You have a serious problem. I say something that is really just a common sense analysis of the facts, and you just want to start insulting me just because I'm a christian.
Its the same old thing with you people. You aren't even interested in the truth, you just want to try to make yourself look smart by insulting other people.
Its the same old thing with you people. You aren't even interested in the truth, you just want to try to make yourself look smart by insulting other people.
GISS admits the error, but that's why measurements have error bars.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_LightUpstairs_70810.pdf
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_LightUpstairs_70810.pdf
QUOTE (James E. Hansen+Aug 10, 2007)
No need to read further unless you are interested in temperature changes to a tenth of a degree over the U.S. and a thousandth of a degree over the world.
...
The flaw did have a noticeable effect on mean U.S. temperature anomalies, as much as 0.15°C, as shown in Figure 1 below (for years 2001 and later, and 5 year mean for 1999 and later). The effect on global temperature (Figure 2) was of order one-thousandth of a degree, so the corrected and uncorrected curves are indistinguishable.
...
Contrary to some of the statements flying around the internet, there is no effect on the rankings of global temperature. Also our prior analysis [already damn it!] had 1934 as the warmest year in the U.S. (see the 2001 paper above), and it continues to be the warmest year, both before and after the correction to post 2000 temperatures. However, as we note in that paper, the 1934 and 1998 temperature are practically the same, the difference being much smaller than the uncertainty.
(Emphasis added.)
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/realdeal.16aug20074.pdf
So, if we represent ΔB ("a thousandth of a degree over the world") as less than 0.002°C and Δt a s more than 100 years, then Δm is less than 0.00002 °C/year. This does not erase the signal (m) of 0.005°C/year.
That's why graphing is important for people with no math intuition. It's not 0.005°C/year minus 0.15°C (The units don't match!), it's 0.005°C/year - 0.00002 °C/year.
For the US data, alone, m is near 0.01°C/year, ΔB < 0.15°C, Δm < 0.0015°C, which ironically makes the US closer to the global average data.
The actual global data analysis is based on N > 100, so Δm is not nearly as large as indicated in these toy calculations. In addition, the data has error bars because not every part of the globe was measured. Over the global data, ΔB is smaller than the error bars on the points.
1) I'm glad we agree that "global warming" is not affected by these newly corrected numbers.
1) I'm glad we agree that "global warming" is not affected by these newly corrected numbers.
What it DOES show is that current US temps are STILL WITHIN THE RANGE OF NATURAL VARIATION.
2) I don't think that I agree that the US temps have a range of natural variation independent of the global climate. Weather doesn't stop at the national border. So, while the data from a very small percentage of the earth does have more STATISTICAL variation (especially near 1940), you can still extract a signal of about 1°C/century from it, which statistically might actually be stronger than the global warming result.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt (corrected)
3) In the 2001 paper, they don't claim that 1998 was hottest in US history -- they flat out say 1934 was warmer by a insignificant amount. So, nothing is corrected by this fix. You might want to check your sources for this "1998" claim, but it didn't come from Hansen's 2001 paper.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf
3) In the 2001 paper, they don't claim that 1998 was hottest in US history -- they flat out say 1934 was warmer by a insignificant amount. So, nothing is corrected by this fix. You might want to check your sources for this "1998" claim, but it didn't come from Hansen's 2001 paper.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf
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.
4) The result of 0.5°C/century is a global annual average. Some places it's lower, some places (the poles, the US) it's higher.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif (3 latitude bands -- all getting hotter)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.E_lrg.gif (1950 to now the poles and the rest are both getting hotter)
No doubt some times of the year it's more and sometimes it is less. But if the poles heat up more in the winter, then it stands to reason that the ice lost in summer is not replenished as fast, so I don't understand what possible point you are making about a long-term spacio-temporal average.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/m...ly_maps_lrg.gif ( 12 months of the year, it's getting hotter )
4) The result of 0.5°C/century is a global annual average. Some places it's lower, some places (the poles, the US) it's higher.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif (3 latitude bands -- all getting hotter)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.E_lrg.gif (1950 to now the poles and the rest are both getting hotter)
No doubt some times of the year it's more and sometimes it is less. But if the poles heat up more in the winter, then it stands to reason that the ice lost in summer is not replenished as fast, so I don't understand what possible point you are making about a long-term spacio-temporal average.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/m...ly_maps_lrg.gif ( 12 months of the year, it's getting hotter )
Big difference between the NORMALLY CYCLIC arctic being warmer and the GLOBE being WARMER.
5) The whole point of taking annual averages is to remove the trivial annual variation. The Arctic summers are warmer, the Arctic winters are more warmer. Unless some place, some time is getting a hell of a lot colder, that's going to average out to be global warming. Where is that place?
Global warming was due to the loss of clouds
condensation clouds are basically dead
Now the Ice clouds cometh
and the oil is still there and no one cares
Yes an Ice Age cometh, but not in the near term
the areas not covered in Ice Clouds will just bake dry and dryer... until that area is so dry the Ice Clouds cometh..
This planet is doomed... and LIFE will be no more.... here
LOL LOL
Global warming was due to the loss of clouds
condensation clouds are basically dead
Now the Ice clouds cometh
and the oil is still there and no one cares
Yes an Ice Age cometh, but not in the near term
the areas not covered in Ice Clouds will just bake dry and dryer... until that area is so dry the Ice Clouds cometh..
This planet is doomed... and LIFE will be no more.... here
LOL LOL
Actually it's rather inevitable that the Earth will continue to cool as the core is still much hotter than the surface and there's not an infinite supply of energy internal to the Earth.
The Moon is much smaller and has already lost most its heat over time. The Earth has been cooling over time and will continue to.
Yes, none of us are likely to see the next Ice Age and I assume people would have at least decades to prepare for colder temperatures, but it's still a one way process.
THEY are all lying.. backed by Big OIL
even various nations are starting to show by their lack of interest because all the figures are not stacking up for a "greenhouse warming" scenario
THIS IS DANGEROUS... just because the model put forward is really really contrived and blatantly stupid
it does not mean that Global Climate Change is not happening
it is happening alright !!.... but the cause is free OIL in the marine environment....
And meanwhile this world is sliding further and further into doom.
Links please.
I am not going to hold my breath.
I don't think Quantum_Conundrum is capable of comprehending that an otherwise cool year is still statistically likely to have a few record-breaking days in it.
...
The flaw did have a noticeable effect on mean U.S. temperature anomalies, as much as 0.15°C, as shown in Figure 1 below (for years 2001 and later, and 5 year mean for 1999 and later). The effect on global temperature (Figure 2) was of order one-thousandth of a degree, so the corrected and uncorrected curves are indistinguishable.
...
Contrary to some of the statements flying around the internet, there is no effect on the rankings of global temperature. Also our prior analysis [already damn it!] had 1934 as the warmest year in the U.S. (see the 2001 paper above), and it continues to be the warmest year, both before and after the correction to post 2000 temperatures. However, as we note in that paper, the 1934 and 1998 temperature are practically the same, the difference being much smaller than the uncertainty.
(Emphasis added.)
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/realdeal.16aug20074.pdf
QUOTE (James E. Hansen+Aug 16, 2007)
How big an error did this flaw cause? That is shown by the before and after results in Figure 1. The effect on the global temperature record is invisible. The effect on U.S. average temperature is about 0.15°C beginning in 2000. Does this change have any affect whatsoever on the global warming issue? Certainly not, as discussed below.
...
Instead of showing the impact of the flaw in our analysis program via a graph such as Figure 1, as a scientist would do (and as would immediately reveal how significant the flaw was), they instead discuss ranking of temperature in different years, including many false statements. We have thus been besieged by journalists saying “they say that correcting your error caused the warmest year to become 1934 rather than a recent year, is that right!?”
Hardly. First of all, many journalists had the impression that they were talking about global temperature. As you can see from Figure 1a, global warming is unaffected by the flaw. This realization should be enough to make most journalists lose interest, as global warming refers to global temperature.
But what if you are a chauvinist and only care about temperature in the United States? Did correcting the flaw in the program change the time of calculated maximum temperature to 1934? No. If you look at our 2001 paper, and get out your micrometer, you will see that we found 1934 to be the warmest year in the United States, by a hair, of the order of 0.01°C warmer than 1998, the same as the result that we find now. Of course the difference in the 1934 and 1998 temperatures is not significant, and we made clear in our paper that such years have to be declared as being practically a dead-heat.
...
Instead of showing the impact of the flaw in our analysis program via a graph such as Figure 1, as a scientist would do (and as would immediately reveal how significant the flaw was), they instead discuss ranking of temperature in different years, including many false statements. We have thus been besieged by journalists saying “they say that correcting your error caused the warmest year to become 1934 rather than a recent year, is that right!?”
Hardly. First of all, many journalists had the impression that they were talking about global temperature. As you can see from Figure 1a, global warming is unaffected by the flaw. This realization should be enough to make most journalists lose interest, as global warming refers to global temperature.
But what if you are a chauvinist and only care about temperature in the United States? Did correcting the flaw in the program change the time of calculated maximum temperature to 1934? No. If you look at our 2001 paper, and get out your micrometer, you will see that we found 1934 to be the warmest year in the United States, by a hair, of the order of 0.01°C warmer than 1998, the same as the result that we find now. Of course the difference in the 1934 and 1998 temperatures is not significant, and we made clear in our paper that such years have to be declared as being practically a dead-heat.
QUOTE (Hansen+)
global warming refers to global temperature.
But that's the problem.
They DON'T.
There is no GLOBAL to it.
Anyone caring to look at the data will see that we have predominately ARCTIC warming.
And further, the majority of that warrming is IN THE WINTER.
They want to claim there is NO big deal about the error in the temp data, EXCEPT it took an outsider to show them their error (and don't let them kid you, it was both a LARGE error (within the context of the TINY temp changes that the US had undergone) and it was a GLARING error.
Which makes you wonder how ACCURATE the OTHER temp data is their models are based upon.
Particularly since they don't release their models or the algorithms they use to MANUALLY ADJUST the data they DO use.
Remember we are ONLY DEALING with a change of 0.6 C per CENTURY.
Or 0.06 C per DECADE
Or 0.006 C per YEAR.
When measuring such a SMALL change on such a LARGE GLOBE, LITTLE flaws can ADD UP.
Arthur
But that's the problem.
They DON'T.
There is no GLOBAL to it.
Anyone caring to look at the data will see that we have predominately ARCTIC warming.
And further, the majority of that warrming is IN THE WINTER.
They want to claim there is NO big deal about the error in the temp data, EXCEPT it took an outsider to show them their error (and don't let them kid you, it was both a LARGE error (within the context of the TINY temp changes that the US had undergone) and it was a GLARING error.
Which makes you wonder how ACCURATE the OTHER temp data is their models are based upon.
Particularly since they don't release their models or the algorithms they use to MANUALLY ADJUST the data they DO use.
Remember we are ONLY DEALING with a change of 0.6 C per CENTURY.
Or 0.06 C per DECADE
Or 0.006 C per YEAR.
When measuring such a SMALL change on such a LARGE GLOBE, LITTLE flaws can ADD UP.
Arthur
If we had only two data points (N = 2) in 100 years:
Then the slope of the graph is m = (B - A)/Δt. If B is corrected to B' = B + ΔB, then the new slope is m' = (B + ΔB - A)/Δt, and Δm = m' - m = ΔB / Δt.CODE
+
| B
| /
| /
| /
| A
|
+----------+
| B
| /
| /
| /
| A
|
+----------+
So, if we represent ΔB ("a thousandth of a degree over the world") as less than 0.002°C and Δt a s more than 100 years, then Δm is less than 0.00002 °C/year. This does not erase the signal (m) of 0.005°C/year.
That's why graphing is important for people with no math intuition. It's not 0.005°C/year minus 0.15°C (The units don't match!), it's 0.005°C/year - 0.00002 °C/year.
For the US data, alone, m is near 0.01°C/year, ΔB < 0.15°C, Δm < 0.0015°C, which ironically makes the US closer to the global average data.
The actual global data analysis is based on N > 100, so Δm is not nearly as large as indicated in these toy calculations. In addition, the data has error bars because not every part of the globe was measured. Over the global data, ΔB is smaller than the error bars on the points.
QUOTE
When measuring such a SMALL change on such a LARGE GLOBE, LITTLE flaws can ADD UP.
A general critique solved by getting independent data, checking quality and using modeling to see how reliable the data actually is. By doing blanket denials with no math and no disguise of your preconceptions you make a poor opponent to the nominally objective data.
You miss the point.
Its NOT that this ONE change in the US changes the global numbers.
What it DOES show is that current US temps are STILL WITHIN THE RANGE OF NATURAL VARIATION.
That is QUITE a bit different than saying 1998 was the WARMEST YEAR IN the US RECORDED HISTORY.
It also points out that the GLOBAL TEMPS don't reflect an AVERAGE warming over the globe, but a PREPONDERANCE of ARCTIC warming in the WINTER.
Big difference between the NORMALLY CYCLIC arctic being warmer and the GLOBE being WARMER.
Arthur
Its NOT that this ONE change in the US changes the global numbers.
What it DOES show is that current US temps are STILL WITHIN THE RANGE OF NATURAL VARIATION.
That is QUITE a bit different than saying 1998 was the WARMEST YEAR IN the US RECORDED HISTORY.
It also points out that the GLOBAL TEMPS don't reflect an AVERAGE warming over the globe, but a PREPONDERANCE of ARCTIC warming in the WINTER.
Big difference between the NORMALLY CYCLIC arctic being warmer and the GLOBE being WARMER.
Arthur
QUOTE
Its NOT that this ONE change in the US changes the global numbers.
1) I'm glad we agree that "global warming" is not affected by these newly corrected numbers.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Its NOT that this ONE change in the US changes the global numbers. |
1) I'm glad we agree that "global warming" is not affected by these newly corrected numbers.
What it DOES show is that current US temps are STILL WITHIN THE RANGE OF NATURAL VARIATION.
2) I don't think that I agree that the US temps have a range of natural variation independent of the global climate. Weather doesn't stop at the national border. So, while the data from a very small percentage of the earth does have more STATISTICAL variation (especially near 1940), you can still extract a signal of about 1°C/century from it, which statistically might actually be stronger than the global warming result.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt (corrected)
QUOTE
That is QUITE a bit different than saying 1998 was the WARMEST YEAR IN the US RECORDED HISTORY.
3) In the 2001 paper, they don't claim that 1998 was hottest in US history -- they flat out say 1934 was warmer by a insignificant amount. So, nothing is corrected by this fix. You might want to check your sources for this "1998" claim, but it didn't come from Hansen's 2001 paper.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That is QUITE a bit different than saying 1998 was the WARMEST YEAR IN the US RECORDED HISTORY. |
3) In the 2001 paper, they don't claim that 1998 was hottest in US history -- they flat out say 1934 was warmer by a insignificant amount. So, nothing is corrected by this fix. You might want to check your sources for this "1998" claim, but it didn't come from Hansen's 2001 paper.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf
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.
QUOTE
It also points out that the GLOBAL TEMPS don't reflect an AVERAGE warming over the globe, but a PREPONDERANCE of ARCTIC warming in the WINTER.
4) The result of 0.5°C/century is a global annual average. Some places it's lower, some places (the poles, the US) it's higher.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif (3 latitude bands -- all getting hotter)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.E_lrg.gif (1950 to now the poles and the rest are both getting hotter)
No doubt some times of the year it's more and sometimes it is less. But if the poles heat up more in the winter, then it stands to reason that the ice lost in summer is not replenished as fast, so I don't understand what possible point you are making about a long-term spacio-temporal average.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/m...ly_maps_lrg.gif ( 12 months of the year, it's getting hotter )
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It also points out that the GLOBAL TEMPS don't reflect an AVERAGE warming over the globe, but a PREPONDERANCE of ARCTIC warming in the WINTER. |
4) The result of 0.5°C/century is a global annual average. Some places it's lower, some places (the poles, the US) it's higher.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif (3 latitude bands -- all getting hotter)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.E_lrg.gif (1950 to now the poles and the rest are both getting hotter)
No doubt some times of the year it's more and sometimes it is less. But if the poles heat up more in the winter, then it stands to reason that the ice lost in summer is not replenished as fast, so I don't understand what possible point you are making about a long-term spacio-temporal average.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/m...ly_maps_lrg.gif ( 12 months of the year, it's getting hotter )
Big difference between the NORMALLY CYCLIC arctic being warmer and the GLOBE being WARMER.
5) The whole point of taking annual averages is to remove the trivial annual variation. The Arctic summers are warmer, the Arctic winters are more warmer. Unless some place, some time is getting a hell of a lot colder, that's going to average out to be global warming. Where is that place?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/...us=1200&pol=reg
or
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/seas_cycle.html
Switch to Anomaly.
Leave base period as is (1951 to 1980)
See the result.
CLEARLY, virtually ALL of the Warming is most obviously above the 60th parallel and mainly during the Winter Months for the respective hemisphere.
Notice there is little to no warming between +45 and -45 d latitude.
Now change the BASE period to 1931-1939
OOPS
Lookie there, NO GLOBAL WARMING.
The Arctic is substantaially COOLER and from +30 to -30 latitude its about IDENTICAL to the last 50 years.
The only warming is in the Antarctic in the winter, but not over enough area to negate the cold Arctic weather.
Arthur
or
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/seas_cycle.html
Switch to Anomaly.
Leave base period as is (1951 to 1980)
See the result.
CLEARLY, virtually ALL of the Warming is most obviously above the 60th parallel and mainly during the Winter Months for the respective hemisphere.
Notice there is little to no warming between +45 and -45 d latitude.
Now change the BASE period to 1931-1939
OOPS
Lookie there, NO GLOBAL WARMING.
The Arctic is substantaially COOLER and from +30 to -30 latitude its about IDENTICAL to the last 50 years.
The only warming is in the Antarctic in the winter, but not over enough area to negate the cold Arctic weather.
Arthur
I'm confused. In this thread Hansen himself is quoted as saying that 1934 was the warmest year... but I'm seeing this graph everywhere, in which 1934 isn't even in the top half.
(link removed, it's the graph on the wikipedia page for global warming)
(link removed, it's the graph on the wikipedia page for global warming)
The primary problem is that politics and much of the mainstream media are very much biased against giving an accurate representation of global warming. You have the "nuts" like Al Gore getting media attention talking about 20 foot rises in ocean levels, along with some paid environmental "professionals" to agree, yet there's no evidence that this is the case (ocean levels have been rising gradually over time since the last Ice Age and it's been almost a straight line increase for over 100 years at less than an inch a decade), and we haven't even set a new record in temperatures in over 50 years and it's interesting that some of the large oil companies appear to be participating in the hype as well (If you can't compete in the markets, get government to put your competitors out of business).
As temperatures warm, so does the rate of heat being radiated back into space and this negative feedback has been able to cool the Earth, even from much higher levels of CO2 than we could ever hope to achieve (prehistoric Earth appears to have done quite well in terms of life with higher CO2 levels stimulating faster plant growth to the extent it supported massive energy burners - dinosaurs. CO2 levels have dropped and we find Wooly Mammoths frozen during the last Ice Age, though it's also likely that the shortage of food during colder periods has caused a lot of extinctions as well)
Why doesn't mainstream news give a more realistic view of the issue? Most people assume we're setting record temperatures and that CO2 and SUVs etc. are the cause, when in fact there were hardly any automobiles around went record temperatures were being set. How often do we hear about solar variations causing global shifts in temperature over time or the facts of why CO2 cannot cause Asia or Europe to freeze etc.? (I've heard quite a few incredibly ignorant comments blaming most any weather variation on global warming.)
My wife's family is Asian and they're currently complaining because there's a scarcity of rice due to cold temperatures, rising prices in production (oil costs have been driven up, almost certainly at least partly due to our involvement in the Middle East, and from what I see, other attempts to dominate global energy resources - think Kyoto and nuclear power restrictions - ironic that environmental "help" to restrict the use of nuclear energy is now seen as a global threat from petroleum as CO2. Maybe we can stop most oil production around the world and cause famines on top of it?)
Here's a few links regarding the current food problems in Asia, partly due to higher energy costs as well as colder temperatures:
http://noworldsystem.com/2008/04/02/rice-p...-to-food-riots/
http://www.bnp.org.uk/2008/04/09/food-crisis/
Of course, you can doctor the numbers any way you want, but it's not going to help grow food.
As temperatures warm, so does the rate of heat being radiated back into space and this negative feedback has been able to cool the Earth, even from much higher levels of CO2 than we could ever hope to achieve (prehistoric Earth appears to have done quite well in terms of life with higher CO2 levels stimulating faster plant growth to the extent it supported massive energy burners - dinosaurs. CO2 levels have dropped and we find Wooly Mammoths frozen during the last Ice Age, though it's also likely that the shortage of food during colder periods has caused a lot of extinctions as well)
Why doesn't mainstream news give a more realistic view of the issue? Most people assume we're setting record temperatures and that CO2 and SUVs etc. are the cause, when in fact there were hardly any automobiles around went record temperatures were being set. How often do we hear about solar variations causing global shifts in temperature over time or the facts of why CO2 cannot cause Asia or Europe to freeze etc.? (I've heard quite a few incredibly ignorant comments blaming most any weather variation on global warming.)
My wife's family is Asian and they're currently complaining because there's a scarcity of rice due to cold temperatures, rising prices in production (oil costs have been driven up, almost certainly at least partly due to our involvement in the Middle East, and from what I see, other attempts to dominate global energy resources - think Kyoto and nuclear power restrictions - ironic that environmental "help" to restrict the use of nuclear energy is now seen as a global threat from petroleum as CO2. Maybe we can stop most oil production around the world and cause famines on top of it?)
Here's a few links regarding the current food problems in Asia, partly due to higher energy costs as well as colder temperatures:
http://noworldsystem.com/2008/04/02/rice-p...-to-food-riots/
http://www.bnp.org.uk/2008/04/09/food-crisis/
Of course, you can doctor the numbers any way you want, but it's not going to help grow food.
Here's something else to consider over some of the recent cold spells. Not only would action to deter oil production around the world cause a lot of economic damage, but if we're truly seeing a reversal in sun spot activity, then the omen of entering another Ice Age should put a bit of a damper on some of the zealousness (imagine not only less of an ability to supply energy but increases in the difficulty of growing food).
Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...76-7583,00.html
I notice that when summer comes around, people like to comment about global warming, but when we see frost spells, it's either (incorrectly) blamed on warming or glossed over as a fluke (if we were truly seeing an extended warming period, the oceans should have been showing a significant rise and we should almost never see a new record cold temperature occur - the probability of setting a new record cold drops exponentially with higher average temperatures).
(Yes, I'd hate to see us set up a global monopoly controlling energy resources and only live to regret it or die let the next generation deal with it)
Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...76-7583,00.html
I notice that when summer comes around, people like to comment about global warming, but when we see frost spells, it's either (incorrectly) blamed on warming or glossed over as a fluke (if we were truly seeing an extended warming period, the oceans should have been showing a significant rise and we should almost never see a new record cold temperature occur - the probability of setting a new record cold drops exponentially with higher average temperatures).
(Yes, I'd hate to see us set up a global monopoly controlling energy resources and only live to regret it or die let the next generation deal with it)
QUOTE
You have the "nuts"
Global warming was due to the loss of clouds
condensation clouds are basically dead
Now the Ice clouds cometh
and the oil is still there and no one cares
Yes an Ice Age cometh, but not in the near term
the areas not covered in Ice Clouds will just bake dry and dryer... until that area is so dry the Ice Clouds cometh..
This planet is doomed... and LIFE will be no more.... here
LOL LOL
That Australian newspaper article is rather funny
funny how GLOBAL theory (total consensus) can change so much without any underlying understanding of what is happening
flip flop... meanwhile the game is over
Proof positive this planet is inhabited by moronics
and may be it is best that LIFE disposes of them all.
LOL
Carbon trading ? bio-fuels....
LOL
and still the oil barons rub their wallets !!!
Fools the lot of you... believe anything except hard factual evidence... la te da, la la land !!!
It is all as I have been broadcasting over the net forums for over a decade... and to individuals for over 25 years...... notified media...governments
lol, everyone ! and all I get was/is derision
LOL, love the fool, but I will happily bury them!!
I have even put it all in a book I wrote and published last year..... but y'all know better
see "The Death of Clouds"
LOL
Good luck, you might be lucky ...it may only be your children's problem !!!
The last of their kind...
aren't homo sapiens nice................. NOT
But I am sure it will all go bottom up in a rather short time, so you may learn to freeze to death..
sorry, I really have NO SYMPATHY whatsoever.
funny how GLOBAL theory (total consensus) can change so much without any underlying understanding of what is happening
flip flop... meanwhile the game is over
Proof positive this planet is inhabited by moronics
and may be it is best that LIFE disposes of them all.
LOL
Carbon trading ? bio-fuels....
LOL
and still the oil barons rub their wallets !!!
Fools the lot of you... believe anything except hard factual evidence... la te da, la la land !!!
It is all as I have been broadcasting over the net forums for over a decade... and to individuals for over 25 years...... notified media...governments
lol, everyone ! and all I get was/is derision
LOL, love the fool, but I will happily bury them!!
I have even put it all in a book I wrote and published last year..... but y'all know better
see "The Death of Clouds"
LOLGood luck, you might be lucky ...it may only be your children's problem !!!
The last of their kind...
aren't homo sapiens nice................. NOT
But I am sure it will all go bottom up in a rather short time, so you may learn to freeze to death..
sorry, I really have NO SYMPATHY whatsoever.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Apr 30 2008, 03:30 AM)
Global warming was due to the loss of clouds
condensation clouds are basically dead
Now the Ice clouds cometh
and the oil is still there and no one cares
Yes an Ice Age cometh, but not in the near term
the areas not covered in Ice Clouds will just bake dry and dryer... until that area is so dry the Ice Clouds cometh..
This planet is doomed... and LIFE will be no more.... here
LOL LOL
Actually it's rather inevitable that the Earth will continue to cool as the core is still much hotter than the surface and there's not an infinite supply of energy internal to the Earth.
The Moon is much smaller and has already lost most its heat over time. The Earth has been cooling over time and will continue to.
Yes, none of us are likely to see the next Ice Age and I assume people would have at least decades to prepare for colder temperatures, but it's still a one way process.
Actually the heat from the Earth' interior is rather incidental
Even the heat from the Sun is incidental to Earth's climate
The major play is water.. a LIFE made unnatural substance that has remarkable characteristics... mainly (in this case) its latent heat and other thermal qualities, its molecular lightness and its ability to form clouds
It is designed by LIFE for many roles but as far as "warmth" goes it is designed as a thermostatic blanket to encase the body of LIFE.
Rather neat... and "out there".... do you have free will ?????
LOL
Even the heat from the Sun is incidental to Earth's climate
The major play is water.. a LIFE made unnatural substance that has remarkable characteristics... mainly (in this case) its latent heat and other thermal qualities, its molecular lightness and its ability to form clouds
It is designed by LIFE for many roles but as far as "warmth" goes it is designed as a thermostatic blanket to encase the body of LIFE.
Rather neat... and "out there".... do you have free will ?????
LOL
QUOTE (StevenA+Aug 25 2007, 04:46 AM)
Why doesn't this stuff make the news?
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Pag...L20070816b.html
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=197342
I've read a couple stories regarding a Canadian blogger that managed to call attentions to miscalculations on temperature information beginning in 2000. There was a spike in the data beginning then that didn't match other temperature records.
Apparently NASA has been including incorrect temperature data in their calculations and after pressure has rectified this. The average change is temperatures since this was altered has been a drop by ~0.15C, which now places 1934 as being the hottest year in U.S. history and this correction leaves little of any evidence suggesting that there are any trends in temperature over the last century. Temperatures peaked in the 30s and then dropped again (which led to the Ice Age scares in the 70s and 80s) and have since returned to close to highs (with the resulting Warming scares ... we'll probably be back to worrying about the next Ice Age in a couple decades).
This doesn't make the news because Heidi Cullen and the Weather Channel have their own agenda.
The funny thing is, if you watch your local news on the Weather channel, you will often see "todays record high/low" and very often this record is at least 30 years old, and is still quite often to see records that remain from the 20's and 30's.
Yet they will TELL you that "15 of the past 25 years are the hottest on record".
That is simply a lie.
It isn't even true in modern times, much less when you consider the medieval warm period and other warm periods in earth history.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Pag...L20070816b.html
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=197342
I've read a couple stories regarding a Canadian blogger that managed to call attentions to miscalculations on temperature information beginning in 2000. There was a spike in the data beginning then that didn't match other temperature records.
Apparently NASA has been including incorrect temperature data in their calculations and after pressure has rectified this. The average change is temperatures since this was altered has been a drop by ~0.15C, which now places 1934 as being the hottest year in U.S. history and this correction leaves little of any evidence suggesting that there are any trends in temperature over the last century. Temperatures peaked in the 30s and then dropped again (which led to the Ice Age scares in the 70s and 80s) and have since returned to close to highs (with the resulting Warming scares ... we'll probably be back to worrying about the next Ice Age in a couple decades).
This doesn't make the news because Heidi Cullen and the Weather Channel have their own agenda.
The funny thing is, if you watch your local news on the Weather channel, you will often see "todays record high/low" and very often this record is at least 30 years old, and is still quite often to see records that remain from the 20's and 30's.
Yet they will TELL you that "15 of the past 25 years are the hottest on record".
That is simply a lie.
It isn't even true in modern times, much less when you consider the medieval warm period and other warm periods in earth history.
QUOTE
That is simply a lie.
THEY are all lying.. backed by Big OIL
even various nations are starting to show by their lack of interest because all the figures are not stacking up for a "greenhouse warming" scenario
THIS IS DANGEROUS... just because the model put forward is really really contrived and blatantly stupid
it does not mean that Global Climate Change is not happening
it is happening alright !!.... but the cause is free OIL in the marine environment....
And meanwhile this world is sliding further and further into doom.
"Yet they will TELL you that "15 of the past 25 years are the hottest on record".
That is simply a lie."
OK if that is a lie then please feel free to post temperature records which support your case-tell us which 15 years in the last 100 Globally the hottest?
The UK has records going back 300 years-care to tell us which 15 years are the hottest in the UK since 1700?
Links please.
I am not going to hold my breath.
That is simply a lie."
OK if that is a lie then please feel free to post temperature records which support your case-tell us which 15 years in the last 100 Globally the hottest?
The UK has records going back 300 years-care to tell us which 15 years are the hottest in the UK since 1700?
Links please.
I am not going to hold my breath.
QUOTE (Z42+Jun 16 2008, 12:06 PM)
Links please.
I am not going to hold my breath.
I don't think Quantum_Conundrum is capable of comprehending that an otherwise cool year is still statistically likely to have a few record-breaking days in it.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.