NASA adjusts global temperature data...

[Scott Lowther]

... downwards.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/revised_temp_data_reduces_glob.html


1998 was not the hottest US year ever. Nor was 2006 the runner up.

Sure, had you checked NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)
website just days ago, you would have thought so, but not today. You
see, thanks to the efforts of Steve McIntyre over at
http://www.climateaudit.org/, the Surface Air Temperature Anomaly charts
for those and many other years have been revised - predominately down.

Why?

It's a wild and technical story of compromised weather stations and hack
computer algorithms (including, get this - a latent Y2K bug) and those
wishing to read the fascinating details should follow ALL of the links
I've provided. But, simply stated, McIntyre not only proved the error
of the calculations used to interpret the data from the 1000 plus US
Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) weather stations feeding GISS,
but also the cascading effect of that error on past data.

You see, as Warren Meyer over at Coyoteblog.com (whose recent email
expressed a delight we share in the irony of this correction taking
place the week of the Gore / Newsweek story) points out:

"One of the interesting aspects of these temperature data bases is
that they do not just use the raw temperature measurements from each
station. Both the NOAA (which maintains the USHCN stations) and the
GISS apply many layers of adjustments."

It was the gross folly of these "fudge factors" McIntyre challenged NASA
on. And won.

Today, not only have the charts and graphs been modified, but the GISS
website includes this acknowledgement that:

"the USHCN station records up to 1999 were replaced by a version of
USHCN data with further corrections after an adjustment computed by
comparing the common 1990-1999 period of the two data sets. (We wish to
thank Stephen McIntyre for bringing to our attention that such an
adjustment is necessary to prevent creating an artificial jump in year
2000.)"

[Azzy Asbjorn]

Post by Scott Lowther
... downwards.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/revised_temp_data_reduces...
1998 was not the hottest US year ever. Nor was 2006 the runner up.

http://realclimate.org/

See 10 Aug entry.

[Doug Frisk]

Post by Azzy Asbjorn

Post by Scott Lowther
... downwards.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/revised_temp_data_reduces...
1998 was not the hottest US year ever. Nor was 2006 the runner up.

http://realclimate.org/
See 10 Aug entry.

Interesting blog, confirms what Scott posted. As alarmists have been
trotting out the 1998 was the hottest year ever for the past 8 years, I
think it being "dethroned" is worthy of being mentioned.

Here's a graph of the corrected data:

Loading Image...

OK, I see a relatively cool period from 1880 to 1920, a warm period from
1920 to 1960, a cool period from 1960 to 1980 and a warmer period from 1980
to today. Dealing with cycles that are 80 years or greater (1880 to 1960)
you can't take 130 years of data as indicating a trend. Worse, taking the
last 30 years as an ongoing unstoppable trend leaves you open to the same
hysteria that folks in the mid 70s fell to with "global cooling".

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Doug Frisk

Post by Azzy Asbjorn

Post by Scott Lowther
... downwards.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/revised_temp_data_reduces...
1998 was not the hottest US year ever. Nor was 2006 the runner up.

http://realclimate.org/
See 10 Aug entry.

Interesting blog, confirms what Scott posted. As alarmists have been
trotting out the 1998 was the hottest year ever for the past 8 years, I
think it being "dethroned" is worthy of being mentioned.

BRAVO! Someone gets it!

Post by Doug Frisk
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_lrg.gif
OK, I see a relatively cool period from 1880 to 1920, a warm period from
1920 to 1960, a cool period from 1960 to 1980 and a warmer period from
1980 to today. Dealing with cycles that are 80 years or greater (1880
to 1960) you can't take 130 years of data as indicating a trend. Worse,
taking the last 30 years as an ongoing unstoppable trend leaves you open
to the same hysteria that folks in the mid 70s fell to with "global
cooling".

And you get it some more!



The problem with this issue is that far, far too many on the
anthropogenic global warming-advocacy side employ dishonest rhetorical
tactics. As these tactics and their results are easily debunked - look,
for example, at "An Inconvenient Truth," which was chock full of
excaggerations, hyperbole and deceptive graphics - it muddies the actual
policy options. Rather than dealing honestly, too many on Gore's side
make their side look like a bunch of loonie liars, thus obscuring *real*
data that actually backs up a good deal of what they have to say. The
only rational explanation for much of this is that for far too many, the
issue if *not* fighting global warming, but enacting socialist policies
world-wide. See: Greenpeace.

[Doug Frisk]

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Doug Frisk
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_lrg.gif
OK, I see a relatively cool period from 1880 to 1920, a warm period from
1920 to 1960, a cool period from 1960 to 1980 and a warmer period from
1980 to today. Dealing with cycles that are 80 years or greater (1880 to
1960) you can't take 130 years of data as indicating a trend. Worse,
taking the last 30 years as an ongoing unstoppable trend leaves you open
to the same hysteria that folks in the mid 70s fell to with "global
cooling".

And you get it some more!
The problem with this issue is that far, far too many on the anthropogenic
global warming-advocacy side employ dishonest rhetorical tactics. As these
tactics and their results are easily debunked - look, for example, at "An
Inconvenient Truth," which was chock full of excaggerations, hyperbole and
deceptive graphics - it muddies the actual policy options. Rather than
dealing honestly, too many on Gore's side make their side look like a
bunch of loonie liars, thus obscuring *real* data that actually backs up a
good deal of what they have to say.

Indeed, a look at that graph shows *perhaps* a rise of .6 to .8c over 130
years. But the graph looks as though it may start in the middle of a cool
cycle and is quite obviously ending in a warm cycle. The "real" rise may be
.2 to .4 over that 130 years. The real rise may be zero.

It's human nature to take a look at the trend in front of you and project it
out as if it's permanent. I've been quietly (and not so quietly) predicting
the current collapse in the mortgage market for about 5 years. The whole
thing was predicated on a continual rise in home values, something that has
never happened for more than 20 or 30 years. Owners were refinancing away
their debt and rolling it into their home mortgages and banks were lending
100 to 110% of value on the assumption that 100% today would be 90% next
year and 80% the year after. Anyone with common sense could see that
eventually housing prices would stop rising and this continual refi cycle
would collapse. Unfortunately, common sense seems to have left a lot of
homeowners, mortgage brokers and hedge fund providers.

Taking drastic action based on a 30 year weather trend is not a good plan.
The earth may be warming, but to blame carbon dioxide as the only culprit is
shortsighted. It's pretty apparent that there's a correlation between
particulate air pollution and the planet's albedo. It's pretty apparent
that sun activity cycles have an impact.

Let's not forget that according to the doom and gloom crowd, this was
supposed to be another record hurricane season just like last year was
supposed to be a record. That crowd is having a hard enough time predicting
short term disaster much less long term.

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Doug Frisk

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Doug Frisk
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_lrg.gif
OK, I see a relatively cool period from 1880 to 1920, a warm period
from 1920 to 1960, a cool period from 1960 to 1980 and a warmer
period from 1980 to today. Dealing with cycles that are 80 years or
greater (1880 to 1960) you can't take 130 years of data as indicating
a trend. Worse, taking the last 30 years as an ongoing unstoppable
trend leaves you open to the same hysteria that folks in the mid 70s
fell to with "global cooling".

And you get it some more!
The problem with this issue is that far, far too many on the
anthropogenic global warming-advocacy side employ dishonest rhetorical
tactics. As these tactics and their results are easily debunked -
look, for example, at "An Inconvenient Truth," which was chock full of
excaggerations, hyperbole and deceptive graphics - it muddies the
actual policy options. Rather than dealing honestly, too many on
Gore's side make their side look like a bunch of loonie liars, thus
obscuring *real* data that actually backs up a good deal of what they
have to say.

Indeed, a look at that graph shows *perhaps* a rise of .6 to .8c over
130 years. But the graph looks as though it may start in the middle of
a cool cycle ....

AKA "The Little Ice Age." An era cooler than ours, and categoriezed by
crop failures, famine and plague. I like cooler temperatures. But at the
exp4ense of massive death? No, thanks.


and is quite obviously ending in a warm cycle. The "real"

Post by Doug Frisk
rise may be .2 to .4 over that 130 years. The real rise may be zero.
It's human nature to take a look at the trend in front of you and
project it out as if it's permanent. I've been quietly (and not so
quietly) predicting the current collapse in the mortgage market for
about 5 years. The whole thing was predicated on a continual rise in
home values, something that has never happened for more than 20 or 30
years.

I bought my home in Califonria in 2000 for something like $275K. For
1100 square feet of shithole in the middle of nowhere. In 2004, it sold
for somethign like $440K. If I'd waited a few more months, I coudl ahve
gotten half a mil for it. And in the few years I lived in it... the
house got objectively *worse.* Not only did the neighborhood go straight
to hell (when I left I was the last in the neighborhood who could speak
English fluently), but the fact that it was sitting on an active fault
line meant that the yard was about 3 inches narrower and something like
8 inches longer, and the house itself was being slowly pulled apart.

Such incredible rates of return for diminishing actual value clearly
could not last. Biggest relief of my life was when escrow closed and
that check cleared...

Post by Doug Frisk
Taking drastic action based on a 30 year weather trend is not a good plan.

No, but it's a *great* way to motivate masses to get them to allow you
to reduce their rights and option. Nay, it's a great way to get them to
*demand* that you reduce their rights and options.


The earth may be warming, but to blame carbon dioxide as the only

Post by Doug Frisk
culprit is shortsighted. It's pretty apparent that there's a
correlation between particulate air pollution and the planet's albedo.

Yup. More air pollution, the brighter the Earth gets... and the *cooler*
it gets. So here's a basic conflict: if you want the Earth to stop
warming, start polluting.

Post by Doug Frisk
Let's not forget that according to the doom and gloom crowd, this was
supposed to be another record hurricane season just like last year was
supposed to be a record.

In fairness, there's still another month or so, and IIRC, September is
when it gets worst. But so far it's looking pretty bland.


Huricanes are another weapon of bullshit in the climate alarmists
arsenal. "The earth is warming so huricanes will get worse" is a common
refrain, but it's not one grounded in reality. When the Earth warms,
hurricane activity goes *down.* Yes, there's more energy available for
storms... but what makes storms powerful if not total energy, but shear
forces and temperature differentials. Both of which decrease on a warmer
earth.


That crowd is having a hard enough time

Post by Doug Frisk
predicting short term disaster much less long term.

[Azzy Asbjorn]

Post by Doug Frisk

Post by Azzy Asbjorn

Post by Scott Lowther
... downwards.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/revised_temp_data_reduces...
1998 was not the hottest US year ever. Nor was 2006 the runner up.

http://realclimate.org/
See 10 Aug entry.

Interesting blog, confirms what Scott posted.

Not exactly (detail is distinction), but I'll let the scientists do
the debating on whether smoking tobacco is unhealthy, evolutionary
theory is valid, and climate change is being induced at least in part
by people. The list of scientific organizations holding each position
above is convincingly comprehensive.

Not interested in all the arm-waving, name-calling, and Gore-wants-to-
be-Pope conspiracy theories that come when trying to discuss the
issue. Scientific reference provided, I'll move to calmer issues, like
religion or the death penalty.

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Azzy Asbjorn
I'll let the scientists do
the debating on whether smoking tobacco is unhealthy, evolutionary
theory is valid, and climate change is being induced at least in part
by people.

For about the billionth time: THAT IS NOT UNDER DEBATE.

Post by Azzy Asbjorn
Not interested in all the arm-waving, name-calling, and Gore-wants-to-
be-Pope conspiracy theories that come when trying to discuss the
issue.

Yes, you are... as evidenced by the fact that that is *precisely* what
you are supporting by way of your dishonest diversionary statements.

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Azzy Asbjorn

Post by Scott Lowther
... downwards.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/revised_temp_data_reduces...
1998 was not the hottest US year ever. Nor was 2006 the runner up.

http://realclimate.org/
See 10 Aug entry.

Typical hysterics, completely missing the point of the importance of the
slight downward shift in the data.