Now here's some news. Global temperature data has just changed for the better. Was is due to a reduction in CO2 output? Or perhaps due to increased use of alternative fuels?

No. It was the Y2K bug. Remember how 1998 was the hottest year on record? Not anymore. Now it's 1934! And that's not all. 5 of the 10 hottest years on record occured before WW2.

What's responsible for this change? The detection and correction of an error in calculation caused by Y2K.

While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or "jump" in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000.

These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). 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.

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge.

Then again -- maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media.
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html
http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+Finds+Y2K+Bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm

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 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.
Somehow the flaw in 2001-2007 U.S. data was advertised on the internet and for two
days I have been besieged by rants that I have wronged the President, that I must “step down”, or
that I must “vanish”. Hmm, I am not very good at magic tricks.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_LightUpstairs_70810.pdf

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 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.
Somehow the flaw in 2001-2007 U.S. data was advertised on the internet and for two
days I have been besieged by rants that I have wronged the President, that I must “step down”, or
that I must “vanish”. Hmm, I am not very good at magic tricks.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_LightUpstairs_70810.pdf
Your post, which I assume is just a quote from your link, completely contradicts mine and the evidence. Your quote claims 1934 was always considered the hottest year. Really?

Climate Experts Worry as 2006 Is Hottest Year on Record in U.S.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901949.html
2005 Tied 1998 As World's Hottest Yearhttp://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/recordtemp2005.html
NASA and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) both released data showing that 1998 was the hottest year on record, by a surprisingly large ...www.gsreport.com/articles/art000009.html

Your quote makes it seem that this correction is no big deal, but you'll notice if you do a goggle search that the media and global warming propaganda machine have been proclaiming almost every year the hottest ever to create the impression of a crisis. This correction throws all of that overboard.

I don't know why right leaning people don't rely on their senses and eyes. Instead, they are searching the murkiest sources supporting their "business/plunder as usual" desires. It's getting warmer in the many places I've been to, I don't need any grant eaters to verify my senses and visual perceptions. Just small friendly advice, to get even surer that nothing threatens "mindless consumer paradise" (meaning consumers with $ and dead taste buds:) or any taste for that matter ) suggest the right grant eaters to include molten core and troposhere in the calculations of the average Earth temperatures. I'm sure that such calculations will support your deep seated believes absolutely.

Mostly, I think they are worried about the economic impact to their lifestyle.

Its hardly a selfless concern that drives them.

Mostly, I think they are worried about the economic impact to their lifestyle.

Its hardly a selfless concern that drives them.

Agreed. In our capitalistic world, global change means a global hit to economies who fear or cannot fathom sudden change. While I think the planet has its checks and balances on the global warming phenomenon -- which perhaps is why we have NOT seen overnight changes in climate regions, our own proliferation of greenhouse gasses and stratospheric abnormalities will eventually cause the planet to undergo climate change to wipe out (e.g. make disfunctional geographically and economically) those areas of the globe causing the abnormalities.

MAD- you might like to notice that there is a difference between the COntinental USA and the rest of the world. This may of course be something of a shock to you.

You see, 1998 was the armest year on record in the world. 1934 was the warmest year on record in the continental USA. (They had thought that 1998 tied with it) Now, as for 2006, I don't have any info right now one way or another, but I'm afraid at the moment, your claims regarding global warming are a pile of mince.

Is that why they named it "global" warming instead of "national" warming? :)

I'm not quite clear on this, having been involved in the Y2K remediation project. (Like every programmer on the planet. People who say it wasn't a crisis have no idea how much labor went into making sure that it wasn't a crisis!) Are we saying that the incorrect numbers are the result of bugs in the original code? Or in the remediated code?

Uh, guys: The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge. So anyone more interested in US progaganda than in the climate will have a reason to pay attention to the effects of this discovery.

Aside from its uses to Exxon's fee-for-service "scientists", it doesn't make any difference to anything.

I don't know why right leaning people don't rely on their senses and eyes. It's getting warmer in the many places I've been to,
Yes I remember huge snows in the seventies. You may recall that it was so cold the scare mongerers were screaming about an impending ice age caused by excess emissions of soot and other particulate matter.

Funny that no matter what the problem, even the exact opposite problem, the solution is always the same. Decrease energy use. Lower your standard of living. Increase government regulations. Decrease freedom.

Fuck all that. Your "evidence" is anecdotal and doesn't mean crap. But, frankly, it's about as good as any of the so called "science" of global warming.

When you can reliably predict the weather say, a year in advance, perhaps then I'll listen to your prognostications on weather conditions 100 years hence. Until then, I'm not buying what you're selling.

I'm not quite clear on this, having been involved in the Y2K remediation project. (Like every programmer on the planet.

Apparently nothing to do with the year 2000 thingy at all:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/


On Monday, the people who work on the temperature analysis (not me), looked into it and found that this coincided with the switch between two sources of US temperature data. There had been a faulty assumption that these two sources matched, but that turned out not to be the case. There were in fact a number of small offsets (of both sign) between the same stations in the two different data sets. The obvious fix was to make an adjustment based on a period of overlap so that these offsets disappear.

The thing about 1934, 1998, and 2006, is explained as follows:

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.

From:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/so_who_exactly_reported_that_n.php#comment-533463

More information can be found on that page.

What an exhibition of ignorance. Anyone who puts any merit into this has just surrendered all credibility.

What an exhibition of ignorance. Anyone who puts any merit into this has just surrendered all credibility.Earth Science is one of this website's scientific subforums. Please comport yourself like a scientist in these halls. You have not participated in this discussion so you can't fall back on the excuse that you've been trying to explain this to us knuckleheads and you just can't get through so you're expressing your frustration.

You don't jump into our discussions and just start insulting people without making a single substantive statement. That is not science, that is trolling and it is a violation of the rules. If you have something to offer, do so.

An interesting sidenote to this story, apparently the guy who noticed the data irregularity is the same guy who debunked Gore's famous "hockey stick".
Stephen McIntyre, who set off the uproar, described his finding as a "a micro-change. But it was kind of fun."

A former mining executive who runs the blog ClimateAudit.org, McIntyre, 59, earned attention in 2003 when he put out data challenging the so-called "hockey stick" graph depicting a spike in global temperatures.

This time, he sifted NASA's use of temperature anomalies, which measure how much warmer or colder a place is at a given time compared with its 30-year average.

Puzzled by a bizarre "jump" in the U.S. anomalies from 1999 to 2000, McIntyre discovered the data after 1999 wasn't being fractionally adjusted to allow for the times of day that readings were taken or the locations of the monitoring stations.

McIntyre emailed his finding to NASA's Goddard Institute, triggering the data review.

"They moved pretty fast on this," McIntyre said. "There must have been some long faces." http://www.thestar.com/News/article/246027
And another interesting tidbit in the news today:
"Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."

The article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."

Sounds like a typical alarmist global warming story, until you notice the publication date: The Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post. Apparently there are many such stories from that era on record. Could it be that the global temperature fluctuated even before we increased CO2 output?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070814/NATION02/108140063

The one thing that always seemed to be missed in regards to global warming is the worlds increase in Radio-Telecommunications. If you were to look at the figures from the days of Marconi and the first broadcasts you'd notice a steady increase in Radio-Telecommunications over the years as it expands with it's use in regards to technology.

I have a suspicion that Radio waves are the reason for Icecap retreats. A simple experiment would pretty much justify it.

two boxes would be required, one Shielded from external influence and the other having either a simulated radio-spectrum environment like we have now or the actual environment we have now. In the boxes two identically sized pieces of Ice are placed, it is then timed how long they take to melt. I'm suggesting that even if the boxes maintain the same temperature, the one with the radio-spectrum will melt sooner because the ice crystals will be oscillating in regards to the radiology.

(I often considered if the secret to Cryogenic freezing was to freeze with an oscillating frequency to stop ice crystals forming, which is the main reason for the thoughts on Ice caps melting)

LOL!

Are you seriously expecting anybody to take that guff seriously without any evidence or data?

He's having a larf.

Don't use a mobile phone, Stryder. Your head will melt.

Sorry. Too late:)))

Could it be that the global temperature fluctuated even before we increased CO2 output?Of course it did. There were ice ages, duh. There was even an era of warming during medieval times, when England had vineyards and the inland waterways of Scandinavia were navigable. I agree that trying to place blame for the current warming trend is unwise because it distracts people from the need for a solution. The point is that scientific models indicate we can slow it down or even halt it by curtailing our own emissions.

The planet as a whole survived temperature rises in which sea level rose and fell by 200 feet. Even its ecosystem apparently survived too since we're here. But there was no civilization then. Civilization by its nature tended to spring up around seaports which facilitated the exchange of goods, technology and culture. Today one tenth of the human population still lives within 30 feet of sea level, and most of our cities with more than five million inhabitants are also in that region.

Considering that most of humanity waited until 1999 to launch the Y2K remediation of billions of lines of software code, I don't hold out a lot of hope for their response to a rise in sea level. Unfortunately the same pessimism applies to the much more abstract threat of global warming.LOL! Are you seriously expecting anybody to take that guff seriously without any evidence or data? He's having a larf. Don't use a mobile phone, Stryder. Your head will melt. Sorry. Too late:)))Don't you think it would be more effective to have explained why he was wrong? Most of the people who come here are children who don't have your vast knowledge of physics and this would be a great opportunity to share it.

Sunlight is electromagnetic radiation. It causes molecules to move more quickly, which is another way to say that the matter they comprise becomes hotter. Can you explain why it's impossible for a solid--particularly a crystalline solid like water ice--to vibrate in response to electromagnetic radiation? This seems like a good exercise in explaining science.

Funny that no matter what the problem, even the exact opposite problem, the solution is always the same. Decrease energy use. Lower your standard of living. Increase government regulations. Decrease freedom.

Even unrelated problems, like global terrorism. :D

An interesting sidenote to this story, apparently the guy who noticed the data irregularity is the same guy who debunked Gore's famous "hockey stick". I thought that name sounded familiar - he collaborated with another guy of similar political leanings and scientific integrity to embarass himself by arguing over paleontological and early historical climate data he knew nothing about.

The graph he and his colleague, (both statisticians with no experience at climate modeling, paleontology, meteorology, or any other relevant scientific field ) came up with had a dramatic warm spell in Europe just about the time all the canals in Holland froze hard, and the Thames froze over - among other oddities in their approach. Apparenlty they hadn't checked their theoretical statistical "corrections" against real world evidence.

The "debunking" lasted about as long as it took a few professionals to look it over, and the hockey stick is still around - albeit modified in light of informed and cogent criticism by others.

And it was never, and is not now, "Gore's" hockey stick. Gore had nothing to do with it.

The one thing that always seemed to be missed in regards to global warming is the worlds increase in Radio-Telecommunications. If you were to look at the figures from the days of Marconi and the first broadcasts you'd notice a steady increase in Radio-Telecommunications over the years as it expands with it's use in regards to technology.

I have a suspicion that Radio waves are the reason for Icecap retreats. A simple experiment would pretty much justify it.

two boxes would be required, one Shielded from external influence and the other having either a simulated radio-spectrum environment like we have now or the actual environment we have now. In the boxes two identically sized pieces of Ice are placed, it is then timed how long they take to melt. I'm suggesting that even if the boxes maintain the same temperature, the one with the radio-spectrum will melt sooner because the ice crystals will be oscillating in regards to the radiology.

(I often considered if the secret to Cryogenic freezing was to freeze with an oscillating frequency to stop ice crystals forming, which is the main reason for the thoughts on Ice caps melting)

Stryder...if I were the Mod here I'd lock this thread due to inane rambling theories that are so bizarre as to blow the mind (which they have in your case)...can you elucidate in any way whtsoever why we should take your odd theory seriously?

Take that as a challenge!

I thought that name sounded familiar - he collaborated with another guy of similar political leanings and scientific integrity to embarass himself by arguing over paleontological and early historical climate data he knew nothing about.

The graph he and his colleague, (both statisticians with no experience at climate modeling, paleontology, meteorology, or any other relevant scientific field ) came up with had a dramatic warm spell in Europe just about the time all the canals in Holland froze hard, and the Thames froze over - among other oddities in their approach. Apparenlty they hadn't checked their theoretical statistical "corrections" against real world evidence.

The "debunking" lasted about as long as it took a few professionals to look it over, and the hockey stick is still around - albeit modified in light of informed and cogent criticism by others.

And it was never, and is not now, "Gore's" hockey stick. Gore had nothing to do with it.

This is one of the grossest misrepresentation I have ever seen. That guy happens to be a retired expert statistician and all he did, since he had nothing more to do, was checking the statistics -his expertise- of the hockeystick, and found extreme spinning. Then he applied the correct statistical procedures, which showed a completely different result.

There are lots of self proclaimed 'experts', Andre, when they are in the pay of various Establishments of whatever leaning they should be treated with more scpeticsim that you re giving them

On the other hand..speaking from my base here in the UK..it very much suits the State to Tax the hell out of by means of something called 'Green Taxes'.

Stryder...if I were the Mod here I'd lock this thread due to inane rambling theories that are so bizarre as to blow the mind (which they have in your case)...can you elucidate in any way whtsoever why we should take your odd theory seriously?

Take that as a challenge!

Then it's a good job you aren't a moderator.

My theory was put forwards as is, a theory. I attempted to put forwards the apparatus needed to test the theory, in fact there are many other variants of test that could be done. (e.g. Fresh water vs Salt water, atmospheric makeup like elevated CH4 or COX, different barometric pressures)

Radiology isn't magic, it doesn't just get broadcast from a location and suddenly get received at the other end. It has to go through the process of travelling and in it's travels it comes across a certain amount of resistance through either being absorbed or reflected.

As you should know our atmosphere is not a vacuum, it contains free floating molecules that require only a certain amount of energy through specific frequencies to change from one molecular state to another. You should also know that when such molecules are excited they can also change in state, for instance a body of water absorbing the suns radiation can raise a few degrees cause it evaporate a little which in turn creates moisture in the air that when cooled turns to rain.

The radiology we kick out is only different in relationship to the suns energy by which ranges of the spectrum we tend to use, it doesn't undermine that any forms of energy transformation can occur from that radiations absorption. (e.g. Evaporation)

Do you think people like Marconi back when they were analysing Radiology knew of the implications of their Discovery? Do you think they knew how the future of our world would utilise their Discoveries without really bringing into question what Environmental or Health impacts they would create?

In all due respects they didn't have that forethought, I mean how could they know?

The only one that even came close to the dangers was Tesla with his vision of a Deathray (although it's a little different from Environmental concerns).

Radiology IMHO has travelled the same route as Tobacco to an extent, it's been given a legal placement that its even beyond the gods to revoke. (Too many people have and will continue to make money from it's inception.)

I know there are uses for Radiology as long as they are localised uses, but denying that radiology has any effect on our Environment or Health is ludicrous.

Off-topic, there is far more proof supporting my theory than any proof suggesting that Astrology can be any more than a 'Placebo Effect'. I mention this since this after all the sort of rebate you are dieing to inflict upon yourself. (Your posts can be regarded as, Baiting.)

There are lots of self proclaimed 'experts', Andre, when they are in the pay of various Establishments of whatever leaning they should be treated with more scpeticsim that you re giving them

On the other hand..speaking from my base here in the UK..it very much suits the State to Tax the hell out of by means of something called 'Green Taxes'.


What exactly means self proclaimed 'experts', when we're talking about this guy (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/stevebio.doc). What exactly is so self-proclaimed about a statistician doing statistics?

That guy happens to be a retired expert statistician and all he did, since he had nothing more to do, was checking the statistics -his expertise- of the hockeystick, and found extreme spinning. Then he applied the correct statistical procedures, which showed a completely different result. And his new results were in contradiction of known physical fact.

Which is something he did not know, because actual climate is something he knew nothing about.

Whereas the original result, which was obtained by people who knew something about what ther numbers represented and had chosen their techniques accordingly, agreed with what was known about the climate of the Middle Ages, etc.

Now the original hockey stick was produced by people who were not primarily expert statisticians, and did make some mistakes - which turned out to be minor;

perhaps because they had ways of seeing when they were going badly wrong, and an actual interest in being right? It's a possibility.

These minor flaws were exaggerated and propagandaized.

MacIntyre's "corrections" - and even more so his accusations - have been used to attack the "hockey stick" ever since. They have also been used to attack any scientific or political position that the hockey stick supported, even by chance - getting the order of argument backwards, as in common with propagandists.

But the "corrected" or "MacIntyre" graph has not replaced the hockey stick, or itself become part of the data base of climate research and analysis (as the suitably and responsibly modified hockey stick remains) because it is worthless.

For a more accurate depiction of the hockeystick drama check:

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/von_Storch/spiegel041004.html
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/
http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf
http://energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/07192006hearing1987/Wegman.pdf
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part2_HockeyStick.htm

For a more accurate depiction of the hockeystick drama check: And after you have sorted out the various and conflicting criticisms linked there - which range from 1000 to 10,000 years of error, and a similar order of magnitude differences in the asserted temp rise of the medieval warm period - you can Google around for more info on the hockey stick issue - which is, scientifically speaking, a non-drama.

Including many, many discussions and treatments of the Medieval Warm Period, going back many years before Mann's analysis. Which is not all that controversial, and did not in itself invalidate the hockey stick graph, and was not discovered by McIntyre and McKintrick. (A link to what their statistical analysis asserted, before it was corrected by experienced professionals, would have been interesting).

This now somewhat outdated site has a fair number of links, to start: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11