Global Warming an artifact of Y2K?

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.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

 

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.

 

Uh, guys:

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

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.

 

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".

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

))

 

Even unrelated problems, like global terrorism.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.