Posted on 08/12/2007 10:38:32 AM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
You done good. *applause*
Thanks E. I’m having a Sex Pistols flashback...
I’d like your perspective on this.
Sure. When and where did NASA GISS say that 1998 was warmer than 1934? (I'm not talking about NOAA; NASA GISS)
There's my perspective for you. Here's some help:
"The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934." (written in 1999)
"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."
It appears to me that there is still a LOT (I mean a LOT, I mean a TREMENDOUS AMOUNT, I mean a MAJOR, SIGNIFICANT, LARGE, STUPENDOUS, ASTONOMAZING, STUPEFYING, I-WOULDN'T-BELIEVE-PEOPLE-COULD-BE-SO-DUMB-UNLESS-I-WITNESSED-IT-MYSELF)
of confusion between the difference of the word "GLOBAL", and the terms "United States" or "U.S."
It has always been claimed, and will always be claimed, and will never change until a new record is set, that 1998 was the warmest year, GLOBALLY, ever recorded in the standard instrumental record, which titularly begins in the 1880s. I don't try to remember the official start year. NASA GISS never claimed, ever, ever, ever, ever, that 1998 was warmer than 1934 in the UNITED STATES. They clearly say that uncertainty and variability is such that no new temperature record year could really be claimed until the annual temperature anomaly exceeded 1934 by 0.1 C or more, not 0.01, not 0.02, not 0.03, not 0.04... etc. all the way up to 0.09.
Finalmente, my own vanity post on this:
A little perspective on the U.S. and global temperature records
In addition to what I wrote to post, my follow-up posting #69 has both a plot and a link to other plots of interest.
"The main reason that 1998 is relatively cooler in the GISS analysis [compared to USHCN] 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.
Here's what gets me:
People calling for Hansen's head haven't read stuff like this. They swallow the spin, mistakes and all. (And they're also frequently confusing U.S. with global, which makes it worse.)
GISS is more conservative than other analyses with regards to urban warming. This will "retard" their analysis with respect to observing a new U.S. temperature record. Is this "alarmism"?
I've seen a lot of people confusing the NOAA pronouncements, and their DIFFERENT analysis, and NASA GISS. McIntyre even said it was just "alphabet soup".
"This press release was widely covered as you can determine by googling "warmest year 2006 united states". Now NOAA and NASA are different organizations and NOAA, not NASA, made the above press release, but members of the public can surely be forgiven for not making fine distinctions between different alphabet soups."
But when people are disparaging someone's character, accusing them of agenda-driven science, and calling for his resignation...
I think having the FACTS right is somewhat important.
Thanks for your perspective and analysis.
Although I was aware that this is only for U.S. temperatures and not global temperatures, I found the data disparity interesting.
This is a HUGE scandal but the MSM is in complete blackout.
They are blacking out all anti-leftiwng issues.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Hats off to Climateaudit.
NOAA still shows 1998 and 2006 as being warmer than 1934. Will NASA now be branded as a nest of deniers?
> A new scandal?
“Global Warming” is the Y2K of the 21st Century. It is the “Reds under the beds” of our Generation.
“New Scandal?” Crikey, yes! Lookit who is heading it up — the formerly thoroughly-discredited Al Gore “Inventor of the Internet” and failed Democrat Presidential Candidate.
A beautiful — if obvious — diversionary tactic by the Chicken-Little brigade. “The Sky is Falling! The Earth is Heating Up!”
And there are people out there who are just stupid and thick enough to fall for it. Some of them run governments around the world: so they sign up to a Kyoto Protocol, which will have no real meaningful effect except to transfer untold wealth from some productive parts of the planet to other free-loading parts.
Crikey! What a Scam!
*DieHard*
Good work on the Wayback Sherman!
But seriously, have the mods take your real name off this thread.
Buckhead got death threats. I’m not kidding.
Is there anyway you could remove the names on post 68 without removing the post itself?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1793934/posts?page=82#82.
Received the following in my inbox:
xxxx
-—— Original Message -——From: UltraTo: MikeSent: Friday, August 17, 2007 7:57 PMSubject: RE: “1998 was Colder than 1934...in 2002?”Ah, I wasn’t aware of this (and yes, I am Ultra Sonic 007).This ClimateAudit post seems to focus on the differences between data presented by GISS and how it was later presented by NOAA, whereas mine focuses on differences between the same page of GISS data, but at different times.Still, this is quite interesting. Mind if I post this on the Free Republic thread?
From: Mike Sent: Fri 8/17/2007 2:48 PM To: Ultra Subject: “1998 was Colder than 1934...in 2002?”I hope I am sending this to Ultra Sonic 007. I found your email address through links to your 8/12/07 article in Free Republic. I found that article through a link at junkscience.com.Maybe others in the Comments section pointed this out, but your discovery that the GISS data has been fudged over time may not be an “FR Exclusive.” Check out this posting by Steve McIntyre on Climate Audit, 2/16/07:If you have not read his post before, I think you will find it very interesting. Using a methodology that is different than yours but equally as clever, I think he found similar, if not identical anomalies, to yours. Don’t miss the Comments, either.McIntyre’s recent discovery that the GISS data contained mathematical errors actually received some MSM coverage, most of it overblown. He merely exposed some minor, innocent math errors that were acknowledged and corrected. In my opinion, the anomalies you and McIntyre found in the older data should be much more newsworthy because those were likely the result of a deliberate effort to fudge the data to make the later years look hotter. That is what the MSM should be exposing.Keep up the good work!Regards,Mikexxxx
Thoughts?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.