Skip to comments.NASA Blocked Climate Change Blogger from Data (Y2K bug kills Global Warming; Mosquitos hardest hit)
Posted on 08/17/2007 2:02:42 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Despite the fact that NASA tried to block him from accessing U.S. temperature data, persistent efforts by a climate change blogger forced the government to amend U.S. temperature data. Because of the bloggers efforts, NASA now recognizes 1934 as the hottest year in U.S. history, not 1998. Continues...
Y2K glitch kills "Global Warming"; Mosquitos hardest hit
At this rate, liberals will have to go back to being hysterical about global cooling. According to NASA's new and improved climate history data for the continental U.S., 5 of the 10 warmest years on record happened before World War II. Now the record for hottest babe was 1934, not 1998; the third hottest year was 1921, behind 1998. Four of the Top 10 hottest are from the 1930s. In the last 10 years, only 3 -- '98, '99 and '06 -- made it to the Top 10. It's now pretty clear that NASA's original data was compiled by Scott Thomas Beauchamp.
Under NASA's revised figures, the years 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2004 are further down the list of 'warmest years' than 1900. According to renowned climatologist Al Gore, it should be the other way around. He and his pals had insisted 9 on the top 10 were from the last 12 years -- especially given the massive CO2 emissions during this period from the fleet of jets and gas hogs Gore uses to preach about the evils of jets and gas hogs. In light of the new numbers, Gore's new warning: Sign Kyoto, or the coming years will be hotter than 1934!
NASA's error was detected, not by the rocket scientists at NASA, but by some chap who runs the site climateaudit.com -- Stephen McIntyre. McIntyre discovered a weird jump in the data going from 1999 to 2000. The NASA hotshots refused to hand over the algorithm used to produce graph data, but, no big deal, MyIntyre reverse-engineered it and "the result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data," (Dailytech.com, 8/9). This is known technically as a programming bug caused by programmers taking a short cut back when the Internet got invented by Al Gore.
McIntyre swiftly notified the NASA honchos, and NASA swiftly responded scientifically by plugging their ears and singing la, la, la, la, la, la, la. The figures on NASA's Web site eventually got revised but very quietly. The revision was such a blow to global warming, even the press almost noticed it.
Showing they're open to new facts, the warmonutters insist their berserk idea of man-made global warming is still true because (a) Gore did a movie about global warming; (b) the press writes lots of articles every day about global warming; (c) Gore does slideshows about global warming and, anyway, the Gore flick is based on global data, not just U.S. climate data which scientists worldwide use as the basis for their predictions which means liberals will need another handy excuse once the global data gets revised as well because of the U.S. data glitches.
Consider the idiocy of liberals insisting the revision is no big deal: U.S. capitalism is evilly scorching the entire planet, burning up every corner of the Earth -- except for that corner of the Earth where the U.S. is. Or, global warming is happening everywhere except the U.S. -- allegedly the biggest producer of global warming, which makes all the weather gods very angry.
Global warming is a "scientific" theory that isn't scientific and isn't even religious either. Religious folks can roll out more than a smattering of evidence to back their faith, but with the warmonutters, the less evidence for it, the more they believe. There is zero evidence to back man-made global warming. Climate history shows the Earth is cooler now than it was back in the 13th century, during the early life and career of Helen Thomas. Earth was even hotter than that 5,000 years ago -- with polar bears already having a rough go of it from notorious Bronze Age washing machines, SUVs and fat-cat Amorites flying around in jets. If you look at the scientific evidence, "climate change" always happened naturally in the past, so warmonutters conclude "climate change" is man-made. If you whip out a graph plotting temperatures going back to the year 1880, most of that increase of 0.7 of a degree Celsius that liberals get hysterical about happened way before industry really started cranking out the cars and planes, then suddenly the temp line drops once the calender flips to 1940, when the cars and planes really start rolling out, which shows CO2 isn't calling the shots as far as "climate change" goes -- proof CO2 drives all "climate change" if you're a warmonutter.
But hold on, there's more. The beloved "Hockey Stick" Gore uses in his splendidly cheery little movie to show catastrophic, cataclysmic, devastating, ruinous, disastrous, slaughterous global warming ended up getting discredited by the same McIntyre fellow who just busted the NASA bull-hockey stick, so lbbies respond by having famed meteorologist Madonna prancing on stage at Live Earth. Speaking of aging has-beens, a bunch of NOAA's "reliable" temperature measurement stations reliably sit right next to machinery at sewer treatment plants, mega A/C heat exchangers, exhaust fans, trash burn barrels, airport tarmac, jet blast, fireplace chimneys, hot automobile radiators, buildings, dumpsters and inside asphalt parking lots -- which shows global warming is man-made after all!
The theory is so discredited, it gets a load of research dough. Newsweek complains hysterically that a "well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change." Yawn. The "contrarians" who blindly accept the facts have gotten a total of $19 million so far, the warmonutters have raked in over $50 billion. Fog-wise, the "contrarian" heretics got the bigger bang for the buck, and you're not even factoring the 'round-the-clock warmonutter agipoop from Newsweek & Co. into the game.
The lesson in all this is that you can have the research grants, the press, taxpayer-funded universities, a prancing Madonna and Hollywood pimping global warming, but even the best-laid pimping can go awry if facts get in the way. Polls show about half the country thinks the warmonutters have gone bananas. Too alarmist, calm down, scaredy-cat. In Gore's flick, sea levels rising by 20 feet and flooding the costal areas -- this is the "global wetting" phase -- doesn't even rate believable fiction, and fiction is what it is. And how long have we been hearing about the polar bears? Yet the history of climate change shows that climates come, climates go, but the polar bears you always have with you.
And even had the absurd Kyoto treaty got muscled through and it's two ton phone book-sized wish-list of suffocating emissions targets, regulations, national caps, guidelines, rules, curbs and cuts got dumped on every capitalist running-dog "polluter" not exempted under the treaty, for lopping off a sizable chunk of GDP all you get by 2050, Gaia willing, is a temperature reduction of 0.07C. Big deal.
Liberals still got the hots for communism -- the little darlings tried for 70 years to make it work in the Soviet Union. Like global warming theory, the more it failed, the more they believed. So if bringing on the workers' paradise is your bag, global warming/Kyoto is what you glom onto now as your great hobby horse. But if sledgehammers chipping off pieces of the Berlin Wall is how the whole thing eventually came down, Stephen McIntyre just took a big swing at global warming.
My Two Cents...
Have a great weekend, y’all — and God bless.
Have a great weekend and God bless.
excellant 2 cents!
Though you'll have to admit that the man-made global warming hysteria is a target rich environment.
Al Gore's grip on the minds of the easily lead hasn't resulted in mass casualties here, yet....
For what it is worth, the website is climateaudit.org, not "climateaudit.com".
First, the “hockey stick” chart was wrong; now the NASA temps are wrong. This makes Gore’s movie wrong. Do you think he will revise his movie?
He’s been wrong since he was born-why stop now?
The cult of Glooball Worming must be defended at all costs, the mediots will see to it.
“The........uh.........former Senator from Tennessee would like to revise and extend his remarks...........”
I love it!
It's nice to know there was something to all of that Y2K stuff.
Little did we know it would backfire on the libs.
Nice read, JH. Thanks for all you do.
When I think of our blue marble maintaining a record of daily twirls, and annual orbits around an object 93 million miles away, and containing a balance that makes as many winds blow one way as the other, and the oceans swirl around the surface in a repeatable flow, and the atmosphereic gases not flying off into outer space, I cannot comprehend how mere humans can become a force stronger than all of the above.
Human behavior can ruin habitat, but not the planet.
Great article, as always.
Environmental lawyers can STILL hire an expert witness who will rely on the old data.
Environmental DEFENSE lawyers need to bone up on this in order to shoot down plaintiff’s expert witnesses.
I demand to see pictures.
Great article John.
There’s even more...there is evidence that NASA is apply data corrections to measurements from GOOD temperature recording stations. Yet they won’t release their algorithms.
Thank you so very much for the excellent wrap-up!
"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 by James Hansen, NASA GISS)
Hansen, J.E., R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, M. Imhoff, W. Lawrence, D. Easterling, T. Peterson, and T. Karl, 2001: A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 23947-23963, doi:10.1029/2001JD000354.
Excerpt: "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 [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."
Ms. Amanda Carpenter writes:
"Under NASA's revised figures, the years 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2004 are further down the list of 'warmest years' than 1900. [For the United States, Amanda.] According to renowned climatologist Al Gore, it should be the other way around. He and his pals had insisted 9 on the top 10 were from the last 12 years [And they still are, Amanda, because this statement is about GLOBAL temperatures, not the United States temperatures.] -- especially given the massive CO2 emissions during this period from the fleet of jets and gas hogs Gore uses to preach about the evils of jets and gas hogs. In light of the new numbers, Gore's new warning: Sign Kyoto, or the coming years will be hotter than 1934!"
Quoting myself from yesterday in another thread:
"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."
and Ms. Carpenter is yet another example.
I’m sorry, I guess you wrote what I attributed to Amanda Carpenter. Still, her article contains a similar mistake; while it’s possible that Gore in AIT says that 9 of the hottest years in history occurred in the last 12 years for the United States, I doubt that it does, as I know this statement is true globally and it isn’t true (never was) for the U.S.
I'll take early 21th Century myths for $500 Alex!"
She's good. Looks like Ann Coulter finally has some serious competition.
That's okay. Anybody can make a mistake. Look at NASA.
In an intellectual race to the bottom?
From the data you cite it appears that the good Doctor Hansen’s data and policy prescriptions don’t coincide. And now that NASA has “corrected” it’s numbers the two don’t coincide a great deal more.
I would not want to besmirch the purity of heart of this sterling member of the scientific community, but I do wonder (in the deepest recesses of my heart) if his policy prescriptions have anything to do with financial issues or desire for approval ... or both.