So Why Is It Significant That 1934 was the hottest year on record and not 1998?

Question

I think there are a number of reasons

Recording the temperature data is by far the easiest and least complext thing about studying climate and yet scientist managed to screw it up.

The fact that 1934 was the hottest on record shows that temperatures have spiked this high before the rapid industrialization following WWII

Shows how foolish the MSM was to trumpet an insignificant data set to push the Global Warming agenda, and then have it thrown right back in their faces.

Answer 1

Since the error was supposedly caused by a Y2K glitch - a GLOBAL event - then how sure are we that there is not a similar error in the non-US values?

Just a word for Alarmists who get defensive every time their data inconsistencies are exposed: DON'T open your mouths and make claims for which you have no basis. When you have recalculated the numbers and guaranteed that similar errors have not occurred, THEN restate your findings and acknowledge your mistake.

Even though the bad US values only produce a 1-2% error in the global values, you are still using the old, incorrect values. I don't think the temperature in 1934 is of any particular importance - it's the working with data of known error that is troubling. Like I said, be patient, wait for the more reliable values.

And about those global values, Steve McKitrick, who uncovered Hansen's errors, has this to say:
"As to the impact on NH and global data, I’ve noted long before this exchange that the non-US data in GHCN looks more problematic to me than the US data and it would be really nice if surfacestations.org starting getting some international feedback. Ruedy’s reply was copied to Hansen and to Gavin Schmidt. I’m not sure what business it is of Gavin’s other than his “private capacity” involvement in a prominent blog."
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1868...

Go ahead and dismiss McKitrick's observations: he was right about Mann's bogus hockey stick, right about Hansen's error... what are the chances he could be right about the global data, too? And go ahead and award me those coveted thumbs down for trying to save you from making invalid claims.

Answer 2

Dana, you said "It was the hottest year in the lower 48 in comparison to the 30 year average, which was lower in the '30s than it is in the '90s or '00s."

Huh? This doesn't make any sense. The data is a temperature anomaly from a 30 year mean temperature from 1951 to 1980. This 30 year mean from 1951 to 1980 is the baseline for ALL of the yearly data. There is not a running 30 year average as you suggest. The 1934 anomaly of +1.25*C is from the same baseline as the 1998 anomaly of +1.23*C. This means that the 1934 was +0.02*C warmer in the lower 48 states than 1998. In other words, the 1934 value of +1.25 is not compared to a lower temperature value than the +1.23 of 1998. If you look at the graph on the NASA page you will see that this is true.

Answer 3

I'm skeptical of the claim that this was a Y2K glitch. I deal with climate data on a daily basis and use the same programmes that NASA use (it was their data that was wrong). I asked one of our computer people about this and she laughed. A far more likely cause seems to be human error.

It's important to keep things in perspective. We're talking about a proportion of data from a single data set produced by a single organisation relevant to a single country. On a global scale the effects are miniscule.

Globally 2005 remains the hottest year on record followed by 1998. 1934 was an anomolous year in the US only, on a worldwide scale it's the joint 45th hottest year in the last century - in other words, it's completely average. Looking at the global data for 1934 the thing that's remarkable about it is how unremarkable it is.

To put it into perspective. The anomolies in the data are small, when we look back over the last 100 years the difference it makes to the annual average temperature is less than 0.01°C. This is in the US, add in all the other data from around the world and the difference is less than 0.0005°C.

Prior to re-evaluation 1998 was the hottest year on record with a deviation from the mean of 1.24°C, 1934 was the second hottest with a value of 1.23°C. Following re-evaluation 1995 has been assigned a value of 1.23°C and 1934 a value of 1.25°C. Very small differences indeed.

I know you wish that these errors were significant but they're not. If you had a car manual that said the top speed was 123.4mph and you managed to get the car to go at 123.46mph would that be significant? This is the same scale of error that was in the NASA data.

Answer 4

Anders already linked my question about this finding:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtdgBp.yu_BQHDa5Iv8EFXAFxgt.?qid=20070810115452AAYt0LI

And Trevor already provided a very thorough answer. Basically the point is that 1934 was not the hottest year on record even in the US. It was the hottest year in the lower 48 in comparison to the 30 year average, which was lower in the '30s than it is in the '90s or '00s.

1934 was completely unremarkable, and even cold relative to today's global temperatures:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Answer 5

this data is similiar to watching 2 seconds of a movie and telling me how it's going to end.


(100 years of temp recordings vs millions of years the earth has existed)

Answer 6

A direct quote from that article:

"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. "

Way to be one of the morons that ignores the science for political rhetoric. Silly troll, again.

Answer 7

1934 was not the hottest year on record. It is simply a misleading tactic used by the AGW skeptics. 1934 was the hottest year on record in one part of the world, namely the U.S. It was not the hottest year on record globally, which is what is implied.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

1998 is still the hottest year on record. Please view the extensive answer by Dana on the subject.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtdgBp.yu_BQHDa5Iv8EFXAFxgt.?qid=20070810115452AAYt0LI

Answer 8

Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation.


Global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.3 ± 0.32 °F) during the past century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations," which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes have probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a small cooling effect since 1950. These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists is the only scientific society that rejects these conclusions. A few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC.


Climate models referenced by the IPCC project that global surface temperatures are likely to increase by 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100. The range of values reflects the use of differing scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions and results of models with differences in climate sensitivity. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming and sea level rise are expected to continue for more than a millennium even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized. This reflects the large heat capacity of the oceans.


The climate system varies through natural, internal processes and in response to variations in external forcing factors including solar activity, volcanic emissions, variations in the earth's orbit (orbital forcing) and greenhouse gases. The detailed causes of the recent warming remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus identifies increased levels of greenhouse gases due to human activity as the main influence. This attribution is clearest for the most recent 50 years, for which the most detailed data are available. Contrasting with the scientific consensus, other hypotheses have been proposed to explain most of the observed increase in global temperatures. One such hypothesis is that the warming is caused by natural fluctuations in the climate or that warming is mainly a result of variations in solar radiation.
None of the effects of forcing are instantaneous. Due to the thermal inertia of the Earth's oceans and slow responses of other indirect effects, the Earth's current climate is not in equilibrium with the forcing imposed. Climate commitment studies indicate that even if greenhouse gases were stabilized at present day levels, a further warming of about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) would still occur
It depends where you live.

Here is a map of the world showing how climate change will affect particular areas considering continuation of current contributions.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/a...

This chart shows the anomaly temperature projections in the future. Considering carbon emmissions in America and other countries continue to rise at current rate.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/a...

Now I will show you what you can do to save your children, your community, and your earth.

http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_tak...

Here are some steps that show you how to lower your emmissions and those close to you.

http://www.climateprotect.org/

Here is a worldwide organization whose mission is to,

"Our mission is to persuade the American people — and people elsewhere in the world – of the importance and urgency of adopting and implementing effective and comprehensive solutions for the climate crisis. "

Good luck friend, brother.

I am not angry. I am angry that it is not more expensive. I have lived in Japan, I have been to Germany and Sweeden. And my friend you and the rest of us in America and very very fortunate we don't pat 5.00$ a gallon to 7.00$ a gallon. What I will tell you is this. It will go up more untill ....

a. SUV's are no longer on the roads.
b. Government regulation stops purchasing SUV's and Big Trucks by people who do not need it for emergencies or medical disabilities.
c. When the Chinese and Indians of the world... the future, develop and implement the technology to replace fuel.


What you can do is simple. Stop the SUV, stop the big truck. Demand goes down, Supply surplus rises. IE!!!! You get a better price.


More heat ahead for sweltering West.

The drought and floods in some areas is killing agriculture and human ecology.

HELENA, Mont. - An oppressive heat wave eased a bit in some parts of the West, but forecasters predicted little relief in the days ahead for a region where many cities have baked in triple-digit temperatures.

ADVERTISEMENT

The National Weather Service issued a red flag wildfire warning for Saturday in eastern Utah and western Colorado, where temperatures were again expected to approach or top 100.

Extreme heat plagued much of Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Oregon and Washington state again on Friday. In Montana, where cattle outnumber residents by more than 2 to 1, livestock and people sought the shade and drought-weary farmers watched for damage to grain.

"We are trying to get our hay up before it disintegrates," said cattle rancher Sharon McDonald near Melville. "It just gets crispy and just falls apart."

Air conditioners — and even swamp coolers — were predictably hot sellers at the hardware store.

"I'm telling you, it has been nuts," said Dennis VanDyke, a manager at Power Townsend in Helena. "The only thing I am getting calls for is air conditioners."

VanDyke said some people prefer swamp coolers, which use a fan and the evaporation of water to cool the air, over the more power-hungry air conditioning units. "They are being bought faster than we can put them on the shelves," he said.

In Montana, temperatures above 100 degrees are usually not seen until August. The normal July high in Helena is 83 degrees — not the high 90s seen Friday. Triple-digit records were set or tied in Great Falls and Billings at 104 degrees each. The mercury reached 105 in the north-central Montana town of Havre, 106 at the Gallatin Field Airport near Bozeman and 107 in Missoula.

In Utah, high school teacher Lois Wolking said she was escaping the summer heat by heading indoors. Temperatures were down a few degrees in Salt Lake City on Friday, but still hovered around 100.

"A swamp cooler, Netflix and reading is how we're surviving," the 58-year-old East High teacher said.

But the heat will hover over most of the far West through at least the end of next week, said Kelly Redmond, a regional climatologist for the National Weather Service. He said it could migrate farther inland and cover more of the West, including Colorado, as the week goes on.

"It looks like it is going to stay place for a good long while," he said.

Boise hit 105 degrees Friday after a high temperature of 104 on Thursday. Lewiston reported a high of 101 on Friday and Pocatello hit 102.

Idaho Power, the state's largest utility, set a record Friday for electricity consumption for the second consecutive day, as triple-digit temperatures continued across much of Idaho.

The company's peak load reached 3,142 megawatts at 4 p.m., topping the previous record set Wednesday of 3,120 megawatts. The old record, 3,084 megawatts, was set in 2006.

Anne Alenskis, a spokeswoman for Idaho Power, said the company has kept records for at least 90 years.

Temperatures were expected to ease slightly in Southern California. Phoenix saw a modest drop, a somewhat cooler 112 degrees compared to 115 on Thursday. With the approach of Arizona's summer rainy season, humidity levels have started climbing along with power demand.

Heat remained an issue along the border. The bodies of six suspected illegal immigrants have been found since Monday in southern Arizona deserts, all likely victims of heat illness while trying to walk into the U.S. from Mexico. The toll, while high, is not unusual during hot spells in the region.

In eastern Oregon, which set 15 record highs on Thursday, temperatures largely dropped to the high 90s. In the center part of the state, population growth and a burgeoning demand for air conditioning meant a rise in electricity demand. The Bonneville Power Administration said it was worried fires could damage transmission lines and cause outages.

In California, heat was mostly confined to inland regions, with triple-digit readings in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys. The mercury topped 100 in the Woodland Hills area of Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley and in the high desert cities of Lancaster and Palmdale, while out east by the Colorado River, the little city of Needles sweltered in 115-degree heat.

But temperatures in most of Los Angeles and the populous Southern California coastal zone were in the 70s and low 80s, while San Francisco and Monterey Bay cities were even cooler.

The National Forest Service reported at least 16 fires over 500 acres in size burning throughout the West, including three new ones that sparked Thursday.

The agency said fire danger was most extreme in Arizona, California, Oregon and Utah — although a "red flag" warning was posted for much of the West.

Arizona Dust Causes Colorado Meltdown

Wind-blown dust from the drought-stricken Southwest can speed the melt of snow in Colorado’s mountains, yet another unpredictable effect of climate change, a new study shows.

ADVERTISEMENT

In 2006, snows in areas of Colorado's San Juan Mountains above and below the tree line (above which trees can no longer grow), unexpectedly melted a month earlier than usual.


The cause for the premature melt was dust, most likely originally from parched deserts in Arizona and New Mexico, hundreds of miles away.


The dust is less reflective than snow and so reduces the overall reflectivity of the area, allowing for more of the sun’s energy to warm, and subsequently melt, the snow pack. A similar effect of dark soot falling on Arctic snow is thought to speed melting there.


“The connection between dust and lower snow reflectance is already established, but the amount of impact measured and modeled in this system stunned us,” said study team leader Tom Painter of the University of Colorado at Boulder’s National Snow and Ice Data Center. “The fact that dust can reduce the snow cover duration so much—a month earlier—transforms our understanding of mountain sensitivity to external forcings.”


There were eight dust deposition events in 2006, up from only three or four between 2003 and 2005, according to the authors of the study, detailed in the June 23 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters.


Snowmelt provides one-sixth of the world’s population with drinking water, and is important to sustain agriculture in the western United States.


The expected exacerbation of western droughts brought about by global warming will likely make the situation snowball.


“Recent studies agree that with global warming, the Southwest will be warmer and drier,” Painter said. “Enhanced dust deposition is likely, further shortening snow cover duration.”


“Ultimately, a warming climate and the dust it generates will affect river run-off and soil moisture in the mountains,” he added. “Not only in the Western United States, but across many of the world’s mountains.”

Top 10 Surprising Results of Global Warming
Southwest Forecast: Expect 90 Years of Drought
Air Pollution Cuts Rainfall Over Mountains
Original Story: Arizona Dust Causes Colorado Meltdown

Visit LiveScience.com for more daily news, views and scientific inquiry with an original, provocative point of view. LiveScience reports amazing, real world breakthroughs, made simple and stimulating for people on the go. Check out our collection of Science, Animal and Dinosaur Pictures, Science Videos, Hot Topics, Trivia, Top 10s, Voting, Amazing Images, Reader Favorites, and more. Get cool gadgets at the new LiveScience Store, sign up for our free daily email newsletter and check out our RSS


Quite Charitable as global warming is the biggest issue of the 21st century and the entire worlds ecology is on the line.