Will Al Gore & the Global Warming faithful revise their prophecy now that NASA has revised their temp data?

Question

From Investor's Business Daily, August 10:

"NASA has silently, according to dailytech.com, revised its temperature figures, this time without the apparent Y2K bug that skewed the data. As it turns out, 1934, not 1998, is the hottest year in the continental U.S. since 1880.

"The new numbers also show that four of the country's 10 warmest years were in the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939. Five of the hottest 10 occurred before World War II. The past 10 years are not as well represented: Only three years from the past decade are among the 10 warmest: 1998, 1999 and 2006."

Dana1981, I'm aware that the continental US is not the globe. If you are really "tired of correcting people on this issue," you should start by correcting the GISS. Over half of the temperature monitoring stations used by GISS are in the continental US, so the skewing of the data toward US temperatures started with GISS. So the fact that the new figures only affect US temperatures does not render them insignificant; in fact, it affects over 50% of the data.

joecool123_usa, I agree that Al Gore is a spokesperson, but I disagree that he has nothing to do with the issue. This is a political issue, and he is a politician. So he has more to do with the issue than the scientists at this point.

I also agree that the United States is not the whole world. Again, tell that to the GISS. Do you really think we have reliable worldwide data dating back to the 30s? The only hope we have of monitoring weather trends is to focus on the areas in the world where we have the most reliable data. That is why the GISS also focuses disproportionately on the US.

jay_giles_fan, you have excellent taste in music, even if you can't spell the name. You are implying that the people on the pro-GW side have nothing to gain by insisting that GW is manmade and must be stopped. Nothing could be further from the truth. The $23.1 million spent by Exxon pales in comparison to the $2.5 BILLION spent by the federal government alone per year on pro-GW research. GW is an industry unto itself, and it is hypocritical of GW supporters to cite industry as being self-serving in its use of science.

If scientists can be bought by industry, then they can just as easily bought by the other side. Yours is an old and tired ad hominem argument that has nothing to do with the science at issue.

Answer 1

Ok, here's what actually happened. Recently, Stephen McIntyre found a very minor flaw in one data set from one US temperature station that was found to have resulted from a switch between two sources of US temperature data. He alerted James Hanson and Reto Ruedy of NASA of the error, which was subsequently fixed; McIntyre was accredited and thanked for the find. Immediately after, the story took hold among radio pundits and Bloggers, who blew the whole thing out of proportion (surprising no one in the process), claiming that it was a fraud, that warming had stopped in 1934, and that the entire temperature record was a fake.

Stephen McIntyre himself has posted a message on his Blog, ClimateAudit.org, saying the whole thing, while significant in his view, wasn't nearly as important as people were making it out to be. You can read the post here:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1885#more-1885

RealClimate, a Blog run by thirteen climate scientists, has also posted an article explaining the issue. You can read that here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/

And James Hanson, the NASA scientist who fixed the problem, has also written a response, which you can read here:

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

As RealClimate says, the whole thing is a classic case of trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Answer 2

I wonder if man is really smart enough to build a computer model that takes into account all the complexities of global climate change. Now we find another flaw in the data. I guess science needs to take another look and reconsider. The real question seems to be whether man can affect the climate or not. If we don't take steps to protect the environment, we can make a mess of it. On the other hand, too many people want to use environmentalism as a political weapon to spread their form of control over others. If we can ratioanally debate the issues and look at all the data and try to find the truth, we will know what to do. I do not think being rational is too likely into today's polarized political climate. It is the polarized political climate that real global warming is occuring.

Answer 3

I really dont know how they could screw up data from the 30's in the first place, all this info, if measured was done with actual thermometers and paper log books, The nearest thing to a computer was an abascus. I would have to guess that NASA took whatever info they could obtain and threw it into one of them computer modelers and whirled it around till it got dizzy and spit out some numbers. Chances are if they whirled it around again it would come up with totally different numbers.

Answer 4

See the beauty of science is that is it not faith based so if new data is found the theory can be modified. That's why it's called science. New data leads to new questions which leads to new research.

So instead of trying to spin this as some sort of death nell for climate change theory look at it as what it is, a small advance in knowledge that may lead way to more discoveries.

Answer 5

No.

Al Gore has nothing to do with the issue. He is a spokesperson.

They revised the data for the Continental U.S. and contrary to popular belief, the United States is not the whole world. While temperatures here have changed, the warming trends on a global scale are still in a state of accelerated heightening.

Wait a few minutes, someone more hardcore than me will bombard you with sources and data.

Answer 6

Provincialism is the problem. We think the world revolves around us. The temperatures in the US are not the only important temperatures. We are part of the entire earth. We are just a small part of its entirety. We may think we are the center of the Universe but that does not make it so!

Answer 7

Of course not. The faithful are already calling the corrected data incorrect, not letting go on the belief that the 1990's were the hottest in the last 100 years.

Global warming is not an objective science. It's subjective depending on the desires, the will of the person who wants to believe it's true.

They are no different than the people who think the gvmt is covering up a UFO crash in Roswel,NM

Answer 8

You've got to be ******* kidding me. You even managed to find a decent source that got some of the information right, and you still managed to misunderstand it??

"the hottest year in the continental U.S. "

THE CONTINENTAL US IS NOT THE GLOBE!! I'm really tired of correcting people on this issue. Just read the links below where I addressed it when the misinformation first game out 3 days ago.

Answer 9

Beyond crap. A mythical phenomenon that melts the millions of years old ice at the South Pole, that's never melted since life has been on land. Of course. I'm glad those investors are on the ball.

Answer 10

I have to go with the last guy. Think of it this way, it is all politics. After all who funds NASA? So to say that all other data is irrelevant is BULL S#!*