Now this is really beginning to bug me. I've read a good chunk of the IPCC report, visited lots of sites (pro and con), and generally consider myself well-versed in global warming literature. I've seen hundreds, if not thousands of graphs and charts, and here's a typical one:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
I recognise this from the IPCC report.
Now look at the first graph on the right: 1934 looks to be a good 0.7 degrees cooler than 1998, and yet when the numbers are printed, the two years are reported to be within about 0.02 degrees of each other.... it doesn't matter if you take the "original' or 'corrected' NASA numbers.
How is anyone supposed to make any sense of this if even the facts (in this case, instrumental temperature records) change from one report to another?
Somebody's pulling the wool over our eyes.
2007-08-15 17:23:05 · 10 answers · asked by Rando 4 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Yes the numbers are selective. Now you hear that the 1930's were only isolated to the USA, but in fact it was a global period of warmth.
Those who claim that it wasn't are going to back track, make excuses, massage the data to keep their political view.
Never in my life have I seen science as subjective as this. Sad, and unbelievable people believe this rubbish. The public should demand higher standards.
2007-08-15 23:29:21 · answer #1 · answered by Dr Jello 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
i in my opinion wish it have been that straightforward. that is in simple terms yet another volley and speaking factor for the warring parties of worldwide warming. I even heard that the fairly some kit used to computer screen the temperatures in distinctive areas have been located close to aircon condensers - i've got faith the condensers have been put in after the sensing contraptions. in my opinion, i think of if a worldwide climate substitute is going on, it relatively is going to be over a plenty extra desirable span of geologic time than the mere argument approximately which 3 hundred and sixty 5 days grow to be or wasn't the main well-liked in a unmarried century. for my section, it relatively is in simple terms fairly plenty the united statesand down swings of oftentimes happening variations interior the climate development from 3 hundred and sixty 5 days to 3 hundred and sixty 5 days. the super "dirt bowl" certainly wasn't using guy's impact. perhaps our industry and modern transportation is effecting our universal climate - it would not look life like that we are able to spew thousands and thousands of a brilliant number of CO, CO2 and different synthetic gasses into the ambience and not have some style of result - yet you will on no account convince me of worldwide warming with the arguments and records offered so far.
2016-10-10 08:05:37 · answer #2 · answered by duffina 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem is...
There's no sure way to say how accurate the data is.
How many temperature monitor points are checked how often today?
How many in 1998? (close to the same as today)
How many in 1975? (when they claimed global cooling.. and we were going into an ice age)
How many in 1934?
How many (and how accurate were the hand blown thermometers...) in 1890?
1850?
1770?
1100?
***********
We get MORE data today than ever before... so we have a more accurate reading of average global temp.
How much of the reported temp change is simply instrument variation? (even today's instruments are not 100% reliable...)
2007-08-15 18:13:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
In the US, yes, within a small fraction of a degree. 2005 was warmer by a bit. Globally, the 30s weren't especially warm.
The recent correction was tiny in the US, and absolutely trivial (0.001 degree) globally. Nothing has changed there, at all.
2007-08-15 17:27:34 · answer #4 · answered by Bob 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Well. what was the temperature on August 15, 1776? Oh that's right we don't have records for then. How can anyone determine the rate of the earths heating or cooling without more data? Man has no dominion over nature, sorry. If he did he would control volcano's, hurricanes, etc.
2007-08-15 18:28:21 · answer #5 · answered by hardwoodrods 6 · 1⤊ 5⤋
1934 US 48
1998 Global
2007-08-15 17:29:35 · answer #6 · answered by 3DM 5 · 3⤊ 4⤋
How hot was it when the Vikings were growing crops and raising livestock in Greenland?
WHEN are we going to realize that CLIMATE CHANGE is a fact of life on planet Earth?
I know this doesn't answer your question, but what is the significance of that question?
2007-08-15 17:56:01 · answer #7 · answered by Philip H 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
It begs one question: Were the thermometers in use in 1934 accurate enough to determine these statistics?
2007-08-15 17:32:14 · answer #8 · answered by relaxed 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Who cares, it's totally irrelevant. If 1998 was the hottest year it's been getting cooler ever since then.
2007-08-15 18:27:54 · answer #9 · answered by - 6 · 2⤊ 5⤋
1934 was only a hot year in the US (and a few other isolated locations). On a global scale you are correct that it was not a hot year. 2005 and 1998 have been the hottest recorded years globally:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AoNmYIs_4vM0RHcMCnhvppPty6IX?qid=20070810115452AAYt0LI
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApVrJTwr2fowQ9c1oYDbztvty6IX?qid=20070815092526AAR7LBC
2007-08-15 17:32:27 · answer #10 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 2⤊ 5⤋