If 1934 being the warmest year on record is irrelevant, then why....?

Question

Hansen, NASA Global Warming Guru, said the difference between 1998 being the warmest year for the United States and 1934 being the warmest year was completely "irrelevant" to the debate.

So why did he suddenly change which program he uses to publish data with - from SHAP (warmest -1934) to FILNET (warmest - 1934 ties 1998)?

For decades, NASA has used SHAP results, and now they've suddenly (in the last 3 weeks) started publishing FILNET temps as the "official" record.

If it's so darned "irrelevant" then why the change? And why no discussion? No explanation? Just a "business as usual, ignore the man behind the curtain" continuation.

This is akin to a company saying "ok, if we use GAAP, we LOST money, but if we use the EBITDA method, we MADE money - let's report THAT to our stockholders!"

And why are they diddling the RAW data (c.f. Walhalla, SC ) from surface stations?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/17/nasa-s-hansen-playing-enron-accounting-games-climate-data

Nickel Johan - Indian publications...hmmm.

Like this expose' on how the Tsunami was caused by "Global Warming?"
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/01-04g-05.asp

Yeah, that's balanced, accurate science there.

Answer 1

Hansen has his own agenda and if the data doesn't fit, he is inclined to change the formulas (IMO). Some people, particularly on the left, want to change the world for the better. Journalists for example will slant the news to push their agenda because they believe in their cause. It does notthing to push the truth or science forward but I believe that is what Hansen is doing also. He probably thinks he is doing good. I think the search for the truth would be a more worthy goal but that is just my opinion.

Answer 2

Because the change is so small, and it's only relevant to one years difference. Before that year, it doesn't apply. After the year in which the change applies, it's a constant which doesn't have any effect at all on the trend. Since the trend is based on the 5 year rolling average, the effect is completely insignificant.

But size is the big (joke) factor. It's about a tenth of a degree in the US. In the global data, it amounts to about one thousandth of a degree, completely insignificant.

In the US 1998 was considered to be a small fraction of a degree more than 1934. Now it's a tiny fraction of a degree less.

This change was truly not important. It simply shows how carefully the data is checked, by many different people. Errors are caught.

That record will soon be eclipsed, if it hasn't been already. Until we take action, we're headed nowhere but up. And Mr Jello, the data shows that 1934 was nowhere near the warmest year worldwide, beyond any doubt at all.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

Bottom line: This was a tiny technical correction. The fact that global warming deniers jumped all over it is an indication of how desperate they've become. It hasn't made the mainstream news because it isn't worthy.

Answer 3

SHAP and FILNET are not datasets - they are anomaly adjustment and harmonisation techniques that are applied to datasets. It's not possible to switch from one to another.

Imagine you had a car and someone scratched it, you buy an aerosol of paint and repair the scratch. A few months later and another scratch, this time you repair it with a bit of household paint. SHAP and FILNET (along with others) are the equivalent of your paint touch-up job. The vast majority of the original paintwork remains intact, the colour doesn't change. Similarly, the vast majority of the data and the overall picture don't change.

In any event, the change from 1998 to 1934 as the hottest year on record in the US was the result of a homogeneity adjustment that was applied to improve the data set.

SHAP and FILNET were applied to the GISTemp, this forms part of the USHCR which in turn forms part of the GHCR. The changes to GISTemp were miniscule (an average variation of less than 0.001°C per year), when incorporated into the GHCR they're so small that a monthly ordering (let alone an annual one) has no effect.

With all due respect, can I suggest you research SHAP and FILNET, not least so you can establish what they actually are.

For the record, 1934 is the hottest year on record in the US only, globally it was a very average year. The hottest year globally is 2007, if you don't want to include part years then it's 2005; next comes 1998.

Answer 4

Amazing....using the argument of "nothing like finding the science to prove your point" in this debate. Which is exactly what the so called "anti-climate change" group is all about. You find one scientist or one data point and global warming can't be real. Please.

1934 is not irrelevant. It just doesn't disprove the Theory of Global Climate Change. Just because 1998 is no longer the hottest year...it is darn close. And not to mention all the other years around it that are darn close too. Can't say that about 1934.

And once again...I will repeat....The Theory of Climate Change is not about single years, single weather events, single anything. It is about trends!!!!!TRENDS!!!! Do you hear me???? TRENDS!!!!!

It isn't about money. It isn't about being liberal or conservative. It isn't about corrupt scientist.

It is about the big picture and long term data.

Answer 5

Simple. The 1934 date was found to be incorrect b/c of the data it based it's answer off of. So, it's only natural that once this mistake was found to be the fault of the program (SHAP) of course they changed to a (I'm guessing) more reliable data program (FILNET).

Edit: The 1934 data was not incorrect bu5t found to be based on insufficient data. Therefore, changing to a program that includes suffient, relative data would be the expecteds choice.

Answer 6

international Warming is genuine. Its a complicated concern, yet very erradicate climate types are a huge area of climate substitute, which even NASA scientists and reknowned climatologists dont understand. They know that issues have replaced and its all been interior the final a hundred years. they have accomplished ice middle borings in Antarctica that show Co2 bubbles interior the ice that practice drastic will improve considering 1890. Its user-friendly. The extra fossil fuels released into the ambience, its trapped and slowly warms. there are a super type of alternative learn that help help that we are killing our planet. It doesnt merely bypass away like countless those dumb rednecks from Oklahoma have self assurance. FOOLS

Answer 7

None of us being NASA scientists, we can only speculate as to why they changed computer programs.

Bottom line is that Hansen is correct. This is completely irrelevant. Even when the US temperatures were found to be slightly off, it made a completely negligible change in the overall global temperatures. I think it was something like a thousandth of a degree change. The US composes a very small fraction of the Earth's surface, and so our average temperatures are a very small contributor to this average global temperature:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005/ann/global-blended-temp-pg.gif

Answer 8

This is interesting point but once again of relative small importance since the temperatures are only for the US which is a very small part of the earth surface.

If the records would have showed the same in other countries, no doubts they would have been used for the same demonstration.

And once again, the source is of political nature.

HERE IS A HINT: if you want to read unbiased science in English which has not been distorted by bipartisan views, research opinions from INDIAN SCIENTISTS

Answer 9

NASA people are just people and some have a political point. If 1934 is irreverent why bother to take data if u don't believe it.

Answer 10

It's never been about those types of figures. I think people have tried to use it to make other data more understandable, and a lot has been read into it as a result. I don't know why they're pandering to those folks. They shouldn't. They should ignore them.