Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
Steve McIntyre found an error in the GISS temperature data for the US. The GISTEMP page says:
USHCN station records up to 1999 were replaced by a version of USHCN data with further corrections after an adjustment computed by comparing the common 1990-1999 period of the two data sets. (We wish to thank Stephen McIntyre for bringing to our attention that such an adjustment is necessary to prevent creating an artificial jump in year 2000.)
How much difference did the adjustment make to the US temperature series? Well, it changed this:
to this:
Not much difference. The right hand end of the red curve has moved down a little bit, but this decade is still the warmest ever recorded in the US. The change to the global temperature series is imperceptible.
Of course, if you're Steve McIntyre, you want to make this seem like a big deal. So what do you do?
Well, it's hard to see from the graph, but 1998 went from being 0.01 degrees warmer than 1934 in the US, to being 0.02 degrees cooler, so he was able to present this as OMG! 1998 NO LONGER THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD, NOW IT'S 1934. Right wing blogs started foaming at their mouths. Examples:
it suggests that a government agency is actually participating in a fraud against the American people by withholding information crucial to a major policy issue now facing the nation.
Fire [James Hansen]. Immediately.
The Ace (This is a different person from "Ace" -- I think we should pop "Ace" and "The Ace" into Thunderdome.)
leftist hero James Hansen is behind this deliberate fraud. He should be frog-marched out of his office.
Rush Limbaugh:
And the bottom line is, that 1998 is no longer -- you can say NASA made a reporting error or did they make a reporting error? Did they do this on purpose? How long have they known that it was erroneous and haven't corrected it? But the bottom line of this is that 1998 is no longer the hottest year on record. ... Well, when 1934 was the hottest year on record, and NASA may know about it and doesn't correct the data, and when a guy named James Hansen involved in all this, who is a political activist, then you have to figure there is a reason why they want 1998 continue to be reported as the warmest year on record.
I'll let Nexus explain this one for Mr Limbaugh.
Also busy exaggerating is good old Roger Pielke Sr:
The hard work of of Steve McIntyre (Climate Audit) and Anthony Watts (www.surfacestations.org) has resulted in the identification of a significant error in the assessment of the rankings of what have been the warmest years in the United States as identified by GISS. The current warmest year is 1934.
1998 and 1934 went from being in a virtual tie, to being in a virtual tie. This is not a significant change. You would have hoped that Pielke Sr would have been aware of this, but I guess not.
Oh, and I didn't link to Climate Audit, because It's gone down because of all the traffic from Limbaugh and the like. The paranoids there reckon it's a DOS attack from the eevil warmers.
Update: More from RealClimate.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
Yeah, but what about the claim that five of the ten warmest years of this century are now pre-WWII?
I don't believe all the blather about the public being deliberately misleading, but I do find these results to be interesting.
Posted by: ben | August 10, 2007 2:38 PM
It's only interested if you think virtual statistical ties were significant before McIntyre's discovery, and are significant now.
Of course, "pre-Mac" the denialists were screaming "but, but, it's all within the error bars!!!!!"
Now they're saying ... "look! look! 1934's the warmest year!"
And of course, 1998 is still the warmest year on record according to the global record. The 1930s were the dustbowl years in the US, long droughts, warm and dry years, the years of "The Grapes of Wrath" and all those WPA photos of emaciated families on the plains losing their farms.
The fact that 1934 was 0.02C warmer than 1998 (+/- error bars) is hardly comforting considering how harsh the weather was then.
And as was pointed out elsewhere, you do know what the "G" in "AGW" stands for, right?
An interesting prediction on my part: denialists are now going to claim over and over that the surface station data in the lower 48 is dead-accurate now that they're being confronted with the artic icepack being at its minimum, ever, etc etc etc.
Posted by: dhogaza | August 10, 2007 2:44 PM
ben, in the old data set, four of the warmest years were pre WW2. There has not been a significant change. And this is for the US only. Globally, 2005 is the warmest year in the GISS data.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | August 10, 2007 2:50 PM
C'mon Tim,
You are quite aware of all the "hottest year in _!"(you pick it) hype. To try and "ho hum" this development is a bit silly.
It reminds me of the false nonchalance of Martin Short's twitchy, sweaty lipped tobacco industry lawyer "You think I didn't know that? Of course I knew that! How could you think I didn't know that?"
I'm not claiming it destroys all of AGW theory, nor is Steve McIntyre, but it certainly sticks a pin in more than one hot air headline.
At least admit that. It really wouldn't kill you. Would it?
Posted by: Lance | August 10, 2007 2:55 PM
"It's only interested if you think virtual statistical ties were significant before McIntyre's discovery, and are significant now."
Right, but I'm with that. In the past the media has gone on and on about how years in this decade and last were the warmest on record, OMG! when really it was not such a big deal because of the statistical dead heat. I'm just happy that I won't be hearing those dumb media reports for at least a week now.
Posted by: ben | August 10, 2007 2:56 PM
Well, 1998 and 2005 are STILL the warmest years in the global record.
Tough titties for the tough denialist Lance, who STILL has yet to answer any SPECIFIC reasons why his "studying" of climate science claims has led him to believe that the entire field is bogus.
Except now, of course, Lance is among those convinced the lower-48 surface temp record is accurate, 'cause of that MASSIVE shift in "warmest years" records.
Posted by: dhogaza | August 10, 2007 3:01 PM
Err guys, is the denialists who have been hyping 1998 as the warmest year so they can say that it cooled since then.
And Lance, if you think that you should look at single years rather than multi-year averages, you should be kicked out of you PhD program.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | August 10, 2007 3:03 PM
Ben, Ben, Ben dear boy ... that hype is about GLOBAL temperatures, and 1998 and 2005 are the two warmest years on record.
As my french girlfriend is fond of telling me, as I sit here on her balcony in Madrid ... the US is NOT the world.
Keep that in mind. The lower 48 is a small fraction of the earth's surface. We're not the world, we're not the "G" in "AGW".
Meanwhile, this cool photo at RC is sobering:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/arctic_aug907.jpg
Though I'm sure Lance will claim that the purple is open ocean, the black ice or somesuch shit.
Posted by: dhogaza | August 10, 2007 3:06 PM
Well, they like to have their data both ways, don't they?
Posted by: dhogaza | August 10, 2007 3:08 PM
Tim,
However, the GISSTEMP website does have some prominently placed graphics trumpeting the old U.S. yearly rankings. They'll probably have to be changed, and certain "talking points" in the debate dropped. Gore may have to alter a slide or two.
Posted by: bigcitylib | August 10, 2007 3:11 PM
BCL,
Kudos for acknowledging an obvious point when others pretend there is none to cede. It didn't hurt that much did it.
I have also noticed that you allow quite a bit of lee way at your blog for what I consider to be rude AGW detractors.
You just went up a bit more in my estimation. Maybe there is hope for rational discussion of this topic yet.
Posted by: Lance | August 10, 2007 3:22 PM
1998 and 2005 are the two warmest years on record.
Now, what exactly is there to cede?
The straws you folks grasp are the thinnest imaginable.
Now, speaking of rational discussion of this topic, when are you going to provide some SPECIFIC debunking of the basic physics underlying the AGW hypothesis?
Thus far, you're still stuck on the argument from personal incredulity.
Posted by: dhogaza | August 10, 2007 3:31 PM
You know, Lance, if you're really, really convinced that you can single-handedly turn the entire field of climate science on its head and disprove the underlying physical principles upon which the field rests...
That's a pretty smooth ride to a PhD in physics. Probably a hell of a lot easier than the work you're engaged in.
So, c'mon. Give it to us. You claim that your denialism is based on scientific disagreements, let's see the specifics.
No extra credit for continued cut-and-paste of tired denialist shit that's been debunked a decade ago.
Posted by: dhogaza | August 10, 2007 3:33 PM
dhogaza,
You know darn well, as BCL has acknowledge, that the "warmest year on record" headlines and talking points were referenced to US GISS data. What the global average temperatures were, while perhaps salient to the validity of AGW theory over all, is not the point. To put your fingers in your ears and chant "LALALALA" is not helping your credibility any.
Posted by: Lance | August 10, 2007 3:54 PM
NASA - global:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html
BBC - northern hemisphere:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4532344.stm
MSNBC - global:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009001/
CBS - global:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/24/tech/main1235949.shtml
You were saying, Lance?
Posted by: dhogaza | August 10, 2007 4:10 PM
I assume Lance was every bit as diligent when he studied the physical assumptions underlying climate science and decided that the entire field is bunk as he did when he studied the media coverage of global temperature records.
Posted by: dhogaza | August 10, 2007 4:13 PM
dhogaza,
OK, you got me. I can't, on the fly, refute the underlying physical arguments for AGW. First of all there is no "one" cogent physical argument.
Can I prove that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas? No. Can I prove that GCM's are completely wrong? No. Can I prove that the past centuries 0.6-0.8C increase in temps are NOT 1) a valid data set and/or 2) anomalous? No.
Of course even if all of the above are true it by no means validates the conclusion that we face catastrophic warming over the next hundred years.
It is required of those MAKING the extraordinary claims to provide the strong evidence.
The more you examine the evidence the more holes appear. Mr. McIntyre, with no specific climate science training, has now punched two fairly significant ones in two of the most ballyhooed sacred cows of the AGW faithful.
First Mann's "Hockey Stick" and now the alleged "hottest year" totem. You talk pretty loud for a guy standing on a creaking limb. Of course bluster is a natural defense mechanism for many cornered and outmatched animals.
So far your bark is not backed up by much bite.
Posted by: Lance | August 10, 2007 4:13 PM
Lance- 5-year running mean for US temp. The last decade is still the hottest US decade. You've been called on this several times now, and have not that Ive seen addressed this point other than to keep repeating "no longer the hottest eyar!!!'.
GLOBAL temperature records. 1998 is still the hottest year. You have been informed of this several times now, and have not that I've seen addressed it.
Posted by: Lee | August 10, 2007 4:20 PM
Lance, are you seriously claiming that there is not strong evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Just for starters?
Posted by: Lee | August 10, 2007 4:22 PM
Which is still alive and well, and vindicated by the NAS.
You don't get out much, do you? Don't read beyond CA?
That's a very odd statement for a physicist to say, since the IR absorbtion information on CO2 has been shown in the lab and has been known for 100+ years.
Unless you're totally dishonest or ignorant of your field of study, you KNOW CO2 IS a greenhouse gas.
That's even potentially a point of contention.
Posted by: dhogaza | August 10, 2007 4:28 PM
When was this ever called a virtual tie prior to this week?
Posted by: nanny_govt_sucks | August 10, 2007 4:44 PM
Let's put the denial of facts in even starker terms.
Mercury is about 58 million km from the sun. It's average temperature is 440 degrees kelvin. It does not have much of an atmosphere.
Venus is about 108 million km from the sun. It's average temperature is 737 degrees kelvin. Venus' atmosphere is over 96% CO2.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. No one even remotely knowledgeable about these issues would question this basic fact.
Also, you would think that a group of people who placed all faith in the satellite records since they (mistakenly) showed "no warming" OVER THE ENTIRE GLOBE would use a bit of self reflection when it comes to this correction. It's clear from posts all over the blogosphere that the distinction between the US and the world was immediately lost (assuming people ever understood the difference).
Posted by: cce | August 10, 2007 4:58 PM
Here in the US, for too many people, there is no significant distinction between the US and the rest of the world.
Posted by: Lee | August 10, 2007 5:13 PM
Where? The only thing I can find is this, which talks about global averages (from back in Feb 07).
Posted by: saurabh | August 10, 2007 5:22 PM
Wups, forgot to close that tag. Also, the URL: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20070208/
Posted by: saurabh | August 10, 2007 5:23 PM
I might be blind, but I can't find any graphics on the GISTEMP site talking about the US, other than the temperature anomaly graph.
Also, I can't find (although I might not be looking in the right place) any statement from GISS saying that 1998 was the record year for the US. There are two papers from 1999 and 2001, both saying that 1998 was (barely) cooler than 1934. If it was made hotter since 2001 due to a correction, the latest correction reversed this. In the 2001 paper, Hansen says that, because of the uncertainty, it would require a .1 degree margin to formally declare a new record.
Based on this, 1934 (1.25), 1998 (1.23), and 1921 (1.15) are statistically in the running for "hottest year in the US."
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001Hansenetal.pdf "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 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."
Posted by: cce | August 10, 2007 5:38 PM
Seems hard to believe that someone like Mc, known to lie, with no training as a climate scientist, could find an error in the work done by NASA. Makes you wonder if that was the only error in that work, doesn't it? I wonder if expressing a thought like that out loud automatically makes me a denialist?
Posted by: oconnellc | August 10, 2007 5:47 PM
Liars aren't always wrong, this is news to you?
He caught an error that has no real significance whatsoever except in the right-wing blogosphere.
And now he's lying about the significance of the find, wetting his pants in his belief that NOW, FINALLY, global warming has been proven false.
It reminds me of an incident a few weeks ago where someone in the creationist community caught an evolutionary biologist accidently quoting the wrong paper, then spent the next couple of week trumpeting "see! all of evolutionary biology is false!"
Too bad your level of analysis is so lame, oconnellc. But, oh, I almost forgot for a moment that you've admitted that your sole knowledge of climate science comes from CA, not from any science site, or textbook, etc.
Posted by: dhogaza | August 10, 2007 5:54 PM
Well, there are the reverse-UHI adjustments to Orland, CA that seem quite mystifying. An error? Oversight? Some justification or source code would be a big help in resolving this.
Posted by: nanny_govt_sucks | August 10, 2007 5:57 PM
saurabh,cce,
You might be right. I may have mistaken the charts discussing global temperatures for U.S. temperatures, or I might have been looking at other websites referencing U.S. temp data and thinking I was still at the GISSTEMP site.
My point is, that a few arguments will have to be rearranged, a few examples changed, etc. From the science side, this is insignificant. Looking at it from a PR/political angle, McIntyre has probably scored a point or two.
Posted by: bigcitylib | August 10, 2007 5:58 PM
He did not say it was not a greenhouse gas.
He said he couldn't prove it wasn't one.
Posted by: Karl Voliene | August 10, 2007 6:00 PM
"Even if the above is true" would seem to be hypothetical assumption that CO2 is a greenhouse has, even though we know for a fact that it is.
Posted by: cce | August 10, 2007 6:15 PM
dhogaza, why can't you just discuss something for a change instead of shouting at everyone and misrepresenting them. I never said I have no knowledge of science from any source except CA. You stated that I must have been parroting a specific group of people and I told you what blogs I was reading. You know, you could just lay out your points and then address the points that other people make. Its like we are addressing operational efficiency of the DoA all over again...
Hanson made a mistake. That means he is human. If a bunch of people who you expect to overreact about something decide to overreact, then why does it inspire such a large reaction. Guess what, some guys made a mistake in how they interpreted satellite data. They might still be making other mistakes. Now a different guy makes a mistake in calculating temperatures. He might still be making other mistakes. Wouldn't it be great if we could find out if there are other mistakes or not and how important they might be.
This is a crazily politicized debate. Sure, single data points don't matter. So do us a favor and tell us how many times this page from NASA includes the phrase "warmest year"? http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20070208/
Posted by: oconnellc | August 10, 2007 6:17 PM
oconnellc,
while yore counting occurances of 'warmest year' on that page, you might also count the number of times is says it may not be the warmest year, and the number of times is places that fact into a context of multi-year trends. Don't forget the graphics while you're at it.
Posted by: Lee | August 10, 2007 6:24 PM
Karl,
I see that you understood my argument. I suspect that dhogaza and the others did as well. I am amazed at the energy they expend throwing up red herrings rather than just answering my arguments directly.
Many of them seem to be more interested in humiliating their "opponent" than engaging in discussion, BCL and Jeff not withstanding.
I must be shown to be a dimwitted "denialist". The level of discourse has truly sunk to an abysmal low. I guess it has bled over from threads like " electricity news from Iraq".
I make no pretense of being pure and free from political predispositions, but I try to be a little open to other points of view, especially when scientific issues are being discussed.
Posted by: Lance | August 10, 2007 6:27 PM
It is a big deal. All the models are wrong, because they take these temperatures as inputs. All the proxies need recalibrating.
...
Posted by: Nick | August 10, 2007 7:10 PM
GISS CHANGE:
Flypaper for envirohate.
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | August 10, 2007 7:17 PM
Nick,
it is an 0.3% change to world temp anomaly results after 2000.
0.003C.
The error was only in data for the lower 48 states, and was 0.15C for that data. The lower 48 is 2% of the earth's surface. 0.15 x .02 = 0.003C
Global temp change over the last century is 0.8 - 1.1C depending on method. .003C out of 1C (in the range and easy to calculate) is 0.3%
0.003C, 0.3% is not going to require a recalibration of diddly-squat.
Posted by: Lee | August 10, 2007 7:20 PM
Sometimes the words don't flow from my keyboard. My last post should be:
"Even if the above is true" would seem to be only a hypothetical assumption that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, even though we know for a fact that it is.
Posted by: cce | August 10, 2007 7:51 PM
I think you got pwned: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/
Posted by: Ben Kalafut | August 10, 2007 8:43 PM
Oops, I meant commenter #1. Sorry!
Posted by: Ben Kalafut | August 10, 2007 8:46 PM
Al Gore: Global Warming Denialist
Posted by: Mike C. | August 10, 2007 9:19 PM
Planet != US
Posted by: Jen | August 10, 2007 10:01 PM
Lance: a quick question, how long have you been interested in / following the climate change issue?
Regards, John
Posted by: John Cross | August 10, 2007 10:43 PM
"it certainly sticks a pin in more than one hot air headline"
I'm not aware of any US hot air headlines but then I don't usually read US newspapers. I guess this must matter to USAians and their sychophants who have an inflated sense of their own importance.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | August 10, 2007 11:12 PM
Steve (or JohnA or Anthony) is censoring my comments. Made the following post, which was initially displayed but now is being hidden:
"For all the people coming here from conservative land, you should know that Steve has not written much in the way of published science. That he prefers putting his message out in a mdeium that he controls. That he avoids admitting when he is wrong. Also that he overemnphasizes rhetoric "flaws" versus math quantification of flaws. And (while alloiwing some debate, still censors criticism more than support.) And that's coming from a scientist a lot more conservative than Steve.
But he was spot on with detecting the error in NASA temps and deserves the accolades for finding it.
Just think that it's important that you new onlookers know this to take some of the stuff that Steve puts out with a grain of salt. What matters is truth. Not right or left or warmer or denier."
My post was in the Unthreaded thread, which is the place for general comments. While, I'm sure he does not agree with my description, it is my honest opinion and is important to state. And should be allowed to be seen. I didn't have any of the silliness in there, that I have sometimes (jokes and such).
Posted by: TCO | August 10, 2007 11:29 PM
Per Nanny's request, I did a search for 1934 1998 "warmest year" temperature and it turns out all the talk about U.S. record years can be traced to NOAA rather than NASA. (Using "virtual tie" rather than "warmest year" gave too many baseball hits, but in any case there wasn't anything on the first few pages that was ascribable to NASA.)
But what of NOAA (and more precisely NCDC)? It turns out they say that 1934 is 3rd warmest after 1998 and 2006. 2006 would have been warmest, but a small adjustment made early this year bumped it back into 2nd after 1998. Just in case anyone's wondering, there's no indication of the type of error that GISS made (using NCDC's data).
Posted by: Steve Bloom | August 11, 2007 12:09 AM
"Err guys, is the denialists who have been hyping 1998 as the warmest year so they can say that it cooled since then."
Hey, if we cherry-pick 1934 and 1998 and draw a line between those two data points we get a 64 year cooling trend.
Tim C. can use it to support his theory about how high levels of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are utterly essential to prevent a new ice age.
Posted by: Ian Gould | August 11, 2007 12:11 AM
So the same people who insist that the US domestic record is totally unreliable (see the surfasestations discussion) also believe its reliable enough to tell us that 1934 was several hundreds of a degree warmer than 1998.
Repeat after me: Oceania is at war with Eastasia....
Posted by: Ian Gould | August 11, 2007 12:21 AM
Lee, I counted and it says "warmest year" 4 times. There is also a graphic that lists the 5 warmest years in order. I didn't see the words 'virtual tie' anywhere. I notice it is mentioned many times on this page, though.
I looked for discussions of trends. It did mention absolute temperature changes since 1950. I guess I was expecting a discussion of temperature trends to include information about rates of change. Perhaps a comparison of the rate of change between 1970 and now the rate of change from 1910 to 1940?
That page is certainly about graphics... It is obvious that this page is all about the one in the upper right hand corner that lists 5 data points. It does include a graphic showing the temperatures over the past 100 years or so, but I don't see anything about rates of change.
It does state that some years are not the warmest year. It goes to trouble to place each of those that are not the warmest into the correct position in the top 5. It also indicates that other climate researchers may list those 5 data points in a different order.
In general this page is devoted to the analysis done by the folks at GISS. I wonder if it is possible that those researchers could have made some mistake with the worldwide data. Perhaps similar to the mistake that was made with US data. Or a different kind of mistake.
In any case, this page doesn't seem to be making any attempt to let people know that trends are really what matters or that these years are actually in virtual ties with each other.
I'm a bit surprised to hear about virtual ties at this point. Tim sure has weird timing. The graphs that he displays are also a bit incongruous. I remember a post of his where he mocked Crighton for displaying a graph with cleverly chosen scale on the Y axis. Tim then chooses to display a graph of his own with a y-axis spread of 3 degrees in order to show how tough it is to eyeball a change of what Gavin Schmidt referred to as a .15 degree change. Even GISS shows this type of graph with with a ~1.1degree spread. Tims sense of fairness prompted him to show the change with a spread almost triple what NASA uses. Nice work Tim, you are certainly showing that only the denialists have any hype.
Can't anyone see that it is stupid stuff like this that causes some people to question? Tim certainly could have proved his point with a different graph, one that might have looked a bit more fair. I have seen several people talk on this and other posts here about how it is the trend that matters. Well, looking at this NASA page, one finds that hard to believe. Maybe, just maybe, it isn't the G in AGW that we are questioning. Perhaps it is the A. If you have all the evidence on your side, then why all this gradeschool stuff?
Posted by: oconnellc | August 11, 2007 12:26 AM
Ian, what about those of us who just thought things should be looked at because there might be an error in there somewhere?
Posted by: oconnellc | August 11, 2007 12:44 AM
Oconnell - you don't think that this shows that the normal error-checking and correction mechanisms are working?
Posted by: Ian Gould | August 11, 2007 12:57 AM
Ian, no. Mc is a Canadian with a background in mining and a college degree in math who looks at this stuff (depending on who you believe) either for fun or because he is a paid shill for the oil/carbon industry. At least, the folks at RC who work for NASA are crediting Mc with bringing it to their attention (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/). How can you look at this and think this is part of the normal error-checking and correction mechanism?
Posted by: oconnellc | August 11, 2007 1:10 AM
Because they are reacting in a way calculated to undermine science in the public eye.
Short form - they're lying, and using their lies to try to convince people that global warming is not real.
I know you don't like the fact that I react strongly to liars and lies. I find it interesting that your response to liars and lies is "what's the big deal?"
I mean ... it's only science and the future of mankind that they're lying about it. Who would ever get upset about that?
Posted by: dhogaza | August 11, 2007 1:23 AM
You're right. It's not.
On the other hand, it's insignificant. It doesn't change anything in a meaningful way. Not exactly the scale of error that give people sleepless nights when they're working on a large variety of climate-related projects.
On the other hand, if you're looking for any error, no matter how trivial, in order to politically undermine the consequences of scientific knowledge, it's a big deal.
Posted by: dhogaza | August 11, 2007 1:27 AM
Of course you did, they're discussing the GLOBAL temperature average, not the contiguous lower-48 temperature average.
Here's the headline:
2006 Was Earth's Fifth Warmest Year
Once again, the United States is not the earth. How many times do you right wing turkeys need to be told this? It's getting tiresome.
When looking at global temperatures, there is no statistical tie with 1934.
WHY DO YOU EXPECT THEM TO SAY SOMETHING THAT'S NOT TRUE, THEN?
As they say:
They also mention other researchers around the world rank them a bit differently. However 1934 isn't on anyone's list. It was an exceptionally warm year in the United States, but not worldwide.
Posted by: dhogaza | August 11, 2007 1:34 AM
oconnellc writes: "Lee, I counted and it says "warmest year" 4 times. There is also a graphic that lists the 5 warmest years in order. I didn't see the words 'virtual tie' anywhere."
On the page in question, you are looking at global temperatures. Every year since the mid '90s has been unambiguously warmer than any year prior to the mid '90s. 1998 and 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2006 are all very similar to each other and within GISS' margin of error. 2005 is the "warmest year" by definition -- it is the biggest temeprature anomaly. All of these have occured in the past 10 years. They all blow away anything else in the instrument record.
Globally, 1934 is not in a virtual tie with any year since 1977. 1934 was not particularly warm worldwide. The warmest year prior to the 1980s was 1944. The last time global temperatures were lower than that was in 1993 due to the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
These observations can be gleaned by looking at this chart: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20070208/2006tempanom.gif
You can also see that the rate and amount of temperature rise since the late '70s is steeper and longer than that from 1907 to 1944.
Posted by: cce | August 11, 2007 1:37 AM
This isn't the only NASA page on the subject.
It's a announcement of an event, not a primer. In fact, it's an announcement of findings of one group within NASA.
So ... if a medical researcher finds out something interesting about cancer and his university publishes a PR, you'll question all of academic medicine because that PR doesn't contain textbook-level explanations of everything that's known about cancer?
This is essentially the level of your complaint.
Posted by: dhogaza | August 11, 2007 1:41 AM
Sorry, that should be just "steeper" not "steeper and longer."
Posted by: cce | August 11, 2007 1:47 AM
oconnellc, you cannot be trusted. The spread on my graph, 3 degrees, is exactly the same as on the NASA version.
Can you find anyone, anywhere, ever, writing that GISS showed that 1998 was the warmest year in the US?
Posted by: Tim Lambert | August 11, 2007 1:49 AM
You've stated several times that you've studied climate science on your own, and using your training as a physicist have come to the conclusion that it's bogus.
You've been asked for specifics, and haven't provided any beyond a handwaving argument from personal incredulity.
Your response earlier, that you can't PROVE CO2 is not a global warming gas, in now way implies that you accept the fact that it is. It's a statement tinged with doubt. Two of us read it to mean "I don't believe it, but can't prove it". Seems a fair reading to me.
Here:
So, do you or do you not agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
Simple question, simple answer.
Yet in an earlier post, you gave a long list of reasons you believe they ARE completely, or at least mostly, wrong. Those reasons boiled down to your saying "I don't believe them because it's a hard problem", i.e. personal incredulity.
See, given that ... it's easy to read your comment about CO2 as being one of disbelief that CO2 is a global warming gas, even though you do say you can't prove it's not.
So you can't prove climatologists wrong, yet earlier you said that you'd investigated the science and, in essence, decided it was bogus. Using your training as a physicist to reach that conclusion.
Harumph. I always thought physics was a fairly rigorous field...
EVEN IF - in other words, "I don't really believe they are".
CO2 as global warming gas is on your list of "even if trues".
Don't sit here pretending that you didn't express doubt about CO2 being a global warming gas. You did, clear as day.
So? That wasn't your original claim. You said that you'd disproven climate science to your personal satisfaction, using your training as a physicist.
Are you going to back up your claim with some specifics? Show us, for instance, that CO2 is not a global warming gas?
Or, alternatively, admit that you don't believe in AGW for some other reason having nothing to do with your training as a physicist.
C'mon, Lance. If you've shown the science to be wrong, share it. If you're just arguing from personal incredulity, admit it.
Posted by: dhogaza | August 11, 2007 1:53 AM
Tim, you said something about 'the NASA version' of the graph. However, there is a NASA version of temp anomolies where the 'low' value of the Y-axis is about -.4 and the high value is about .7 That looks like a spread of about 1.1. It also seems reasonable since values go from about -.4 to about .6 you can find that version here: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20070208/
There is another one here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ and it uses a y axis spread of -.4 to .6
Granted, NASA does have a graph of US temp anomolies that uses the same spread that you show. However, you use the graph to try to compare A and B (before and after comparison). You are trying to compare a change of .15 and you use graphs with a y axis spread of 3 degrees to do so. Why couldn't you have picked a graph with a spread of 1 degree? Or .5 degrees? Perhaps because that graph wouldn't have had the impact you were looking for?
Posted by: oconnellc | August 11, 2007 2:45 AM
Yeah, I take a lot of jabs at Al Gore, but it is mostly in good humor. Let me give the man credit for being a strong immigration restrictionist. He seems to be one of the few liberals who understands that it is a contradiction to whine about the amount of resources Americans and other First World nationals consume while supporting the only mechanism that is increasing those populations: high fertility Third World immigration. As it is, the United States is on track for a population of 400-500 million by 2050. That will be an environmental disaster in so many ways. Even though I'm a conservative, if Al Gore jumped in the race and promised to remain a staunch immigration restrictionist, I would seriously consider voting for the guy.
Posted by: Mike C. | August 11, 2007 2:49 AM
cce, maybe you could explain for me when it is appropriate to compare individual data points and when the trend is what is appropriate? I don't see anything on that NASA page that shows appropriate error bars for comparing years, so I can't tell what the rates of change for those period are and if they are statistically different. Shouldn't that page have that info? Otherwise, isn't this page just more hype? The difference being that this thread appears to be directed at the