Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
US Temperatures revised
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, August 09, 2007

Warren Meyer at Coyote Blog finds a little irony in the fact that in the same week Newsweek declares the science of global warming settled, recent temperature numbers have been revised downwards because, apparently, of faulty 'science'.

Warren has been involved in helping scientists in evaluating the measurement quality of each station which forms the network from which temperature measurements are taken. You need to read his latest post to get an idea of the problems they discovered. It's fascinating.

The data in question is this:
One of the most cited and used historical surface temperature databases is that of NASA/Goddard's GISS. This is not some weird skeptics site. It is considered one of the premier world temperature data bases, and it is maintained by anthropogenic global warming true believers. It has consistently shown more warming than any other data base, and is thus a favorite source for folks like Al Gore. These GISS readings in the US rely mainly on the US Historical Climate Network (USHCN) which is a network of about 1000 weather stations taking temperatures, a number of which have been in place for over 100 years.
Bottom line - the temps are being revised downward and the Michael Mann statement "there is a 95 to 99% certainty that 1998 was the hottest year in the last one thousand years" seems to have been found to be in that 1% range vs. the 99% range.
Before today, GISS would have said 1998 was the hottest year on record (Mann, remember, said with up to 99% certainty it was the hottest year in 1000 years) and that 2006 was the second hottest. Well, no more. Here are the new rankings for the 10 hottest years in the US, starting with #1:

1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939

Three of the top 10 are in the last decade. Four of the top ten are in the 1930's, before either the IPCC or the GISS really think man had any discernible impact on temperatures.
Anyway, another reason that a good dose of skepticism should be maintained when anyone declares the 'science of global warming is settled'.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
McQ writes:
Anyway, another reason that a good dose of skepticism should be maintained when anyone declares the ’science of global warming is settled’.
I’ll see that and raise it: there is no "science of global warming."

I’m with Michael Crichton on this one.* The whole thing is just another "crisis" in a long line of such scares, only this time intentionally orchestrated with malice aforethought.

Naturally, when it became obvious that the climate changes (e.g., Greenland isn’t called Greenland for nothing), "global warming" was erased from the side of the barn during the night and replaced with "climate change," I think just in case we ran into a cooling trend. (Al Gore would have to go from mopping his brow to showing up places wearing his Arctic parka.)

* I recommend Crichton’s novel State of Fear, by the way. It’s not a very good novel — though it’s a quick read — but it’s a hell of a good outline of how this sort of hysteria gets right out of control, especially when you put all the global warming feedbags out there for the grazing scientists. They’ll get down to the "science" quite directly.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
They’ll get down to the "science" quite directly.
If the lynch mobs led by the "Global Warming" Mafia allow them.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
I’ll second Martin’s suggestion. State of Fear was a great book, esecially the citations he made backing up his statements.

And Science is not ruled by "consensus". If it were, the Earth would still be flat, the Sun would still revolve around the Earth, there would only be 4 elements, and there would be spontaneous generation.

"consensus" means nothing in the world of science, and nothing is ever settled.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Would anyone who ever said this was "settled" please shut up.

Federal grants should be given out on a equal basis of "proving" and "disproving" "Human Inducted Planetary Warming" thus reducing the "gravy train bias".

These guys got the same treatment as the "global warming heretics" ..

In 1983, Dr. J. Robin Warren and Dr. Barry Marshall reported finding a new kind of bacteria in the stomachs of people with gastritis. Warren and Marshall were soon led to the hypothesis that peptic ulcers are generally caused, not by excess acidity or stress, but by a bacterial infection. Initially, this hypothesis was viewed as preposterous, and it is still somewhat controversial. In 1994, however, a U. S. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Panel concluded that infection appears to play an important contributory role in the pathogenesis of peptic ulcers, and recommended that antibiotics be used in their treatment. Peptic ulcers are common, affecting up to 10% of the population, and evidence has mounted that many ulcers can be cured by eradicating the bacteria responsible for them.

They even got thrown out of some medical symposiums.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Just a note in passing; no correction will be made in the Liberal Narrative to reflect these corrections. Like "Bush lied", the erroneous statistics are with us (or at least the sheeple) forever.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
Seems like the "add a comment" function on the Newsweek story disappeared.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Sam old story goes on .. Global warming will step up after 2009: scientists.

But here is where the action is ..
Former U.S. Vice President, Al Gore, waves to the press, Tuesday Aug. 7, 2007 in Singapore during the Global Brand Forum where he received the Brand Icon of Year Award
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
You think Dr. Erb will withhold judgment on this as well?
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Algore was throwing around the word "Consensus" back in 1992, WAYYY before there was any serious research performed. Since that time, he hasn’t learned that "reasearch" is NOT coming to a pre-ordained conclusion.

Erb and the rest of the lock-step fascists deliberately miss these crucial points.

BTW, in 2006 (per the list), Phoenix set the record for most days under 100 during June-August, and parts of the valley set the all time lows by 2-4 degrees in December, followed by the first snow in the valley since 1990.
 
Written By: Sharpshooter
URL: http://
BTW, in 2006 (per the list), Phoenix set the record for most days under 100 during June-August, and parts of the valley set the all time lows by 2-4 degrees in December, followed by the first snow in the valley since 1990.
Well duh it’s the sporadic cooling effect caused by global warming.
 
Written By: Mac
URL: http://
I’ll grant you that you got your title right.

But the implications somehow get overlooked in the rest of the piece.

This is temperature data for the UNITED STATES, not the globe.

It is NOT a downward revision of global warming data. The effects on the global data are trivial.

So it has no implication on Mann’s statement, nor much of anything else.

Are you guys interested in facts at all?
 
Written By: Abe
URL: http://
It is NOT a downward revision of global warming data.
Where does it state it is? The point made is that incidents like this show that the "science" of global warming is hardly settled.
So it has no implication on Mann’s statement, nor much of anything else.
Take it up with Warren Meyer, he seems to think it does.
Are you guys interested in facts at all?
Compared to you?

LOL!

Give it a rest, please.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"The point made is that incidents like this show that the "science" of global warming is hardly settled."

Nobody has ever claimed that the "science" of global warming is settled - if by that you mean all the precise measures of every particular piece of the planet that could possibly be made.

What is settled is the fact that the earth is warming at a rate that cannot be explained by natural variations, solar output, rotational wobbles or any other natural factor, and that this warming coincides with an increase in greenhouse gases that have a known effect on the heat-balance of the planet.
 
Written By: Abe
URL: http://
And this is the "science" that Warren Meyer gives us:

"All of these necessary revisions to surface temperatures will likely not make warming trends go away completely. What it may do is bring the warming down to match the much lower satellite measured warming numbers we have,"

i.e. I think (hope, guess) that if every temperature measure that I intend to analyze turns out to be flawed in some manner that I think (hope, guess) it might be, then the extent of warming will be less than is currently proclaimed by the climate scientists.

Now thats a great empirical peg to hang your hat on! Maybe, just maybe it wont change those trends much at all - like these new adjustments dont. Did you see the graph on his site?

Also:
"In my global warming book, I argue that future man-made warming probably will exist, but will be more like a half to one degree over the coming decades than the media-hyped numbers that are ten times higher."

OK. So he accepts that man-made global warming exists, its just a matter of how much. I’ll admit that your comments are rather measured - no one is against skepticism - but your commenters are sure a bunch of wackos.
 
Written By: Abe
URL: http://
The fact is, just about any fact that questions the global warming scenario, pokes some very serious holes in that whole propaganda machine. Which, of course, is why the global warming hucksters cannot brook any questioning of their mantra. As Abe demonstrates rather nicely... (Thank you, Abe)

One could logically ask if the global warming scare wasn’t being created by an overheating Pentium floating point unit. In that event, Certainly, there IS warming, though on a somewhat smaller scale.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Nobody has ever claimed that the "science" of global warming is settled ...
Uh, yeah, "somebody" has. Try to keep up.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Abe writes:
What is settled is the fact that the earth is warming at a rate that cannot be explained by natural variations, solar output, rotational wobbles or any other natural factor, and that this warming coincides with an increase in greenhouse gases that have a known effect on the heat-balance of the planet.
Ah, no, Abe, that is not "settled." It’s not even clear that it is a good hypothesis — i.e., potentially the best explanation for the ~0.6 degrees C of warming over the past century or so. "Scientific consensus" based on the urban legends of environmentalists, incomplete data, overwrought computer models, and research money flowing in with a message attached to it, to name but a few elements of the "consensus," is not to be confused with actual science.

The Earth has been warming since the last ice age, with at least one interruption during the little ice age. Where I’m sitting right now was formerly covered by a glacier. So talk of "glaciers receding" is to talk of what happens between ice ages. Talk of the Greenland ice cap melting is to talk of what happened to Greenland during the Medieval warm period, hence the name Greenland.

Even the term "science of global warming" is indicative of a fraud because it assumes it own conclusion. There’s a field called Climatology, or climate science, and serious practitioners of it and its several inter-related specializations, as opposed to people who flooded into it chasing the huge sums earmarked for "global warming" research, have a great respect for the utter complexity of the climate system and know how foolish it is to jump at superficial correlations and throw out any data that contradicts them.

Any real science related to the issue of average global temperature is dwarfed by the politics and by the politicized science. The fortuitous change in terminology, from "global warming" to "climate change," will of course accomodate the embarrassment of the "consensus" should global temperatures embark on a cooling trend.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
McQ,

I dont know if you are just lazy or a born propagandist.

You take my quote compeltely out of context and add nothing but a little dose of mindless snark. Are you not interested in the real issues at all?
 
Written By: Abe
URL: http://
"There’s a field called Climatology, or climate science, and serious practitioners of it and its several inter-related specializations, as opposed to people who flooded into it chasing the huge sums earmarked for "global warming" research, have a great respect for the utter complexity of the climate system and know how foolish it is to jump at superficial correlations and throw out any data that contradicts them."

Yes Martin, there is such a field of serious scientists, and they mostly disagree with you.

"Any real science related to the issue of average global temperature is dwarfed by the politics and by the politicized science. "

In the public arena, sure. OF course. There are very few real scientists relative to the number of people who express opinions in the marketplace of political ideas. No doubt there are 1000x more GW supporters than real scientists, and many of them say over-the-top or uninformed things. Just as there are 1000x times more GW deniers than actual scientists, and they say the most ridiculous things too. See this thread.

And politicized science? Is that more likely to be found where? On one side of this dispute than the other?
The "good" side vs. the "evil" side perhaps?
 
Written By: Abe
URL: http://
I dont know if you are just lazy or a born propagandist.
Physician, heal thyself.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Abe goes obvious:
Just as there are 1000x times more GW deniers than actual scientists
They must be all leftover Holocaust deniers, right?
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Some of you may find this amusing;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEaOkhWOZ1A
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider