[teknoid]

Originally Posted by Quasi

Cool, thanks for the link. I'm glad people are keeping NASA on their toes. I hope they update that graphic (above) soon, with the new values, as it seemed pretty illustrative.

Also, I'm sure you saw these parts of the CS Monitor article:

"Still, McIntyre called his finding "a micro-change," and others agree. For one, the reranking didn't affect global records, and 1998 remains tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record, the Los Angeles Times notes, quoting climatologist Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York."

"The data adjustment changes 'the inconsequential bragging rights for certain years in the U.S.,' he said. But 'global warming is a global issue, and the global numbers show that there is no question that the last five to 10 years have been the hottest period of the last century.' "



I'm not a climatologist, but I would think there are so many of these recording stations across the globe that the variations are averaged out. Plus, if a particular station had a bias of being high for example, wouldn't it be high for all of the years' data, and not just the ones that you don't like?

I've looked at where many of the global temperature sensing stations are located, and how they are maintained. It isn't pretty. A very large portion of them have remained in the same place, while urbanization occurred all around them. This places them in locations that provide false (read high) data. Locations in the former soviet union (and elsewhere) are in pitiful shape, lacking maintenance for years. Accurate data doesn't even exist to formulate a theory.

That said, I believe the earth is in a normal period of warming. It has happened before, and will happen again. Man may even be responsible for a minuscule part of it. If we pulled out all the stops to reverse it, perhaps the temperature could be lowered a tenth of a degree or so in the next fifty years. Of course, that would be at the cost of wrecking the economy. All to combat an unproven theory? Sorry, I'm not buying. Especially since places such as China and India would offset whatever we could accomplish. You did know that China just passed us in CO2 emissions, right?

[allmons]

If the drive-by media say it has to be so, then it CANNOT be true.

Al Gore has been shown to be a prodigious prevaricator, so he cannot be trusted.

There is a serious debate among serious scientists ( as there should be ). So that brings us back to square one : Is there really global warming?

My answer is that it does not matter. If it is true, we'll make do. if it's a crock, we'll make do. Either way, no human is in charge of the planet.

Chill, and then get furious at your legislators for trying to steal your gun rights. Then throw the bums out!

[Quasi]

I found the graphic with the corrected NASA data. As you can see, the change doesn't really amount to much, despite what some dubious sources might claim:

[pioneer461]

If it were not for global warming, we'd still be having our picnics on the tops of glaciers in Nebraska. C'mon folks, it's called a normal climate cycle. Too bad some pin-heads and ex-president-wanna-bes with political agendas have to make a political issue out of it.

First create a crisis, then write a book, make a movie and sit back and rake in the dough! What a great country.

[teknoid]

Originally Posted by Quasi

Cool, thanks for the link. I'm glad people are keeping NASA on their toes. I hope they update that graphic (above) soon, with the new values, as it seemed pretty illustrative.

Also, I'm sure you saw these parts of the CS Monitor article:

"Still, McIntyre called his finding "a micro-change," and others agree. For one, the reranking didn't affect global records, and 1998 remains tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record, the Los Angeles Times notes, quoting climatologist Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York."

"The data adjustment changes 'the inconsequential bragging rights for certain years in the U.S.,' he said. But 'global warming is a global issue, and the global numbers show that there is no question that the last five to 10 years have been the hottest period of the last century.' "



I'm not a climatologist, but I would think there are so many of these recording stations across the globe that the variations are averaged out. Plus, if a particular station had a bias of being high for example, wouldn't it be high for all of the years' data, and not just the ones that you don't like?

As I said (repeatedly, I believe), Urbanization has encroached on the existing stations. Perhaps you don't realize that this occurs over time, and gets worse. Hence, the accuracy would degrade over time. This means that the more recent the data, the more flawed it is. Here are some example pictures:

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

There are plenty more. This is not an isolated incident, more like the norm.