07 July 2008

Nasa Backtracks on 1998 Warmest Year Claim

I remember during the 1970's there was a consensus among scientists that stress and spicy foods caused Ulcers. Then came along Australian Pathologist Robin Warren and Dr. Barry Marshall, who claimed in a medical conference that they've discovered that it was actually caused by a bacteria, H. Pylori. They were laughed at and ostracize by the Medical Community, the broad consensus at the time was that Bacterium couldn't possibly survive, much less thrive, in the acidic nature of the stomach.
T
oday, there are even articles like this one, claiming that it's not true, they were never Ostracized, but I know what I remember, and I remember seeing a conference on TV with Dr. Marshall speaking and the Audience erupting in Laughter. I remember my Doctor La
ughing about it, when I pointed out the research on this, and him saying, that's just foolishness.

W
arren and Marshall first wrote about this in 1981, and it wasn't until 17 years later that their conclusions finally became main stream. In 2005, they won a Nobel in Medicine for their discovery. Today we have Prilosec to help us combat this problem, thanks to their pioneering work.

I
tell you about this to show you the lengths that the Scientific Community takes on defending the "
Status Quo". Just like any other human organization, no one wants to admit that they are mistaken and no one wants to admit that someone else might be right.

N
ow we have the great consensus of Global Warming and NASA backtracking on claims that
1998 was the warmest year on record.
First let me tell you what I find disturbing on this.
This story has been out since August of 2007,Continued after our sponsor almost a year, and you don't hear a peep from CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, the Weather Channel or the granddaddy of News Monopolies, the Associated Press. The second thing that I find disturbing is how the Global Warming Alarmists are always talking about the fact that the studies on Anthropogenic Global Warming have all been peer reviewed for errors and if there was a problem, one of the thousands upon thousands of scientists would find and catch any errors. .. Continued after our Sponsor...


It took a School Boy to catch the Errors. After he found the errors in NASA's data, they were forced to restate their claims. And what did they have to restate?

  1. The hottest year on record is 1934, not 1998
  2. The third hottest year on record was 1921, not 2006
  3. Three of the five hottest years on record occurred before 1940
  4. 6 of the top 10 hottest years occurred in the first half of the last century.
So it's any wonder that there are so many skeptics out there? When is The Independent going to backtrack on all the stories they've done. Or ABC news, or CNN, why are they not out there telling this story as fervently as they were telling us about Global Warming? When are charts like these,
going to be revised? These charts have been rendered meaningless without the new data, yet every single Global Warming Alarmist site, still has these, as if they're still relevant!

The biggest problem with the media in general is that they think we're stupid. They think we don't know about the Medieval Warming Period and how it was actually warmer back then then it is today, or so says Harvard, but hey, who the heck are those right wing wackos right?

The big networks think that we don't know about the Little Ice age, and how the earth started warming, naturally, without any interference from us, so that by the end of the 1700's it was pretty much over. But it didn't stop warming there.

The Thames River used to freeze over every few years. It froze in 1408, 1435, 1506, 1514, 1537, 1565, 1595, 1608, 1621, 1635, 1649, 1655, 1663, 1666, 1677, 1684, 1695, 1709, 1716, 1740, 1768, 1776, 1785, 1788, 1795, and finally, the very last time was in 1814. Obviously, the earth started warming too much for it to freeze over after 1814. We also know that the earth still didn't stop warming then either, because the Hudson in N.Y. continued to Freeze up every year from 1855 all the way through to 1875 obviously, it's too warm today for that to happen, so the Hudson no longer freezes, yet our industrial revolution didn't start in earnest until the 1930's.

The whole point of this story that we have a story of Global Warming that is based on supposed facts that
no longer exist. Will the scientific community wait 17 years to act on this new data, just as the Medical community waited because they didn't want to believe in the data at hand? Has Man Made Global Warming become such a "Religion" that no amount of facts can dislodge it from our media outlets? When will we start seeing the new "Revised" charts on all the Networks Blogs and so on?

With our policies on Food, Oil, Energy and a myriad of other decisions being based upon Global Warming, we should be looking at every aspect of this issue very carefully and very closely before we act.

This video seems even more relevant now that NASA has revised it's data.




22 comments:

Morgan M said...

First, lets start with your first source for your title claim: National Center for Policy Analysis, A right wing conservative group created, headed and run out of Dallas TX of by and for the Oil Industry. Those officers and contributors that aren't blatantly listed as oil companies, such as Crow Holdings, are easy to track down. Harlan Crow, dedicated contributor to KPAC, contributor to Dole, barrasso, pat roberts, cornyn and mccain, all Republicans that vote with oil interests in mind. $29,600 has been contributed to mccains campaign by employees who ID their employer as lattimore properties inc, who's president is on the board of ncpa... Another board member is also the chairman of this company: Clark Consulting is one of the largest COLI providers in America. The term COLI typically refers to the purchase by a corporation of life insurance policies on a select group of employees in whom the corporation has an insurable interest. In general, the corporation pays the insurance premiums, owns the cash value of each policy, and is the beneficiary of the COLI policies.
Ain't that nice to know. I'll have to stop now, this makes me very weary.

Morgan M said...

Oh yeah, one more thing: http://www.truthout.org/article/scientists-were-censored-nasa

doswheeler said...

LOL, NASA Backtracking? Are we sure McBush isnt in the room? LOL

www.FireMe.To/udi

Jesse said...

I might be confused, but it looks like your first graph is about world temperature whereas your second graph is about temperatures in the U.S.

I don't see how the disparities between the two prove or disprove anything. Temperature is local, climate is global, after all.

Ian said...

You are correct, but only just. The error was in the mean temperature in the USA, not globally. The global world temperature records were largely unaffected by the minor revision.

Try again.

Lindsay said...

Not really surprising that all the comments are attacks...

Andy said...

From http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

"Finally, we note that a minor data processing error found in the GISS temperature analysis in early 2007 does not affect the present analysis. The data processing flaw was failure to apply NOAA adjustments to United States Historical Climatology Network stations in 2000-2006, as the records for those years were taken from a different data base (Global Historical Climatology Network). This flaw affected only 1.6% of the Earth's surface (contiguous 48 states) and only the several years in the 21st century. As shown in Figure 4 and discussed elsewhere, the effect of this flaw was immeasurable globally (~0.003°C) and small even in its limited area. Contrary to reports in certain portions of the media, the data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on record. Obviously the global ranks were unaffected. In the contiguous 48 states the statistical tie among 1934, 1998 and 2005 as the warmest year(s) was unchanged. In the current analysis, in the flawed analysis, and in the published GISS analysis (Hansen et al. 2001), 1934 is the warmest year in the contiguous states (not globally) but by an amount (magnitude of the order of 0.01°C) that is an order of magnitude smaller than the uncertainty."

Sorry kids, no evil socialists here, just an insignificant math error.

msmithma said...

The titles of the two graphs you are comparing show that you are comparing world averages to United States averages. The top ten for the world remains entirely post 1990. The problem is sampling error. the US only accounts for 1.6% of the area of the globe therefore you would expect the values to fluctuate more widely than the global mean.

World Top 5 Hottest years
1 2005
2 1998/2007 (tie)
3
4 2002
5 2003

United States of America Top 5
1 1934/1998 (tie)
2
3 2006
4 1921
5 1931


source NASA
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Top10.warmest.doc
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Greg said...

1934 is the warmest year on record, but only in the continental United States. NASA never tried to hide these findings from anyone, once they were informed of their error they updated their records for continental United States temperatures. The only change was that after 2000 all temperatures had to be lowered by .3 degrees F, making the 1998 temperature different from 1934 by .01 degrees F. Because the continental United States is obviously not the planet as a whole those changes affected global temperature readings insignificantly.

But don't just take my word for it, or some other blogger, here's NASA's official report of the incident that was put up on August 7, 2007. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html

VeracityStudios said...

The tone of this blog is hilarious. You sound like a creationist trying his best to beat down evolution.

Anyone who believes you can tear up millions of years worth of coal and petroleum and inject it into the atmosphere as a gas without it noticably affecting global temperatures has absolutely no understanding of physics and thermodynamics.

cab said...

you got pwned dude.... epic fail...

as if your blantant blog title clearly to stir controversy for some sleezy ad money was not enough to tip off your undeniable bias. It's your agenda to confuse the sheeple and continue this pointless charade, this tired argument. ITS GLOBAL CLIMATE change, not AMERICA CLIMATE change. Are you that dense that you think america is protected by some invisible dome of blind ignorance and pseudo-superfluous patroitism.

NoSocialism.com said...

The whole point of the Article is the rigidity of the scientific community, beginning with the example I gave at the beginning of the Article. Truth is, when you really think about it, AGW doesn't make any sense. Why? Simple, Global warming has been going on for years. 10000 years ago, how much did the temperature change, to cause the Glaciers that covered North American to melt? Yes, we had a reprieve during the Little Ice Age, but then the Globe started warming again and the little Ice Age ended towards the end of the 1600's. Did Global Warming Stop there? Towards the end of the 1700's the Thames River barely froze over any more and completely stopped by 1815. Did Global Warming Stop there? No. The Hudson continued to freeze over only up until 1875, when finally it became too warm for the Hudson to freeze over. Did Global Warming stop there? I don't think so, there's no evidence to support that it ever has.

Basically, the Globe has continued to warm at a rate of about 1 degree per century, since the end of the last Ice Age. Since Harvard says that it was actually warmer during the medieval Warm Period than it is today, we can expect things to get even warmer, if it's going to go back to that state. The point is, rising CO2 had nothing to do with it in the past, and I don't believe, as do many others, that it has anything to do with it now.

MIke said...

A failure of Epic Proportions.

You see, that is why NASA pays top dollar to engineers and scientists, and refuses to pay political hacks with a computer who think anything attributed against their ideology is false.

Lets start with the oil money that went into the propaganda trying to obfuscate the global warming scientific knowledge. Exxon has spent millions of dollars to try to confuse the public on global warming, in much the same way the tobacco industry denied cigs caused cancer, and second hand smoke, even when their own data proved otherwise.

No this is not some socialist driven agenda, but actual data and facts surrounding the issue which is becoming alarming. Maybe, in the future, people will stop touting their ideological lines and believing what they are told, and will actually do the research themselves. . .but then again, if they did that, the right wing would cease to exist, Rush would be $400million poorer, and the world would be better off.

MIke said...

You said. . .

"The point is, rising CO2 had nothing to do with it in the past, and I don't believe, as do many others, that it has anything to do with it now."

I would love to see data that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere had "nothing to do with warming in the past", because every statistical study I have ever seen based on science shows a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature. CO2 goes up, so does temp.

Yes, you do have spikes in certain periods, but the spikes are never as great as they are now. You have things such as volcanic eruptions which effect temperature, and are never brought up with other warming trends.

I would challange you to find data which shows the earth has warmed at a pace (read same slope or increase in temperature) as it is now, and can not be attributed to other factors (ie volcanic eruptions).

Even if the earth has increased at 1°C/century for the past 10,000 years as you state (and that would mean an increase of 100°C from 10,000 years ago) it has never shot up as fast as it has now, and we have over 800,000 years of climate data to show this.

I would suggest in the future to do some actual research on the topic, read the government projects which contradict your theory, and try to find any holes in them. Try to find out how the statistics are used, and if there are any flaws, try to poke holes in it. In fact, if you can, Exxon will pay you $10,000 for doing so, and it would be advantageous for you to do from a monetary standpoint.

in other words, don't publish a blog which has a complete foolish missed observation that the NASA figures were for the US, and it did not effect GLOBAL temperatures. Look for the data related to NASA's findings before making foolish blogs. Your blog did nothing but make yourself look like just another ignorant right wing hack to people with intelligence north of a zygote.

Brandon said...

What is your point? You said that "The whole point of this story that we have a story of Global Warming that is based on supposed facts that no longer exist" but it seems that you are trying to make a point about global warming and its links (or lack thereof) to industrialization and the bi-products.

If you are making this argument, I don't see how it really matters. Global worming is real and and you don't want to believe the cause that is fine, but there still needs to be progress towards reducing the global warming trend.

Articles like this that argue about the 'real' cause instead of focusing on a solution aren't helping many people. If you are waiting for the media to back track and say, "oh you are right, global warming isn't due to industrialization (which I find hard to believe)" what purpose will this serve? It seems that this would only serve to stunt the progress being made to reduced global warming.

NoSocialism.com said...

I meant since the end of the Little Ice age, which was around the end of the 1600's to the beginning of the 1700's.

Also, why BIG OIL give a dammed about Global Warming, it makes their product scarce, and the more scarce it is, the more profits they make from it, since they can charge MORE.

Before the Democrats took over Congress Gas was at just over 2 bucks a gallon, adjusted for inflation, 50% less than 1984, when the Oil Market bottomed out.

After the Democrats took office and blocked 31 bills the Republicans put forward to increase dilling, Coal to Oil, Shale to Oil and Nuclear AND proceeded to pass another 18 bills or so that took another 1 Million Acres near the Rockies away from development, and put up new road blocks on Shale to Oil, Coal to Oil, Offshore Drilling and ANWR. What was the result???

Record Profits in the Oil business.
Oh yeah, the BIG OIL Companies want this stuff exposed.

Nicholas said...

"I would love to see data that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere had "nothing to do with warming in the past", because every statistical study I have ever seen based on science shows a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature. CO2 goes up, so does temp."

Yes... there is a correlation between average atmospheric temperature and average CO2 levels, but it's the opposite of what you suggest. There are several articles that support this theory, but it goes against popular belief, and is therefore never mentioned. We are all taught to believe that CO2 causes global warming, when the fact of the matter is that we simply don't know what happens when CO2 levels rise prior to temperatures.

Also - there's no indication that the temperatures are rising as quickly as people are led to believe. Part of that train of thought has been exaggerated due to the skewed US Temperature data that NASA originally believed. People mentioned the freezing of the Thames and the Hudson. What about the Spanish explorers who made it to the west coast of North America by sailing through the Arctic Ocean? By the time the rest of the European explorers investigated this route, the Little Ice Age had set in, closing of what most people know as "The Northwest Passage".

People tend to forget why Greenland (in scandanavian tongues - Gronland) was called Greenland, and why the area known today as Newfoundland in Canada was originally known to the Vikings as "Vinland" - literally - "Wine Land". Anyone know where grape vines grow? In warm climates.

The world has survived through warmer periods than we are experiencing now. The main problem we should be focussing on is not purely CO2 emissions (British Columbia just instated a "carbon tax" on all fuel purchases - rediculous in my opinion), but rather overall energy awareness and efficiency, as well as the food crisis that some people are just starting to realize. The latest projections of global populations speculates a worldwide population of approximately 9 billion people. Unless we drop the overall per capita energy consumption, things won't ever get better.

NoSocialism.com said...

Mike, you said you would like to see data that shows CO2 has nothing to do with warming OK....
http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/img1.html
http://www.co2science.org/
Also, take a look at the video at the bottom of this story and on this next story as well:
http://www.nosocialism.com/2008/04/world-bank-accused-of-climate-change.html
And here's some more stories:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
http://nov55.com/gbwm.html

NoSocialism.com said...

Morgan, you started off your statement with "Let's start off with your source.... a Right Wing blasablah"

My source was a NASA Press release:
http://prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-14-2007/0004645546&EDATE=
That was the very first link I provided on this story.

computererds said...

"After the Democrats took office and blocked 31 bills the Republicans put forward to increase dilling, Coal to Oil, Shale to Oil and Nuclear AND proceeded to pass another 18 bills or so that took another 1 Million Acres near the Rockies away from development, and put up new road blocks on Shale to Oil, Coal to Oil, Offshore Drilling and ANWR. What was the result???

Record Profits in the Oil business.
Oh yeah, the BIG OIL Companies want this stuff exposed."

Yea, it was because of bills blocked over a year that gas has doubled in price. What was the price of oil in January 2007? $51 at the first week, and $46 during the last week. You don't think that maybe the increased price only has to do with unregulated speculation and NOT a lack of supply? Drilling will help nothing. If I could post images and much more text I would post world oil demand for the last 20 years and the prices. We should have less than $60 a barrel for oil right now.

I am not sure if global warming is human caused, in fact I think little of it is, but it looks to me that you are just trying to make this a partisan issue with this last statement.

Stomach Bacteria said...

Thank you for sharing this very useful information.

NoSocialism.com said...

Again, U.S. has Freedom of Information Act, I seriously doubt that the rest of the world's governments are telling their populace the truth, there's just way too many taxes on the line for this.

Post a Comment

Our Sponsors

 
Design by Wordpress Theme | Bloggerized by Free Blogger Templates | Macys Printable Coupons