digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!

Error Found in GISS Dataset - 1934, NOT 1998, the Hottest Year on Record

americanthinker.com — Error found in surface temperature data. NASA acknowledges, corrects its dataset. "1934 is now the hottest, and 3 others from the 1930's are in the top 10. Furthermore, only 3 (not 9) took place since 1995 (1998, 1999, and 2006). The years 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 are now below the year 1900 and no longer even in the top 20." Coverage by the MSM: 0

show profanity settings
expand all
  • KMye, on 10/10/2007, -13/+65In the interest of full disclosure, this correction applies only to average temperatures within the United States.
    • KMye, on 10/10/2007, -6/+34I also apologize for the tenor of this article; I would have rather submitted something more objective and balanced, but a day later, still no major newspaper or TV channel has touched the story.
      • davidwasman, on 10/10/2007, -26/+10Maybe because it came from a crap source. The guy is a Economics major...not a scientist. He's full of O'Reilly's man juice.
      • hierophantus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Dugg both your comments up for frankness and rationality. (Even though I suspect we might not agree on global warming.)
      • Insightful, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5Disclose all you want but this is still inaccurate. The reason this is not reported by MSM because it does not change anything.

        Here is a point by point breakdown from:

        August 10, 2007 |
        New NASA Data Still Proves Global Warming is Real
        By David Cassel




        Yes, there's a glitch in NASA's data about U.S. air temperatures. But the corrected data still shows a warming trend that's unmistakeable.

        Many arguments against global warming require a carefully-slanted presentation of the statistics. Here's what global warm skeptics are saying — and the evidence from NASA's most recent statistics.

        The new figures show global warming is a myth
        These new figures don't show anything about global warming. They're exclusively for the United States.

        The new figures show a huge discrepancy
        Actually, the discrepancy isn't that huge. A climate web site reviewed NASA's figures and reported "an upward discontinuity" which would inflate the reported temperatures — by just one degree Centigrade in the winter, and only 0.8 degrees annually.

        1998 was not America's hottest year on record
        This is true — but it's the second hottest year ever recorded in the U.S., and the hottest in the last 73 years.

        More here: http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/08/10/new-nasa-data-still-proves-global-warming-is-real/
        • bCabulon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10.8 degrees C is quite a bit compared to the overall observed warming.
      • caponumen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10The truth is we still to this very day do not have the capability to make accurate enough measurements of all the variables in enough detail to model anything with any useful accuracy.
        The most glaring fact is no one even knows what all the variables are and probably never will.

        The claim of 100 years of usable data is non-sense and even if we did have 100 years of PERFECT DATA, it is an inadequate sample even in simple statistics.
        In any case the climate is a chaotic system that can't be solved with ANY numeric approach as it is far too complex by many orders of magnitude.
        In fact it is in a class of problems that cannot be solved by any method or with any amount of effort.
    • EmileVictor, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3Noam Chomsky anyone?
    • execute85, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Yeah, I kind of figured this article was about US temps since the data is from like the US Historical Climatology Network and not like the "Everywhere including US Historical Climatology Network".

      But thanks for the full disclosure.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -13/+18There's a free google video that sort of, but not fully explains the media blackout: the great global warming swindel. But tell me, who in hear can't see when people are looking to make a killing, moneywise? Doesn't it make sense for the rich and powerful to scare you up to think that there's a climate crisis so that you're willing to pay a "carbon tax" to "offset global warming"? It does make sense, they've scammed us before with the income tax and the death tax and the inheritance tax, and we fall for it every time.

      For anyone interested in just finding the real story behind the bull and smokescreen, i want you to go and discover it yourself without my help so as to allow you to see the truth yourself. So, for yourself, go google, yahoo, or whatever else these hints:

      Abiotic Oil, Underground coal fires in China burn for millions of years, Ukrainian/russian deep oil theory, bronze era average temperature, carbon tax, scientists sue to have name removed from global warming list, thames river freezes in 1700's, sun increases to double radiance, pluto and mars ice caps melting.

      it took me a couple months of non stop researching, but the pay off to know the real truth is always worth it. Good luck my fellow nerds...excuse me, digg users....
      • Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5Uh, I would love to have the link to the double radiance articles. I'm an amateur astronomer and all the periodicals I read say the Sun's output has DECLINED slightly the last 30 years. Doubled? I would really like you to prove that one. Secondly, some people INFER that the Martian and Plutonian icecaps are melting because of slight changes in the overall planetary luminosity, which really only measures energy reflected by the planet. I've read all the articles I could find about the supposedly increased solar output being the potential cause of planetary warming throughout the solar system, but every last one of them relies on planetary luminosity as their key metric and that is a profoundly flawed metric when you extrapolate from "it's reflecting more energy" to "the planet is warming up". The key thing is that, at lest according to what I've read, the Sun ISN'T sending out more energy, it's sending less ... so what exactly is causing the supposed warm up? Not the Sun in my books.

        Besides, anti-global warming people love to point out how astoundingly inaccurate and unreliable the temperature readings on our own planet are, where we can actually, gasp, measure the temperature and yet they pee themselves with glee when some horrible misinterpreted data from planets millions of miles from our own where we have almost NO instruments of any sort (I'll give you the Mars rovers on this one) shows an increase in luminosity. If we can't be accurate here (their opinion, not mine) then how exactly can we be accurate way the ***** out there ... but we're supposed to take those questionable inferences at face value.

        It astounds me that you fear the people who might make money on a carbon-taxed world, but you seem OK with kowtowing to people and companies who have already proven that they can't be trusted. One side of the global warming debate does it because they believe it and the current science supports it. The other side, the oil side, does it because they have trillions of dollars of profit to lose. Which side would you trust, especially when ExxonMobile has been caught fronting fake companies and think tanks the world over to spout their anti-global warming ***** to the masses? My ex tracked down all the shell companies and their income streams for a living. The right royal ***** in this story are definitely the oil barons, along with all the pro-oil politicians that like to suck their dicks. You can sleep in your bomb shelter at night fearing those terrible commie politicians if you want to, but I'll be doing my best to screw over the same ***** that have been undermining fleet fuel efficiency, emissions, alternative fuels and anything else that could cut their dollars for the last 50 years. Some folks may see the carbon tax as an opportunity to screw us over, but how you can turn a blind eye to the folks who are already doing it?
        • Scorpy2643, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11You think there is no money to be made form global warming fear mongering? Are you REALLY that stupid? Al Gore goes on a world wide manhunt against global warming, and just happens to own a carbon offset company? How much money was paid to scientists who came up with data in favor of global warming last year, versus for scientists who came upwith data debunking it?

          Come on.... just follow the money.

          Same thing happened about this time last century. widespread fear mongering, went on well into the 30's in America, look into the history of eugenics from about 1900 up to WWII.

          There was money in supporting the fear, the force coming to destroy the world....
        • Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2@ Scorpy

          Yeah, follow the money. TRILLIONS of dollars of profits projected for the oil companies over the next decade.

          Add up all the alternative energy companies in the world combined and their budgets are less than one single oil company, many of whom are among the largest economies of the world, beating out most countries.
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Wait a second. I didn't push any of my beliefs on anyone. I invited them to search for the truth. No one said that we have any resolute answers, otherwise i'd be putting that up and breaking mental paradigms and we wouldn't face this carbon tax extortion (you do think its wrong correct, seeing as none of us truly knows why the earth is heating up). So you just ranted about nothing, proving to me what needed not be proved that we DON'T KNOW what's going on, but we can safely say it is not mans doing. Not one iota. And you know it. If you've researched as you claim, and as much as I or more, than its clear that man is not responsible for this strange behavior. We are indeed resonsible for lifeform degredation, mass extinction, super toxic, super poison dumping *u.s. military dumps 63 million pounds of nerve gas into ocean*. So yes, we're responsible for a lot of pain and suffering on this planet, but its clear, this is less than a tip of an ice berg and history proves that. In the 1700's the thames river in london froze over and they said there was going to be another ice age. In the bronze age, it was over 10 degrees hotter. and humanity flourished. What's so scary today is...not that there are any extremely earth shattering iceberg shifts or some other bull that the media inflates, but it is the fact that a highly suspect and criminal gov't and media are pushing us to fear it. That automatically proves they're wrong and that means we're closer to the truth than a lot of others. So, I'd like to know what you think is going on

          BECAUSE YOU'RE A BALD FACED LIAR! The sun HAS indeed increased in luminosity. No, I didnt say it increased in heat or energy output, but it has been proven that the earth and our solar system has entered a higher energy, or higher density ..."feild" or "plane" in the galaxy and that may be worth looking further into. I'm no particle or any other physicist, so I couldn't explain that to you. BUt don't you dare lie to ME, let alone these digg users that the sun's radiance hasn't increased. You know it, or you're a liar and haven't really read a thing!
          • Stratochief66, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You certainly aren't a particle or anything physicist; or indeed a scientist of any kind. You seem to say that the evidence you found about the increasing solar luminosity says that we have entered a plane of higher energy flux in the galaxy, well that has nothing to do with solar luminosity.
          • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You're right, and i have no idea about a lot of other things as well. That's why i dugg you up even though you tried to slap me down. We DON'T KNOW ANYTHING, but the few specs of knowledge we have proves there is no relation betweens man's activity and global warming. Cows spurting out methane and the melting of the ice caps and subsequent release of methane from the algae and other creatures there is much more of a factor than us. So, truth is, we'll keep searching for the truth. and btw, no, i made no correlation that the evidence i found about solar luminosity linking moving into a plane of higher energy having anything to do with anything. Hell, i just heard about the moving into a higher plane of energy from a scientist while watching a documentary. I have no way to discredit his claims because other scientists agreed, but we can prove without a doubt that solar luminocity has increased. I'd like to know what you think though. Because we're in the dark and I just want the truth.
        • tennisOK, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1This is nonsense. Solar radiation, that is, the power given out from the sun which we receive on earth has not increased since 1990. And, sorry, but this:

          "it has been proven that the earth and our solar system has entered a higher energy, or higher density ..."feild" or "plane" in the galaxy and that may be worth looking further into"

          ...is complete and utter meaningless drivel. Please direct us to a source which "proves" this "theory" of yours. The language you use, in itself indicates you have no idea what you're talking about.

          Likewise wittering on about the medieval warm phase in England indicates you're reading from the denialist prayer book. Yes, it did happen, temperature records indicate it did, but we also know it only effected localized portions of the northern hemisphere, not the southern hemisphere, that is to say it was a local, not a global phenomenon. Which is why it doesn't cause a spike in global temperature charts. Additionally, increasing the temperature of a temperate region, like the UK would have far less catastrophic consequences than doing the same at, say, on of the poles, or say, Africa.

          By the way, the Great Global Warming Swindle is hardly, ahem, a credible source of AGW skepticism - it's riddled with scientific errors and heavy on right wing political spin:

          http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html

          Google a bit further and you'll see how little of the "scientific" debate is actually germane, and how pretty many of the scientists involved, (with the exception of Richard Lindzen) are oil industry shills. Hearing Nigel Lawson, a proponent of the UK's version of Reganomics during the 80s Thatcher-era talk about the effects of climate change measures on developing nations, is not only somewhat hypocritical given his governments own policies, but is also hugely inaccurate.
          • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The Medieval Warming Period was global, not restricted to isolated pockets of the Northern Hemisphere. And nice job painting nearly all AGW skeptics as "oil company shills".
          • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Thanks for sticking up for me tech, and yes, the medieval warming period WAS global, as was the bronze age increase. I have no idea whethe the cooling that took place in the 1700's was localized, but I believe it would hardly matter seeing as the temperature change was radical, yet reversed over time to normal. I'm not trying to appear super informed, but that's rude to shoot me down and claim I don't know what I'm talking about. There's no need to defend myself, I've obviously given you plenty of information that's verifiable, and that backs me. But my question to you is, why haven't you heard or after hearing "researched" what some physicists regard as our having entered a denser plane of the galaxy. I specifically said, not only do i NOT have a clue what they were talking about *though interested* , but I stated that they probably don't either. But its still worth looking into seeing as how the votes still out on what this warming is. And why 50,000 species go extinct a year.
        • snowball69, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Fair comment indeed requesting proof... so... in the spirit of equivocality...

          "The other side, the oil side, does it because they have trillions of dollars of profit to lose. Which side would you trust, especially when ExxonMobile has been caught fronting fake companies and think tanks the world over to spout their anti-global warming ***** to the masses? My ex tracked down all the shell companies and their income streams for a living." (Gaki)

          Could you please cite reputable sources to back up these claims? e.g. name of research company (obviously the researcher is already anonymous) - and the names of at least 5 companies set up as fake fronting companies and thinktanks with clear evidence to show this is funded by such oil companies. I'd be interested to see both sides of the argument demonstrated and I'm sure otherw sould be too.

          Also extending your logic regarding Nigel Lawson to others would cause some problems if you likewise included Margaret Thatcher as a prime-mover in the entire IPCC debacle. Clearly guilt-by association falls flat on that one. Who benefits here?

          Bear in mind that the amount being put into the pro-AGW side of the so-called "debate" is astronomical and it is no surprise given the potential gains from literally "selling fresh air" and speculation on carbon-trading markets that those investing in AGW and carbon theories have an awful lot to gain here. I've yet to see any concrete evidence put forward to convince me of a lot of the pro-AGW theorists' claims but like many I am open to persuasion.
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I've yet to see any concrete evidence put forward to convince me of a lot of the pro-AGW theorists' claims but like many I am open to persuasion. -

          I second that.
      • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Gaki, what does oil money have to do with finding out the truth behind global warming. That's beside the point like arguing, Why is the nation declining, let's look at the citizens gun purchases and home forclosures.. That's no real indeces of a truth, we should be looking at the data of a supposed warming and its effects on the modern continental pattern and potentially hazardous effects on a human population approaching 9 billion.
    • caponumen, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7The truth is we still to this very day do not have the capability to make accurate enough measurements of all the variables in enough detail to model anything with any useful accuracy.
      The most glaring fact is no one even knows what all the variables are and probably never will.

      The claim of 100 years of usable data is non-sense and even if we did have 100 years of PERFECT DATA, it is an inadequate sample even in simple statistics.
      In any case the climate is a chaotic system that can't be solved with ANY numeric approach as it is far too complex by many orders of magnitude.
      In fact it is in a class of problems that cannot be solved by any method or with any amount of effort.
      • Subliminational, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Exactly, Its easy to forget that all of these models are just approximations of the truth. Scientists are often mistaken. Take the common belief in the ether around the turn of the century for example (there are still a few holdouts even now though!). There may be some cause no one has thought of yet. Thats not to say that we shouldn't try to reduce our dependence on oil. I think in general people blow the entire thing out of proportion because doom and gloom makes a good story and like some of the anti-warming people say, you'll get money for research on topics with nice sounding buzzwords. I think its good to have the debate, but people should be tolerant of other's views instead of name calling like often happens on Digg.
  • BigManOnCampus, on 10/10/2007, -19/+70Too bad this couldn't have been corrected less than 9 years after the hysteria over 1998's temperatures. It might have made people stop and think a little more instead of subscribing to fear.
    • TomPlansMedia, on 10/10/2007, -15/+7keep in mind this website is an extremely conservative outfit. take a look at their main page, half the stories are anti-global warming
      • neuropsychguy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12"keep in mind this website is an extremely conservative outfit. take a look at their main page, half the stories are anti-global warming"

        By that reasoning, Digg is an extremely liberal outfit. Look at all the "pro-global warming," anti-Iraq war, anti-Bush, etc. articles (and the majority of the comments as well).

        Now that both sites are "extreme" we can rule out the validity/truth of both (is that kind of like saying "I only tell lies"?)
        • Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Digg doesn't pay people to post articles or opinions. Diggers are liberal because society is predominantely liberal. Any big enough sample will reflect on society as a whole.
        • bCabulon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not so sure on that one. Digg is a self selecting group of technically proficient people. About a third of the people I know are computer illiterate.
    • MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -10/+61998 is #2. still, dumbass.
    • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2AFAIK the data corrected is all past 2000, so it could hardly have mattered before 1998.
    • Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1At the risk of derailing the thread ... I'll bet some Iraqis are wishing that the incorrect belief that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 would have been corrected by this point and that Americans had stopped to think a bit before reacting in fear.

      Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.
    • HastyBoom, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0How is that subscribing to fear if people were going on the current "facts" at hand?
      • HastyBoom, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Why does everything i say get burried?
    • L0C0loco, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Please do not equate a change in a portion of the record (48 contiguous United States) with the global record. What is not shown in the less than objective article (gorebots?) is what the old record was before the correction and the impact on the entire global mean temperature. This is nothing more than another case of selective facts mixed in with ideological hype to confuse the uneducated and provide fodder for the fans of these "news" sites.
      • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You're right. The problem is that a lot of non-scientific news sources (newspapers, magazines, etc.) would just say "1998 was the hottest year on record" in a story about global warming or the climate. Now that's not true. They never went into any detail about it or gave it any context.
  • anaesthetica, on 10/10/2007, -42/+12Whatever, *everyone* knows that NASA is just a front for the neocons and corporate amerikkka.
    • profertel, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Dr Hansen at GISS is probably one of Bush's least favorite government employees.
      • anaesthetica, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12I don't think Diggers understand sarcasm.
        • R2Bacca, on 10/10/2007, -8/+6I dugg you down. I don't know who you are. I have no idea what your opinions are on such matters. Considering a comment on digg lacks any intonation, you statement is easily interpreted as your true opinion and not as sarcasm as you intended. In fact, this reply could be sarcastic and you wouldn't even know it.
        • GTPilot, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3You're right. If they did, they wouldn't try putting it in their comments since posters aren't known well enough to know if they are being sarcastic. People do have different views.
        • rompom7, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Sorry, I'll be sure to put on my sarcasm goggles whenever I read one of your posts, anaesthetica.
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7The tubes are too clogged to transport your sarcasm to most diggers.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Also Aliens.
  • gniess, on 10/10/2007, -23/+33"Of course, eco-maniacs will argue that it's the global readings that count, not those of the USA alone. Nuts to that."

    So this is for the U.S. alone, not the rest of the world. It's also a pretty biased source based on that language. Not that I'm arguing with the data. It's just poorly presented.

    • samdu, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4As opposed to the unbiased ramblings of people like Al Gore?
      • arjie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What a funny thing to say. "This is a biased source" doesn't mean everything but this source is unbiased. Jesus.
    • Stratochief66, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Wow, was that really a direct quote? I find it interesting and questionable how he claims that not all -global- readings should be accounted for in deciding whether -global- warming is actually happening.
  • nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -8/+82I'm formally resigning from any global warming threads. It's getting obvious that neither side has it's ducks in a row. I'll keep doing the green thing because it is good for the environment but I'm adopting a wait and see attitude with the climate data.
    • redrighthand, on 10/10/2007, -13/+3I know nuthin bout nuthin till petraeus gets back.
      • tony134340, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I dugg you up because not everything has to make sense.
      • mjferring, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2dennis miller rules
    • postaldave, on 10/10/2007, -8/+18good for you. you might also find that many "evil conservatives" really do like thinks like clean air and clean water. we just don't want to hand the world over to a bunch of communist thugs.
      • Nossie, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6then why encourage outsourcing to China and the middle east?..

        Apt Homer Simpson quote: DOH!
      • gordeaoux, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Yeah, better to stick to Orwellian thugs.
      • Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Did you somehow miss the history class on the Industrial Revolution and all those people getting chained to their looms so that the new industrialists could have slavery but with a patina of "employment" to it? Have you not noticed that most of our goods are make in the same ***** way 400 years later and the people doing it again are making the covers of business magazines for making their corporations so profitable?

        Jesus, forget the commie thugs ... they lost their kick at the cat. It's the Capitalist thugs that I'm afraid of.
        • Stratochief66, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It wouldn't be so popular if it weren't so darn efficient! It is uncapitalistic of you to suggest that anything other than the most efficient method is the best one. And we all know that America is nothing if not a free capitalist state!
    • Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5to be fair one data point won't prove (or disprove) anything... it really doesn't change much.
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8I accept your resignation, sir.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8Smug alert lowered to yellow.
    • KenLin, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4Don't let the idiot door slam you dumb ass on your way out. On the one side, you have peer reviewed, world-wide consensus that shows 1. the earth is warming, and 2) it is most likely man-made.

      On the other side, you have an argument that relies on calling the other sides "Gore-bots" and "eco-maniacs" and half dozen so-called scientist who found one single wrong data point and thus no way 1. earth is warming and 2. it is because of men.

      And you are quitting because you think both sides present equal evidence?

      Pathetic.
      • Scorpy2643, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5i challenge you to go to your local colleg and take just one geology course. Ask your professor how many times, before men even existed on the planet, did it heat and cool. pay close attention to the answer.
        • Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Jesus, Scorpy. Do you honestly think that global warming advocates don't know about Earth's heating and cooling cycles? Yeah, it was warmer in the Bronze Age and yes, the Earth heats and cools. We've all seen the wooly mammoth skeletons just like you have.

          What we're saying is that while the Earth has it's natural cycles, this particular change has happened very rapidly, much more rapidly than any other "natural" cycles that we know of. Ice cores show the general cooling and heating trends, but this is spiking higher and faster than anything we can extrapolate into the past using ice cores. Seeing as the only thing that has changed (geologically speaking) of any significance over the last 100 years is that humanity hit the Industrial Age ... it's not rocket science to see where the change is coming from. Know anything else that changed just in the last 100 years that could account for it? Solar output has been up and down all century and temperatures have NOT generally followed that cycle. What should be a steady up and down (though the Earth's atmosphere mitigates a LOT of the solar output) is a rapid climb instead.
          • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1We don't know enough to conclude that this happened any faster than "natural" cycles. We dot understand the climate today or the historical climate to the degree necessary to come to that conclusion. At any rate, the AGW debate has been politicized.
        • bCabulon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I've got a stupid question about ice cores. There is a lot of talk about how glaciers are melting away. If a warming trend like the current one had happened in the past, wouldn't it have destroyed the evidence of itself? I guess you could look for a lack of ice of a given age. Also, how is the compression caused by the weight taken into account? Or does it matter? I really don't know what exactly they are looking at. Is it something as simple as the amount accumulation in a band? That just tells levels of precipitation not temperature. If it is based on the quality of the ice itself, aren't there a lot of things that could change it over a thousand years?
        • Kiganshee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The idea is that Oxygen-16 is preferentially frozen icecaps or glaciers (because it is preferentially vaporized from the ocean and rained down on the mountains/glaciers), so times with lower Oxygen-16/higher Oxygen-18 in the ice core represent glaciation, and the opposite can be inferred to represent a cooler climate. Oxygen isotope ratios can also be taken from limestones. I was not aware of this before, but the wikipedia article mentions certain contaminations that have to be accounted for depending on the site the ice core is taken from.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_isotope_ratio_cycle
      • snowball69, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3@Kenlin - Alternatively you have also have a peer-reviewed world wide consensus made up of considerably MORE than half-a dozen scientists which is not funded or supported by a political agenda nor rooted in the United Nations and on the other you have AGW theorists shouting loudly making physical threats of violence and the careers of dissenting scientists, using techniques of guilt-by-association and labeling those who don't buy the UN/IPCC propaganda as (no better than) "holocaust deniers".

        This is not "most likely man made" - the case was made for action only using the Precautionary Principle - it's odd how initial reasons are constantly airbrushed over as the argument goes along. The initial claim was that IF it was man made then the consequences of not taking action would oughtweigh the cost of taking action now. The jury is still out on the cost benefit analysis of what amounts to little more than a global psychosis.

        Also, when you say "the Earth is warming" no one thinks to put you or fellow AGW-theorists on the spot and ask what you mean in the context of the entire planet...

        Do you mean the physical mass of the Earth is warming?
        Do you mean the oceans (alone or in tandem with non-fluid mass) is warming?
        Do you mean ground surface temperature is warming?
        Do you mean near surface temperature overall is warming?
        Do you mean near surface temperature primarily in built-up areas is warming?
        Do you mean tropospheric average temperatures are warming?
        Do you mean the tropopause, stratosphere or any other selective part of the atmospheric layer is warming?
        Do you mean some combination perhaps of all of these are exhibiting a consistent warming phenomena over the entire planet?
        or do you mean one selected component of the global heat transfer system alone is warming?

        Then, having established your proposition you might care to mention what kind of average temperature we're talking about here, mean, modal median or any other strange variety?

        And finally, you might then go on to explain how a total global (mean?) average of the huge number of diverse sub-climates over the face of the entire planet proves anything of precise significance in extrapolating conclusions about the energy balance of the entire planetary ecosystem.
    • caponumen, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Good for you, when your children don't have a pot to piss in you can come up with some lie to tell them why you had your head up your ass.
  • Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/10/2007, -15/+21There's way too much misreporting (possibly on both sides) of the global warming debate. Thus, I wish people would just shut up and stop being so gullible to believe in the (absurdly) "undeniable" evidence of human-caused global warming. There are many holes in the "facts" of these environmentalist nutjobs' statistics (read: real facts disprove their originally-called facts).
    • Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -7/+9so lets stick to peer-reviewed science only... and guess what it says?
      • Scorpy2643, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5peer reviewed, also by people who are making a living publishing papers and doing studies that global warming is real. it's like asking 50 muffler shops if you need a new muffler. you'll get an opinion, but is it necessarily correct?
        • Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3No it's not quite like asking a muffler shop if you need a new muffler and if that's what you think, you have never published a peer-reviewed paper. Mine get shredded on a regular basis by people whose research generally agrees with mine, too.

          Besides, you could add up all the money spent worldwide on climate research and it would be a tiny, tiny fraction of the profits of ONE oil company. Whose got a bigger vested interest in getting their "story" out to the public, do you think?
        • snowball69, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3@Gaki. "Besides, you could add up all the money spent worldwide on climate research and it would be a tiny, tiny fraction of the profits of ONE oil company" You're comparing apples with oranges here so no wonder your papers get shredded. You're comparing entire global financial support for climate research (presumably both sides of the "debate") with raw global oil industry profits. TILT.

          You clearly intend readers to perceive here that the entire profits of the oil companies (or ONE oil company?) are devoted to climate research when it should be obvious that only a tiny proportion of them even in your wildest dreams would be so used.

          What's more you neglect many other crucial and global political issues and the current war for control of oil in the Middle East may have slipped your notice. If you (the US or UN) have full global control over oil you can actually make far more money from CUTTING the supply of oil - precisely why some pundit claimed this would be the era when oil "goes platinum". The oil industry has as much to gain from pro-AGW scares and cutting the global supply of oil - playing much the same game as OPEC during the 1970s. Basic laws of supply and demand here. Given this, admitted, theory it makes sense of the problems perceived in regimes such as Chavez or Russia or any other nation which may be able to "break cartel" here and trade oil freely. The oil industries are probably in a win-win situation here and could afford to back both sides of the debate to ensure that they keep control.

          "Whose got a bigger vested interest in getting their "story" out to the public, do you think?" (See above, and...)

          Given the massive potential for stock trading and speculation literally on thin air (carbon trading schemes and speculation on carbon futures etc.) I'd guess that the biggest crooks in the world with the largest pots of cash have the most to gain by funding pro-AGW research. Carbon trading has the potential to outstrip the South Sea Bubble and Dutch Tulip Mania as the biggest scams ever to be served on the public.

          God (literally) help us all when these schemes finally go bust in a few decades.
  • RedHerringHack, on 10/10/2007, -11/+47America, last time I checked, was still part of the globe. Global Warming is based on good science based on flawed data. How accurate do you think that the german temperature readings were in 1944? The global temperature database is very dirty, with temps taken with uncalibrated thermometers at random times of the day. I wouldn't rely on the data to make any kind of forward prediction. It is impossible to predict the weather, the global weather system is too chaotic and 100 years of direct observation under controlled conditions is the minimum to extrapolate a trend.
    • Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -9/+7first of all no one is predicting the weather, only climate (and there is a big difference), secondly do you think that scientists who spend their whole careers studying climate don't know that some data is more reliable than others. (recent data is much more reliable than data collected 50 years ago).

      Ill let actual scientists decide what is the minimum amount of data required to extrapolate a trend... they probably know more about how good (or bad the data is than any of us diggers)
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5Barring the fact that we've seen the real statistics proving that this is no where close to the hottest the Modern contitental pattern of Earth has been, nor that carbon has any correlation to the heating of the Earths surface period, I'd bet that people like you would like to disprove real facts like The Antikythera mechanism and Mega Machinery using magnets and water driven gravity for energy in ancient China ever having existed.

      Fact 1: Why would I trust anything the mainstream media tells me?
      2. Why would I dare trust AAANYTHING the mainstream media tells me!!
      3. It's been much hotter with real positive consequences for the environment
      4. The Germans have always been very advanced and in fact had a higher per capita IQ than Americans in the 1700's up to 1900's and were quite advanced
      5. We knowfrom the history channel that German weather reading data proved a major threat to the allies while they were stationed in Greenland and they actually had to invade to stop them so that they could use that weather data for their planes and bomber fleets
      6. Meteorology today, despite major advances in satellite technology still has flaws and I've been fooled to wear shorts and a wife beater outside only to have it rain
      7. Who are you?

      • Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -4/+21. Neither do I.
        2. I still don't.
        3. You live back then or have some first hand reports from Bronze Age people who tell you that life was so much better when they could walk from Europe to Britain? I'd love to know exactly how you figured out that there were real benefits back then.
        4. IQ didn't even exist as a concept until the Stanford Binet test was created in 1905. I'll commpletely leave aside the ridiculous generalizations you have made about "Germans". You need to read about the Vandals, Visigoths and the Franks - all Germanic tribes. When you get tired of brothers killing each other or killing their fathers or the mass rapes during the sacking of Rome, etc. let me know and I'll move you onto another book.
        5. Yeah, the Allies stumbled all over themselves to try and rectify the horrible imbalance in WEATHER PREDICTION. Give me a break. Cracking Enigma, developing sonar and radar, breaking open the North Atlantic, keeping Hitler away from a steady supply of oil ... all of these were orders of magnitude more pressing than stealing German weather technology. How backward do you think the Allies were? Sonar, radar, nukes ... all developed by the allies first.
        6. Global average is NOT as mercurial as local weather precisely because it is an AVERAGE.
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+31.nice. 2. nice. 3. go read up on that, i'm right about that. 4. you proved me wrong, but I could swear i remember reading something about germans having a higher i.q. or level of achievement from the 1700's up, and don't bother denying that they did, yes, we all know about the barbaric tribes of germany, but what's that have to do with a fully developed population of successful states that appeared after the renaissance? hmm? So, while you're right about the iq test, they did have families like the rothschilds, and weishcaupt come from them, don't even try to pretend like you weren't wrong about that. 5. YOU, give me a break. you know as well as I that it was important, although a lower priority to gain the german bases in greenland because they were successfully predicting the weather *as closesly as they could* . so you are correct on this one, no need to beat the nail in the head, i get your point. germans were easily thrown out and "sure" there were pressing matters *even though ww2 was staged and clearly instigated and created by american and european banks and royal families as outlined by antony sutton and other luminaries. you win 5. 6. i'm right. end of story. looks like i win this round, but you sure gave me a licking. Thanks, i'd loooove to learn more from you some time,
    • caponumen, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4The truth is we still to this very day do not have the capability to make accurate enough measurements of all the variables in enough detail to model anything with any useful accuracy.
      The most glaring fact is no one even knows what all the variables are and probably never will.

      The claim of 100 years of usable data is non-sense and even if we did have 100 years of PERFECT DATA, it is an inadequate sample even in simple statistics.
      In any case the climate is a chaotic system that can't be solved with ANY numeric approach as it is far too complex by many orders of magnitude.
      In fact it is in a class of problems that cannot be solved by any method or with any amount of effort.
  • Piedramente, on 10/10/2007, -15/+3LOL
  • rhylan, on 10/10/2007, -11/+21So many people are going to take this as absolute proof global warming doesn't exist
    • Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -6/+37Wrong. It's proof that global warming has the ability to time travel.
    • Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -6/+9yup one data point completely invalidates all climate change science ever...
      • TheFlamingoKing, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Except it's not one data point, its one more data point.

        Just like all your climate change science are data points.

        Seems like 50/50, like a political agenda rather than science to me. I'm sure you could shoot holes in the methodologies of every study if you tried.
  • Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -16/+6Wrong. It's proof that global warming has the ability to time travel.
    • gordeaoux, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11st time, funny. 2nd time? no.
      • Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4that's me failing at the digg commenting system
  • scabbers, on 10/10/2007, -16/+10People are such idiots. If scientists can screw this up, should we really be letting them create micro black holes?
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2lol. exactly. But people are digging you down, they must not know about CERN, the Nuclear research mega lab in Bern Switzerland which built the Large Hadron Super Collider which will be looking to collide particles into eachother to find Quarks, Nuetrons, Antimatter, God Particles and other interesting tidbits as well as creating mini black holes.
    • Stratochief66, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It is true, but these are different scientists. That is like saying "if a corporation can spill oil in the ocean and kill countless animal lives, why do we let corporations exist?
      More on the Large Hadron Super Collider at CERN, it is true that scientists don't know yet what will happen, but we have theories that need testing in the area and aim to do some testing. Some theory states that if micro black holes were to indeed form that they would evaporate away just as quickly because they are far far too small. I happen to like that theory and hope it is the one that pans out.
  • thecosmicpope, on 10/10/2007, -15/+13So what does this mean for manbearpig? :(
    • Sairynn, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5Don't worry, Manbearpig is a still the greatest threat. I'm super serial.
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9It means that "Manbearpig" has been lame for way too long to keep saying it. And I still consider some Soviet Russia jokes funny.
    • postaldave, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5come on! you can't digg down a south park comment. that is just wrong.

      screw you guys, i'm going home!
  • zephc, on 10/10/2007, -10/+33Sweet, we can stop recycling and driving energy efficient cars now!

    Going to clear cut the a forest, brb!
    • Phyltre, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10I'll handle the b forest, thanks for splitting things up.
    • seraph582, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0actually, the dark color of forests makes them key contributors to global warming. I'm not ***** you at all - look it up.
  • beatmonger, on 10/10/2007, -14/+6A textbook says if x=4, 2x+2=9

    Therefore, algebra doesn't exist.
    • Rukaribe, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Your "text book" is just made up and has not reality to it. So what you said has no substance. Data is reality in an organized quantitative form. What you said is just saying something, I can say "This statement is false." that is a ***** up line that is non sensical, but I can say it because it has no bearing on reality. Much like your example.
  • chubbybubba, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2...er....uh....description hurting ...oooooo......my head.....causing it ...er.... to explode.....*boom
  • kweee, on 10/10/2007, -10/+22This gives further credit to my theory of Global Everything Is Fine.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Yeah, that's why Bush signed Executive Order HD 51.
  • wreckosaurus, on 10/10/2007, -19/+19The American Thinker is a daily right-wing internet publication with articles on the topics of national security, economics, diplomacy, culture, and military strategy[1]. The articles published are often mentioned on The Rush Limbaugh Show. - wikipedia

    Wow , that's a surprise. Not that any source trying to deny global warming is to be trusted in the first place
    • Phyltre, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7You might want to read the second comment listed on this page. (By the submitter.)

      Nobody else is reporting this data, even though we don't have any reason to question it's veracity.
      • davidwasman, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8Last I checked, just saying something doesn't make it true.

      • wreckosaurus, on 10/10/2007, -7/+7Maybe nobody else is reporting it because it's *****?
      • KMye, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15Here is the link to NASA's acknowledgment
        http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
        • Insightful, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Hey guys, KMye is right! Just look at that page and the associated charts like this one: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif

          Clearly the graph shows there is no global warming all the scientists who think there is are just "eco-maniacs".

          [/sarcasm]
          • KMye, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"Clearly the graph shows there is no global warming all the scientists who think there is are just "eco-maniacs"."

            Hmm...not sure where I ever stated that...
            Oh, okay, you're one of those people who can't distinguish an individual point of contention from the greater discussion. Well, have with that...
        • Scorpy2643, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3almost .6 over 100 years......

          and wel all know that temperature recording was accurate down to .1 of a degree 120 years ago...hell, even 20 years ago, with no error?
    • Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6even if it's not *****, it is ONE data point. it really doesn't mean much, one way or another.
      • Soapdish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It's not just ONE data point. The summary even mentions changes in the top 10.
    • Pixelpaws, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7It's not fair to dismiss something merely as being right-wing (or left-wing). If the data is flawed, it's flawed, regardless of who points it out.
    • snowball69, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Yeah, too right, hey, aren't these the same bunch who tried to deny the holocaust? /sarcasm

      Dugg down for use of guilt by association
  • davidwasman, on 10/10/2007, -23/+17I call bullcrap.

    Buried as innaccurate - Thomas Lifson, the 'editor' of that site is a George Bush apologist and cheer leader.

    Google him if you doubt me.
    • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
      You can see for yourself at the NASA site.
      • davidwasman, on 10/10/2007, -11/+6See what? The less than 1 percentage point difference? And that fact that this data is only for the US temps?

        Denial is a sad sad thing.

        P.S. quit spamming that link everywhere. We get it...you're a Limbaugh Nutjob. Move along.
        • KMye, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7"Denial is a sad sad thing."

          Awesome. I didn't have my insanely-ironic statement for the week yet.
      • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3HE TORCHED YOUR ASS!
      • breadbin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1According to what I read recently, the Bush administration has been making political appointments at NASA, forcing them to add the word "theory" after every mention of the term Big Bang. Mr George Deutsch, a presidential appointee in October 2005 wrote "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be, to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator" (source: Revkin, Andrew, 2006. Climate expert says NASA tried to silence him. The New York Times, January 29).
        That's right, equal time for creation science at NASA. Be wary of any "official" reports coming out of NASA while Bush is in the White House. They're using NASA in some instances to forward their agendas on subjects such as Global Warming, all wrapped up with a nice scientific bow on it.
    • KMye, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
  • kensei10, on 10/10/2007, -15/+8Could not find the correction the article claims on the GISS website I think this maybe more neo-con blog BS
  • robwilkens, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10This was mentioned in yesterday's "Rush in a hurry" newsletter from the rushlimbaugh.com website.
    • davidwasman, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7All the more reason to doubt its veracity.
  • bolerobell, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15Umm, the data that the article linked to does not bear out the conclusions that the blog recites.
    • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

      year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
      ---------------------------------
      1934 1.25 .44
      1998 1.23 .51
      • gordeaoux, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7MY GOD, you're right! Those extra .02 DO mean global warming is a "swindle!!!!'"

        oh, except for the 5-year Mean.

        And that it's only US data.
      • Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Uh, did you notice that the five year mean is HIGHER for 1998? Who cares if 1998 is less than 1934 when the five years around 1998 have a delta almost 20% higher than the give years around 1934?
  • horizxon, on 10/10/2007, -12/+9See. Everything is alright. Theres no need to worry about this anymore. Everyone forget about the tsunami. It didnt happen and listen to more AWOL Time Warner News.
  • mech9t8, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5Notable that those years were the Dust Bowl years. It would be interesting to see how much the man-made desertification effects affected the avg temperatures.
    • proliance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Global warming theories say that dust in the atmosphere (as opposed to CO2) deflects the sun's rays and causes cooling. So in the dust bowl during the 1930's the temp should have dropped, not risen.

      But once again, that's a theory.
  • fbombs, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3What do Republicans and Democrats have to do with global warming? Wait I get it, they can't manage a country let alone the rest of the world, therefore they have the ability and willingness to stop global warming--right? B.S.

    And what the hell are we the people supposed to do to prevent global warming? What a joke!

    Republicans: Don't worry about global warming, just keep driving your SUV to the Airport to fly your jet to the golf course
    Democrats: Lets raise taxes of the American people and pretend again that a country in debt with more money in the pockets of spending politicians is going to save the world
    • fbombs, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1still no answer.

      What are we supposed to to stop global warming? I understand if you genius digg scientists would rather spew complaints and just digg global warming articles, but why not post a ***** solution or plan, ***** morons
    • gordeaoux, on 10/10/2007, -2/+21. Travel less
      2. Use bike, foot, public transportation instead of cars
      3. Buy local food and products
      4. Reduce electricity use
      5. Get solar panels, a friggin windmill or your ass farts to electrify your house
      6. Get a car with better gas mileage
      7. Buy renewable energy (or demand that your company supply it)
      8. Stop generalizing the current political situation in an attempt to bully others
  • ericdano, on 10/10/2007, -11/+9Does that mean Al Gore has to give back his award?
  • pixelgecko, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4I think this is bull. There's no way women back then were hotter than they are now.
  • vasillalov, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5Its a conspiracy! NASA is funded by the government. They are all trying to pull a cheap stunt in front of the feeble-minded sheep in this society!

    The sooner people accept global warming as a human problem, the sooner we will start working on it!
    • proliance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Need another layer of tin foil for your hat?
  • noelbene, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3Gee, more bogus politico scientific past history, aimed at denial of the fact that the world is ***** up. well Mr. just get in your big ol' dummer and burn the rest of the gas. I hope I can render your fat ass to make candles to light the way for my bicycle in the dark. Maybe Dr. Bush can put the real facts before us!
    • dtxcon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Regardless of their personal politics, most people don't claim that all is well with the world. Most Americans are in agreement about the need for alternative energy sources, more efficient use of existing fuel, and that clean air and water are goals worth prioritizing. Unfortunately, many Global Warming proponents seem to believe that only alarmist junk science can persuade the world. As the fallacies in soon-to-be-Dr. Gore's "science" are exposed, the Global Warming debate becomes more of a distraction, having the net effect of creating environmental apathy, not action.
      • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I agree. I support wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower, nuclear, and other alternative (nuclear and geothermal are not technically renewable) energy sources to stop our dependence on fossil fuels. I would love to drive a hybrid because of the gas mileage. I do not think we have enough evidence or an understanding of climatology to conclude that AGW is true and we are currently in an extremely dangerous warming cycle, unlike anything that has ever happened before. I believe the debate is currently too politicized. I believe I should stop posting in AGW Digg threads.
  • CourtesyFlush, on 10/10/2007, -7/+16NASA has posted the corrected figures.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

    http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383
    • Abomonog, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The data shows that 1934 was 2 tenths of a percent hotter than 98. This equals about 1/10 of a degree in actual temperature.
      If you account for errors (especially in the 1930's readings), this means that both years were tied for hottest.

      Also, it should be noted that the dustbowl was created by then and probably drove up US temperatures that summer.

      The data set actually strengthens the argument for global warming when you realize that in the hottest year the dustbowl was larger than many major deserts.
      • CourtesyFlush, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This merely means that you can rationalize data into saying whatever you like.
  • minus1999, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4well since earth has been warming up since the ice age, it is happening. but there were no cave men driving hummers. so the environmental so i cant help but wonder why the tree hugging hippies, so called liberals, feel the need to "change the world" by telling others how to act? if you dont like something, deal with it. both sides are the same. conservatives have there "morals" and religion and you hippies have your smoking and global warming, or is it climate change now? it is comical though. like when some one who wants to ban smoking but wants to legalize weed...
  • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/
    Real Climate's take on the story
    • EvilJelloMan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Dugg up for being one of the few comments in this discussion with any actual common sense
    • Scorpy2643, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2climate science from climate scientist, otherwise know as... "people out of work if everything is fine"
      • Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Ever work in a field like this? Most of your funding is from the government and not from industry (at least here in Canada it is) and there is a lot of friction because companies are trying to horn their way into the system to "sponsor" buildings, research, etc. The people who want to pay for THEIR results are trying to horn into a system where you are paid just to GET results. Very different vibe once you are working for a corporation, let me tell you.
      • arjie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Interesting, so you do exactly the opposite of what your mechanic tells you? Because its in his interest to have your car in a state where it needs to be fixed?
  • m2paper, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4Does that mean Al Gore has to give back his award?
  • destinyland, on 10/10/2007, -8/+24If you graph NASA's new data, it still shows that 7 of the last 10 years have been the hottest ever recorded. Click here to see for yourself.

    http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/08/10/new-nasa-data-still-proves-global-warming-is-real/

    This graph is accompanied by a point-by-point rebutal of every point against global warming...
  • CrimsonBlur, on 10/10/2007, -7/+14These corrected data points change nothing. The hottest (or coldest) days on record aren't really of any significance, it is the average global temperature over time that matters, and it's going up. Any one hottest day out of a year or a century can have many causes as far as global climate patterns are concerned, that's why no scientists are pointing out hot days today and saying "see, global warming!".

    Do any of you really think that if this winter we recorded the coldest day in US history it would close the debate on global warming and scientists would claim the coming ice age? Obviously not, and it's the same case with these adjusted peak temperature readings. Even if global warming literally did not exist, increasing clean energy, recycling and conservation efforts is a win-win situation for everyone except the oil companies in the long run. That said, these findings still do nothing to change the fact that there is a general consensus among scientists worldwide that the average global temperature is rising, this changes nothing, and I think it is hilarious how many people are clinging to this as "proof" that global warming is not a problem.
  • etmori, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6It was 100 degrees F today. I still want an electric car.
    • proliance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Good timing. 'Cause they aren't worth a crap in cold weather.
  • badken, on 10/10/2007, -8/+17Sorry, I have a hard time taking any article seriously that uses the inflammatory and fabricated word "Gorebots".

    It isn't global warming "apologists" who have the significant financial incentive to proselytize their position.
  • Zarmao, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13Sure, global warming is just a big dumb hoax by the crazy tree-huggers! So, why is the Northwest Passage starting to open up for the first time in recorded history? Why is the siberian tundra melting over areas as big as the entire united states? Why is there essentially no snow on mount kilamanjaro for the first time since Kenya was explored? Why is virtually every glacier in the himalayan mountains receding at 10 times the rate of 30 years ago? Why are sheep now grazing on areas of the Chilean Andes that have previously been snow covered for 200 years? Why are large icebergs chunking off of antarctica at double the rate of just a few years ago.

    You have to be a total flaming idiot retard to deny that the world is warming up. Sure, we might not know exactly what is causing it. But there is no doubt that humanity is involved. The people who deny global warming are generally the same business uber alles fascists who fought against every environmental law every passed in this country. They would be happy if half the public lived in a foul haze of deadly smog if it meant more profits for the business class. But oddly enough the vast majority of americans actually prefer to breath clean air. And the public is starting to catch on to the hazards of global warming despite billions of dollars of propaganda churned out by the right wing.
    • tsteele93, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5"So, why is the Northwest Passage starting to open up for the first time in recorded history?"

      Maybe because in the four billion years that the planet has been here, recorded human history isn't even a blip on the scale of things?
      • Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2If you had 75 years of data that showed smooth sailing and then 25 years of data showing a drastic change unlike anything you had ever seen before AND the last time your ice cores, etc. showed something this warm was a millenia ago and the change seemed to be a LOT more gradual the last time ... it might be time to be concerned.
    • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Global warming != AGW
  • gjscds, on 10/10/2007, -9/+8I'm still concerned over global cooling. If the earth cools down too much, we won't be able to grow enough food, and... and.... and...
  • Nanobe, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9Here's the data the blog post is looking at: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_lrg.gif

    Notice it's U.S. only.

    Here's another graph from the same page, for global temperature: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif

    Yeah, it's called "global warming", not "U.S. warming"
    • CrimsonBlur, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Even just looking at the US graph it's obvious the average temperature is rising, so I'm not sure what this article is even trying to prove. Looking at the data makes it clear that adjusting a couple peak years has no absolutely noticeable effect on the average. When you look at the graph for global temperature you would have to be an absolute moron not to notice the extreme upwards trend.
  • Resiroth, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3"Of course, eco-maniacs will argue that it's the global readings that count, not those of the USA alone. Nuts to that." After all the USA is the only thing that matters right? *sigh* It's remarkable how self centered some people can be. http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/08/10/new-nasa-data-still-proves-global-warming-is-real/ a good site.
  • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5OMG this came from one "conservative" source and you NEO-Commies scream, bitch and whine about the source, yet digg up every piece of crap rawstory.com, crooksandliars.com or any other "Progressive" site spams Digg with. I'm going to spray aerosol cans outside now.
    • DavidYeah, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Yeah, that's right. We digg up sites that are based on reality, and mock sites that sit around writing articles that are probably based on press releases from industry lobbyist groups. Go find a conservative version of digg if you want to fill your world with illusions.
      • tsteele93, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Because sites that agree with you are "reality" sites and sites that disagree with you are "mock sites." /sarcasm
        • Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Uh, most of the sites that are "progressive" are run on donations or volunteer time. Do some digging and see if you can say the same thing about most of the RW sites on the net, especially the ones trying to debunk global warming.
        • snowball69, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Volunteer indicates an adherence to an ideology or profound belief and CANNOT be construed as impartiality in ANY WAY
  • akinhepu, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Unless the data NASA has published stating that global temperatures on the other planets in the solar system are rising at the same rate the earth's seems to be, then the debate truly is ridiculous at this point. Humans do not cause the Sun to cycle and produce more or less radiation over time. Global warming? Maybe. Human caused? Unproven. All this analysis proves is that scientific data can be incorrect, and should be subject to review by skeptics.
    • mlmurray, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2This was the most intelligent comment I've read on this page. Pitty it was 3/4 the way down when I read it.
    • Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Seriously, read the NASA data. They don't have any data showing temperatures because they have no possible way of measuring temperature on a planet millions of miles away with a surface so hostile that anything we could plant there would fail in minutes. They have plenty of data showing planetary luminosity, which is measured from Earth based radio telescopes and which is NOT the same thing as planetary temperature. Check out the data showing that solar output has been going DOWN in the same period all these planet are supposedly "warming" too.
  • Brutusfly, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Whew! I guess we can tell all the glaciers to come back now!
  • neuropsychguy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7I know it's a faux pa to mention a competing site but at least the people on Slashdot had a balanced commentary about this story, unlike the very one-sided discussion here. I'm not arguing against global warming, I'm just pointing out that most people who even try to raise questions about global warming are dugg down, put in Madame la Guillotine, and beheaded without a trial.
  • Smoov, on 10/10/2007, -8/+12"Man-made Global Warming" is a POLITICAL phenomenon that has virtually nothing to do with science. These new data will make no difference, because the Left is only interested in science insofar as it can help to further it's sinister agenda.

    The Left killed more than 100,000,000 people in the 20th century. Environmentalist Rachel Carson (who got DDT banned) was indirectly responsible for the deaths of over 30,000,000 mostly children in Africa alone. Leftism is based on the Lie. It was a Lie in the Soviet Union and Maoist China, and it is a LIE on Digg.

    Leftists are evil, and every word that comes from their mouths are automatic lies.

    Sorry to be so extreme, but truth hurts.
    • wreckosaurus, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5you are ***** out of your mind
    • Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Give me a break, man. Crawl back in your fallout bunker and when you wake up it will ba 1950 all over again. Commies, commies everywhere! First it was the Russkies and the Red Chinese, but now it's the nefarious Swedes and French coming to get us with their vastly improved health care! Ooooooooooo!

      For every Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot there was a Hitler, Mussolini, Suharto or Pinochet. Any REAL student of history (rather than one with a clear agenda like you have) knows that left or right means *****. The ***** assholes of the world will use ANY ideology that they think will a) get them into power and b) make them ***** rich.
    • SupaFupa, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2If someone would like to debate this topic in logical and reasonable terms, instead of ad hominem attacks, I imagine people might be a little more open to civilized debate. But when all you can come up with is conspiratorial complaining about hidden agendas, slick sounding nicknames for your opposition, and many other logical fallacies, then yes, we will continue to get a little hot under the collar about some people's refusal to listen to overwhelming evidence that all alludes to the exact same thing. What could possibly be gained by making up global warming? How could any of the other signs, such as rising sea levels/receding islands, glacial reduction, snowlines increasing in altitude, and animal migration pattern changes be faked? Conspiracy theories usually have a villan who benefits from the conspiracy. Please, deniers of global warming, using logic, explain to me in plausible terms why someone would make this up.
      • wrongonce, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Q: What could possibly be gained by making up global warming?
        A: "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,990,000 for carbon credits. (0.15 seconds)" --google ... and "From 2008 companies which bust their emissions targets can either buy extra EUAs or buy carbon credits through a separate carbon trading scheme under the Kyoto Protocol on global warming." --http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL0987906920070809
      • snowball69, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@supafupa "Please, deniers of global warming,"

        - and you conclude your own comments with a collective ad-hominem which uses the popular technique of guit-by-association with Holocaust Denial.
    • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Not sure about Anthropogenic Global Warming, but banning DDT was a terrible mistake. All well; people make mistakes. The important thing is to fix them and move on, right?
  • caponumen, on 10/10/2007, -8/+10The entire database is known to be useless crap and has invalid assumptions built in to try and account for the URBAN ISLAND
    effect. This fact has always been suppressed in the media and is still being studied today.

    This is a typical issue in ALL the so called rock solid evidence for man made global warming.
    All the models that are supposed to match the earth's climate are based on these flawed data sets and are of course useless as well.
    • Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Got a degree in Climatetology do you ... or did you just read this in some book that TOLD you the data was ***** and you don't know enough to tell whether they are right or wrong?
      • jeffiek, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Got a degree in Climatetology do you ... or did you just read this in some book that told you the data was CORRECT and you don't know enough to tell whether they are right or wrong?
      • snowball69, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Dug down for logical fallacy - "appeal to authority"
    • proliance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Caponumen is correct when he says there currently is no correct model to measure the urban island effect. Who is to say data from New York city in 1950 wasn't corrupted because of the large amount of concrete and asphalt were'n't properly entered into the equations?

      The urban island effect is completely different from global warming and the two shouldn't be confused.
  • Jamihabs, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2This must have the libs squirming. First the war in Iraq starts going better, now more proof that global warming is a scam. It must be getting hard to continue arguing the glass is part empty when it’s almost full.
    • wreckosaurus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Stop turning global warming into a left/right issue
      • p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Stop using global warming as a charade to usher in Liberal pet causes.
        • wreckosaurus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Such as?
        • Jamihabs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Such as carbon taxes, carbon credits, Kyoto protocol, various other anti-capitalistic restrictions.
          • SupaFupa, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0So chase a buck at all costs? Who cares if little brown people get in our way? Who cares if other peoples lives are shortened by inescapable pollution? Its your world, we're just living in it.
    • Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Going better? Someone's been watching Fox News.
      • Jamihabs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Or maybe reading the New York Times.
        • Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Which is owned by who? Oh, Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Fox.
  • slickrocktrail, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1The Dinosaurs didn't listen to Al Gore's Great Cave Grandpa either and look what happened to them.
  • rubyeyes, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Quick call the Arctic Ice Cap and let it know it the game is up and it can stop melting.
  • linuxrebel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1My only question is this: WTF does Y2K have to do with data collected 2 years before Y2K..... Can we also apply the Y48K bug too? That way we can balance them out and have data that shows that global warming is caused by beer soaked young Republicans lighting farts with cheap bic lighters.

    For those too young to remember Y2K was about how 2000 will be equal to 1900 for computers using a 2 digit date system. Given that 1998 still seems to be 98 and we won't have a duplication of data for another 92 years.....
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.