What is Digg?243 Comments
- trekkie, on 10/10/2007, -13/+120This would probably slow down a bit of the screaming of doom and gloom. Seems pretty significant.
While I also would be pleased the data is correct now, I would prefer that we didn't stop our efforts to move to a more clean energy. however maybe this could slow down the more ridiculous efforts such as the corn for oil stuff. - warnergt, on 10/10/2007, -13/+89Dr. James Hansen who runs NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies obstructed the investigation that found this problem. He should be fired.
- PumpkinEscobar, on 10/10/2007, -8/+665 of the 10 hottest years on record now occurred before WWII.
- PumpkinEscobar, on 10/10/2007, -2/+49Error601 - Another source besides this blog? Did you not see, or choose to see, the link to NASA's site showing the corrected data?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt - RDasher, on 10/10/2007, -14/+61Sometimes I wonder if anyone will ever notice a trend with the legion of crisis mongers. The fact that there crisis never becomes fact.
- Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -7/+53I agree. I personally do not buy into any of the politically charged global warming hysteria, but I do believe we need to start being kinder to our planet and much more efficient in our use of resources.
- rednorth, on 10/10/2007, -16/+56why isn't this in the top 10 list on DIGG?
- elrodge, on 10/10/2007, -53/+881. if DailyTech posted a Mac rumor about an unlocked iphone, this would be a front page story
2. This will be buried for the main reason that it refutes global warming
3. Liberals hate facts. - rupprupp29, on 10/10/2007, -8/+41So is this a convenient truth?
- shankarganesh, on 10/10/2007, -5/+33"I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media." - From the Page
- geofffox, on 10/10/2007, -12/+35I am a meteorologist. I have been forecasting weather for 25 years. I cannot forecast the weather 72 hours out with +/- 3 degrees accuracy on a regular basis. How can we think Dr. Hansen's models, which by virtue of their time and space domains have to use lower resolution modeling than the guidance I use, have more accuracy?
Viewers tell me how they can feel how it's gotten warmer over the last decades. This isn't observation, it's mass hysteria. The numbers are too small and must be experienced on too long a scale for people to actually perceive any difference.
I'll gladly pay more for cleaner air, cleaner water and a more pristine planet. I want those things in the abstract. I don't need the cries of global warming alarmists to make me a good citizen. - JohnGalt01, on 10/10/2007, -9/+29I do not disagree with your position, but I don't believe for a second that this is going to slow down the true believers of the Goracle.
- JohnGalt01, on 10/10/2007, -8/+27Hmmm... So half were in the first half of the century, and half were in the second half of the century.....
Sounds like it's time to panic. - Jodel, on 10/10/2007, -11/+28Here, here. Less Revelation, more Genesis.
- kaiser79, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18Local (even national) weather fluctuates year to year. The significant data is in long global trends, not short local spikes.
- Beren87, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18It's not really a Y2K bug in the conventional sense, and it has nothing to do with Y2K software compliance. It's more like 2000 happened to be the year that the organization collecting the temperature data in the USA changed their procedures for correcting the data for the "time of day" that the temperature reading was taken. This meant a slight difference between the pre-2000 dataset and the 2000-and-later dataset, which is the inconsistency correctly recognized by the guy mentioned in the article.
So, it's merely a coincidence that the change happened to occur in 2000. It could have happened any other year. Referring to this as a result of a "Y2K bug" is misleading. If it is, then anything that changed in 2000 could be called a "Y2K bug".
I don't think demoting 1998 to the 2nd-highest US temperature in a century (barely -- by 0.01 annual average degree) is a big deal either. 1998 is an awfully close second. I also wouldn't ascribe much to the the claim that "half" the top ten years in the US were before WWII (1921, 1931, 1934, 1938). Last I checked, 4 is less than half of ten :-) Two others were in the 1950s (1953, 1954), and the rest were 1990, 1998, 1999, and 2006. Perhaps this is merely indicating that, in the US, lately it's been the hottest it's been since the "dust bowl" years. That's not a pleasant thought.
The TOP 10 annual temperature years in the US are (celcius degrees from mean):
year annual 5-year mean
1 1934 1.25 0.44
2 1998 1.23 0.51
3 1921 1.15 0.15
4 2006 1.13
5 1931 1.08 0.27
6 1999 0.93 0.69
7 1953 0.90 0.32
8 1990 0.87 0.40
9 1938 0.86 0.36
10 1954 0.85 0.47
If you look at the top ten ranking for the 5-year means, the pattern is pretty clear:
1 2000 0.52 0.79
2 1999 0.93 0.69
3 2004 0.44 0.66
4 2001 0.76 0.65
5 1932 0.00 0.63
6 1933 0.68 0.61
7 2003 0.50 0.58
8 2002 0.53 0.55
9 1998 1.23 0.51
10 1988 0.32 0.51
The 1930s are down at 5th and 6th place. 2005 and 2006 are left out because you can't calculate a 5-year window around them yet.
Finally, the error changes the GLOBAL pattern insignificantly, and the global trend in the last couple of decades is greater than the USA trend.
In all, it's a worthwhile error to catch for the US data, but it doesn't change much about the overall pattern.
- A ninja'd post from /., as it's actually informative. - ronocdh, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17Provide sources, please. Interesting post but this is the internet, and you gotta sell your beliefs well.
- lastobelus, on 10/10/2007, -11/+25Even the guy who wrote the article, a known anti-global-warming apologist, does not try to make the specious claim that this refutes global warming.
Quote: The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought)
Try reading next time. Maybe that's the difference between liberals and chimpanzees-in-clothes: liberals tend to read & think before spouting off. - fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -5/+18Doesn't seem to have been buried, where's your theory about liberals and facts again?
- fingaz, on 10/10/2007, -10/+23This is a chart for US surface air temperature. Has anyone taken a look at global temperature? Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, most people assume that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.
"In order to figure out whether the Earth is cooling or warming, the scientists use temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite measurements of sea surface temperature since 1982, and data from ships for earlier years. According to the NASA scientists, the inclusion of the Arctic in the NASA analysis indicates that 2005 was unusually warm in the Arctic."
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html - chroko, on 10/10/2007, -9/+21Congratulations for finding the error. The problem is that the data doesn't change the global warming conclusions - and still very clearly points to a clear example of human-created local climate change:
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl - this is the cause of the average temperature increase in the United States in the 1930's, this is the cause of the spike in 1934:
"The Dust Bowl was a series of catastrophic dust storms causing major ecological .. damage to American .. prairie lands in the 1930s, caused by decades of extensive farming .. that promoted erosion coupled with severe drought."
(2) http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_lrg.gif - plotting the corrected data for the United States is still a gradual upwards trend. Not to mention the *global* data, which shows a *definite* upwards trend: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif
If you believe that human-created pollution from heavy industries is the main contributor to environment change, the temperature lull in the 1940's to 50's could be explained because the industrialized nations of the world went through a massive recession after World War 2 - and it took almost 15 years for industry to recover.
And don't forget that as local weather patterns are disrupted, so some places might even get more rain - and would appear to have cooled - even though the *global* averages are increasing. - KMye, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13If you're truly against mining get the ***** off your computer, the internet, sell your car and move to the middle of a ***** field to hunt and gather. The sheer stupidity of so many people who think that working in an industry without which modern civilization would be impossible somehow discredits them on environmental issues drives me crazy.
- BugMeNot2, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15Because it was made popular 9 minutes ago.
- ssam, on 10/10/2007, -7/+18"The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought)."
Also this is not the only source of global temperatures. - NecroSexy, on 10/10/2007, -9/+20It refutes global warming? How scientifically rigorous!
- jlharrity, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11We can't live on fossil fuels and coal forever. Whether you believe in global warming or not, the change is inevitable if civilization is to endure.
- SpaceParanoids, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12The fact that global warming has only progressed 98% as far as analysts had previously thought will be ignored by liberals as if... as if it's almost insignificant! *gasp*
Liberals are slippery like that.
You hold on to this link. So in the next global warming debate you can post it and say, "See!? Remember when you used to think that global warming was TWO PERCENT worse than it turned out to be??" - cyssero, on 04/18/2009, -2/+12When we're talking about the earth warming even 1-2%, that's a pretty major factor, in my personal opinion.
- pappaj333, on 10/10/2007, -8/+18Actually, the blog's author seems to be funded by the Marshall Institute a conservative policy think tank that is funded by ExxonMobile and a number of conservative foundations like the Richard Mellon Scaife foundation.
http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=98
Stephen McIntyre
Stephen McIntyre has worked in mineral exploration for 30 years, much of that time as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies. He has also been a policy analyst at both the governments of Ontario and of Canada.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36
Founded in 1984, The George Marshall Institute primarily focused on defense issues, advocating funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative and Star Wars. GMI has since branched out and is one of the leading think tanks trying to debunk climate change.
GMI works on a range of issues, including civic environmentalism, climate change, national defense, bioterrorism, and missile defense. GMI publishes papers and holds "roundtables." Many of these roundtables have featured climate change skeptics such as Roger Bate, Willie Soon, Margo Thorning, and GMI's own Sallie Baliunas. In 1989, the Marshall Institute released a report arguing that "cyclical variations in the intensity of the sun would offset any climate change associated with elevated greenhouse gases." Although it was refuted by the IPCC, the report was used by the Bush Sr. Administration to argue for a more lenient climate change policy. GMI has since published numerous reports and articles attacking the Kyoto protocol and undermining the climate science. GMI is a former member of the Cooler Heads Coalition. GMI used to restrict its funding sources to private foundations and individual donars to avoid conflict of interest, but in the late nineties, then GMI President Jeffrey Salmon wrote, "when the Institute turned its attention to the science of global warming, it decided it would appeal successfully to industry for financial support." This fall, the Institute received its first-ever grant from a corporate foundation-- the Exxon Education Foundation. (http://web.archive.org/web/20020913050409/http://www.marshall.org/funding.htm) According to Media Transparency.org, the Institute received $5,757,803 since 1985 from conservative foundations including the Castle Rock Foundation (Coors), Earhart Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and the Carthage Foundation. - invader, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12What the hell kind of discussion is this?! I don't see any profanity or name-calling in the above comments.. GET IT TOGETHER PEOPLE! THIS IS THE INTERNETS!!
- Leiterfluid, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Your math is off.
The 1930s were hotter than the 1990s. The average mean temperature between 1930 and 1939 is 0.5, whereas the average between 1990 and 1999 was 0.424. But you know, don't let the data get in the way of your holier-than-thou attitude. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Don't you mean an actual "freelance science journalist"? I'm sure you realize that most "actual scientists" have PhD's and not BS' in marine biology paired with a Journalism degree.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Carbon credits will fix this
/sarcasm - etnu, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14Being a meteorologist, you'd know god damned well that measuring average temperatures and studying macro weather patterns is a whole lot different than predicting the temperature tomorrow. I hope you don't genuinely believe that being a broadcast meteorologist is even close to being in the same league as NASA climate experts.
Very few (if any) credible climate scientists (you know, guys with PhDs who study the climate for a living?) refute global warming. Call me crazy, but I'll take their word over the guy who tells me if it's going to rain tomorrow or not. - dtxcon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9The majority of Americans would agree that cleaner water and air should be a priority, as well as more efficient use of our existing fuels and the development of alternative energy technologies. It seems obvious that there could be no down side to "taking care of the environment," but the costs of taking the wrong actions in a misguided attempt to reverse global warming could be significant. By radically and rapidly changing our lifestyles, we could end up damaging the environment in ways we have yet to contemplate. Although a "consensus" of scientists initialed those parts of the IPCC report with which they agreed, there's no general scientific agreement to the notion that the reduction of human carbon dioxide emissions would have a real mitigating effect on global warming. I certainly agree with you that acid rain, smog and fumes from cars and trucks should be reduced. However, I think the narrow focus on carbon dioxide by Global Warming Fundamentalists is a distraction from the larger goal of improving the environment.
- Error601, on 10/10/2007, -17/+25Any other source besides a blog? Refusing to provide an algorithm pretty much disqualifies any scientific work.
- rtfx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Article says it. Hansen refused to provide the broken algorithm that generated that climate data, which meant it had to be reverse-engineered. Hansen accused the government of covering up climate change. He was riding on bad data for undeserved fame, and he probably knew it.
- ftcmj, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13See related post
http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/08/10/new-nasa-data-still-proves-global-warming-is-real/
The original post (dugg above) is slanted, trying to make this change sound more significant than it is. Note the absence of any change in the scientific consensus about global warming; in other words, just try finding scientists at NASA or NCAR who think this minor correction changes anything.
The problem with blogs replacing news is that foilhats, flat-earthers, creationists, and armchair meteorologists publish in the same medium as people who know what they're talking about, and uncritical readers can't tell the difference. - jxs2151, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7And played victim to the evil Bush administration. He can always get a job with Jesse Jackson.
Hansen's reputation as a scientist in gone, his reputation as a member of the global warming fanatic is intact however. - zweben, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8You mean:
"Hey it's kinda warm in here."
"Yeah, it's 1-2% hotter than it used to be"
"Hmm, you should get that fixed."
"Yeah. Now get up, you're sitting on my dog." - CraigJ, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Look at the data. ( http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt ) The period from 1925 to 1944 seems quite similar to 1986 to 2006, in that the majority of the years are hotter than average, however, the 21 years (1986 to 2006) are an average of .5 degree warmer where the 20 year period from 1925 to 1944 is only .3 degrees warmer than average. so 1986 to 2006 is on average a half a degree warmer than average, but only .2 degrees hotter than 1925 to 1944. (Yes I'm a geek,and yes I grabbed the data and built my own charts. What would you do on a Friday night?)
This data is only the 48 US states, but to me, this data is doesn't seem to paint any kind of picture about trends, at least we won't know what the trend is without 10 to 20 more years of data. It does appear that the trend is to the warmer, but you could have made that case in 1959, then the temperature went down for almost 20 years, and even with the trends there are hot and cold years scattered all over.
I also wonder about the data collection methodologies since 1880 and how accurate they were compared to more recent history.
Grab the data, stuff it into excel and see for yourself. - awhiteflame, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7We've only got until 21 Dec 2012 ANYWAY, soooooo.
- Phyltre, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9I realize that this may be one of the finer points of the English language, but you don't refute something all at once. A particular piece of information can either refute or confute a theory, without significant change to the theory involved, simply because one piece of information isn't final in the scientific world.
Therefore scientific rigor hasn't undergone any significant abuse. And PLEASE don't post a dictionary definition of "refute" as a reply--dictionaries are observational descriptions, not rulebooks. - aphex, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9I watched "An Inconvenient Truth" and got sucked into the idea that global warming is totally catastrophic. I then read "State of Fear" by Michael Criton, which is a work of fiction but is based on real data.
It didn't sway me either way - instead it made me realize that absolutely NO-ONE can say that we are or aren't having global warming and that the evidence people present has too many variables or can be swayed one way or another.
The global warming debate is just as bad as the debate over the existence of god. - strafefire, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Ummm...as of 2350 EDT, it IS on the front page with not one, but TWO sources!!!
- AkiraXXX, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Exactly. Like when in 1956 when Dr. M. King Hubbert told the American Petroleum Institute that the U.S. would reach its production peak in the 1970s and it did. And... hey... wait a minute.
- TLAKABM, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9We can't live forever period.
- jxs2151, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7It could be significant until you realize that he is arguing from a truth-based perspective, he always has and always will. Truth, true, peer-reviewed science using real data trumps any agenda.
What this guy does is force scientists to do what used to be done- allow peer review of data and methods. This tends to eliminate bias and agendas. The person's credibility has nothing whatsoever to do with this process, the correctness of data and methods does.
The truth will set us free. Casting doubt on someone because you disagree with them will do nothing besides make you look stupid when your own agenda-driven screeching ends up proven wrong by facts. - lastobelus, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Oh of course. How could I have been silly. There was an error in one countries inland surface temperature measurements, therefore it follows that all other evidence for global warming will be found to have been in error.
We don't need scientists! With the clear insightful thinking of laypeople like Buelldozer, scientists have been rendered irrelevant. Hurrah! - KMye, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6My parents are both geologists. My father's worked as an exploration geologist for over 30 years for the resource industry. My mother worked for over 20 years in environmental issues. They've always been on the same page as far as environmental issues go. The modern US mining industry is one of the most strictly regulated industries anywhere in the world. I also have good friends with phd's in Forestry from UC Berkeley who are more concerned and obviously more-educated environmentals than you ever could be. So yes, I believe people working in the resource industry can be trusted to give their honest opinion about the environment (in most cases almost surely more informed than yours), and to contribute to science that is then peer-reviewed, as in the issue at hand. Obviously I don't agree with the straw men at the end of your comments, which are not the same.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 241 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
