More on that change in average temperature in 1998

The Coffee Shop
1

Mojojojo, I think McIntyre is referring to you in the last bit (as am I in the subject above):

Mr. McIntyre and Dr. Hansen also agree that the NASA data glitch had no effect on the global temperature trend, nudging it by an insignificant thousandth of a degree.

Everyone appears also to agree that too much attention is paid to records, particularly given that the difference between 1934, 1998, and several other sets of years in the top 10 warmest list for the United States are so small as to be statistically meaningless.

Mr. McIntyre said that when he posted the revised list under the heading “A New Leaderboard at the U.S. Open,” “I just was sort of having some fun with it as much as anything.”

He added: “The significance of things has been misstated by Limbaugh and people like that.”

McIntyre is the blogger who discovered the data error. From http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/us/26climate.html?ref=science

2

funny how people aren’t replying to this one.

i actually thought the original issue was intersting - Y2K? who’d’a thunk it? - but, of course, people jumped on it for all the wrong reasons.

3

People rarely reply after the “Sensationalism” has worn of and reality sets in. IOW let’s get all up in arms on this before people realize there’s nothing to go crazy about. Then when it’s time to say “Oh I guess that really didn’t change anything”, nobodies around.

~Matt

4

I never did get an answer as to why the American data would suck, but data from outside the US would be better.

It seems much more likely to be the other way around.

5

It ain’t no thing but a chicken wing, Ken. I’ll dig something up, one way or another, that advances my agenda and proves that global warming is bullshit…again.

6

Mojojojo, I think McIntyre is referring to you in the last bit (as am I in the subject above):

He added: “The significance of things has been misstated by Limbaugh and people like that.”

You kind of glossed over some of the other points in the story. Specifically how the very slight change in average temperatures when corrected, resulted in dropping out some of the most recent years as the hottest on record, and replaced by a year from a hundred years ago.

Of course, the article stated that the differences between those years after the correction was really statistically insignificant, as was the significance in ranking before the correction.

Now, of course, “the scientists” have always shied away from these kinds of statements (as re-iterated in the article), but not all “global warming is mans’ fault” alarmists have held to such a distinction.

The knife cuts both ways, Ken.

7

I never did get an answer as to why the American data would suck, but data from outside the US would be better.

What the article actually says is that there is a prepondernace of U.S. data, and a dearth of global data. The U.S. is so wired up that every street corner seems to be able to provide its own weather record.

What I’d like to know is if this appropriately controlled for in global weather data tracking trends and modelling.

8

The more I read about this stuff the more I move from questioning whether there is man made warming going on to questioning whether there is warming going on at all.

I guess we will have to wait until the end of next year when I can probably ask if there is so much warming going on, how come it has gotten cooler over the last 10 years?

9

Mojojojo, I think McIntyre is referring to you in the last bit (as am I in the subject above):

He added: “The significance of things has been misstated by Limbaugh and people like that.”

You kind of glossed over some of the other points in the story. Specifically how the very slight change in average temperatures when corrected, resulted in dropping out some of the most recent years as the hottest on record, and replaced by a year from a hundred years ago.

Of course, the article stated that the differences between those years after the correction was really statistically insignificant, as was the significance in ranking before the correction.

Now, of course, “the scientists” have always shied away from these kinds of statements (as re-iterated in the article), but not all “global warming is mans’ fault” alarmists have held to such a distinction.

The knife cuts both ways, Ken.

And you missed the whole point. Scientists don’t (and Hansen indicated this) point to particular years and say “see?”. They didn’t do so before the correction to this data, and they don’t now. They point to trends over time. And the trend, agreed upon by McIntyre, Hansen, and everyone else with an open mind, is warming. If you look at the running five year averages, you’ll see the trend. Much more meaningful than is a year-by-year analysis.

The trend says we are more likely to have had very hot years recently and will do so in the near future, not that every year is going to set a record.

You can put away your knife. It’s not my fault you and others listen to so-called “alarmists” who misuse data, on one side or the other.