NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II.Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events......
The effect of the correctionon global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge.
Then again -- maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media.
It's man made alright. NASA has quickly corrected the data, but I don't think it will matter to the global warming crowd. Most wont even see it. The ones who do see it probably still won't see it.
C. Davis
__________________ Am I greedy because I don't want to give you what is mine?
or
Are you greedy because you want to take what is not yours?
I saw this information. Of course, interesting is the shift of the 5 warmest years before WW-II. Also of interest, I think, is that the changes of temperature are very small. If these temperature changes are very small, what is all the brouhaha all about in the first place?
I've worked with science and raw data a little bit and read a little in the history of science. Science is a slow discipline and great care must be taken in arriving at conclusions. It is always good medicine to hold the data suspect and not invest too heavily in it, because data has a way of getting revised and understood to be erroneous. On the contrary, today the media and some "scientists" seem all to eager to push the conclusions out to the max on the data as if it were perfect and not itself open to question. It is a very tricky business. I just hope we don't take draconian measures and accept substantially diminished standards of living and opportunities for our children on the basis of inconclusive and flawed science only to be told "Never mind! False alarm! There is no significant causative relationship between driving your SUV and global warming! My mistake, ha! ha! You can't win 'em all I guess! Boy, my bad! Ha! Ha! Ha!"
If these temperature changes are very small, what is all the brouhaha all about in the first place?
I suspect a good deal of the brouhaha is so that a$$clowns like Al Gore can fly all over in their private jets, lecturing the rest of us about our carbon footprints, whilecollecting boatloads of "speaking fees".
THE SKY IS FALLING!!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!! AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
So, it looks like we corrected the last warming trend with a global military conflict and two nuclear bombs detonated. Looks like we're on the right track to correct this warming trend as well. Sucks for Iran though.
ipscshooter: Is that the same Al Gore who has very high electric bills in his gigantic house, consequently making a personal substantial contribution to CO2 over-emissions?
BigTiny: What do you mean by "global military conflict?" WW-II was a global military conflict: nations from around the world had substantial armies committed to the conflict in broad, sweeping theaters of combat distributed around the globe (theaters of the war [combat occuring in]Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Greece, France, Italy, Britain, North Africa, North Atlantic, South Pacific Islands, China, Korea, ***anese Islands, Alaska, Hawaii, etc.). I'll leave it to others to count the numbers committed to that "global military conflict," but it seems that the count of US casualties -- or was it dead -- was on the order of 200,000, the count of Russian casualties was on the order of 20,000,000, the count of jews killed was on the order of 6,000,000. Other than the US, who has large armies committed to a conflict? Other than Iraq/Afghanistan, what is the large area of land under combat? Just trying to understand your quip, or was it just a quip and not meant to carry any meaning or value?
BigTiny:Â* What do you mean by "global military conflict?"Â* WW-II was a global military conflict: nations from around the world had substantial armies committed to the conflict in broad, sweeping theaters of combat distributed around the globe (theaters of the war [combat occuring in]Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Greece, France, Italy, Britain, North Africa, North Atlantic, South Pacific Islands, China, Korea, ***anese Islands, Alaska, Hawaii, etc.).Â* I'll leave it to others to count the numbers committed to that "global military conflict," but it seems that the count of US casualties -- or was it dead -- was on the order of 200,000, the count of Russian casualties was on the order of 20,000,000, the count of jews killed was on the order of 6,000,000.Â* Other than the US, who has large armies committed to a conflict?Â* Other than Iraq/Afghanistan, what is the large area of land under combat?Â* Just trying to understand your quip, or was it just a quip and not meant to carry any meaning or value?
What I meant was that we are headed in that direction, not that it is happening now.
Not that we really need to wait for it to get to that point before nuking Iran.
BT,
I took you to mean that after NASA corrected its climate historical records, it showed that a worldwar and two atomic bombs did the environment some good.
That is ofcourse if you want to believe that man plays a part in climate change.
C. Davis
__________________ Am I greedy because I don't want to give you what is mine?
or
Are you greedy because you want to take what is not yours?
Yet another debunked hysteria article you can heap on the wheelbarrow full of others! Funny how little media attention the truthgets when the hysteria is proven to be baseless, andthepanic that is generated by the false information lives on long after the debunking...
Proof Of Man Made Global Warming
