How Accurate are Global Temperatures?

[IanC]

Never. Ed is not a cynic. He's a delusional follower of a failed religion.

you are correct sir.

unfortunately I am stupid enough to get pissed off at being called a liar.

 

[Chris]

Chris- give it a rest. this sandbox is for me and edthecynic

What will be the effect of adding 1,000 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere?

Based on empirical evidence not much.

The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

Climate change odds much worse than thought

 

[westwall]

Never. Ed is not a cynic. He's a delusional follower of a failed religion.

you are correct sir.

unfortunately I am stupid enough to get pissed off at being called a liar.

Ahhhh don't get pissed off. All they can do is call people liars. I was reading on Joe Romms blog or some other one where a woman calls the alarmists "petulant children"
who are striking out in a blind rage because their little secret got found out. She was referring to the video of the exploding sceptics and from her tone I think she was a "believer" in AGW but based on the revelations she seems to be coming around to the sceptic side.

 

[westwall]

What will be the effect of adding 1,000 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere?

Based on empirical evidence not much.

The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

Climate change odds much worse than thought

THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE MODELING CARRIED OUT BY THE ALARMISTS CAN'T RECREATE WHAT HAPPENED 10 DAYS AGO YOU FOOL! GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS AND TRY LEARNING SOMETHING FACTUAL! COMPUTER MODELS ARE NOT DATA! COMPUTER MODELS ARE THE CLIMATOLOGISTS VERSION OF A DOCTORAL THESIS. THEIR THESIS HAVE ALL FAILED. YOU ARE A COMPLETE AND UTTER FOOL TO CONTINUOUSLY RELY ON COMPUTER MODELS THAT CAN'T RECREATE WHAT HAS ALLREADY OCCURED!

THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF EPIC FAIL BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN FAILING FOR 20 YEARS NOW!

 

[IanC]

That 1010 video was quite the eye opener for a lot of people. It scares the crap out of me that some people contemplate that sort of action even if it was just a 'joke'.

 

[westwall]

That 1010 video was quite the eye opener for a lot of people. It scares the crap out of me that some people contemplate that sort of action even if it was just a 'joke'.

It wasn't a joke. If you look in a few places you will see where the true kooks have been calling for sceptic gulags and execution for a few years now. They mean it.

 

[Chris]

Based on empirical evidence not much.

The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

Climate change odds much worse than thought

THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE MODELING CARRIED OUT BY THE ALARMISTS CAN'T RECREATE WHAT HAPPENED 10 DAYS AGO YOU FOOL! GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS AND TRY LEARNING SOMETHING FACTUAL! COMPUTER MODELS ARE NOT DATA! COMPUTER MODELS ARE THE CLIMATOLOGISTS VERSION OF A DOCTORAL THESIS. THEIR THESIS HAVE ALL FAILED. YOU ARE A COMPLETE AND UTTER FOOL TO CONTINUOUSLY RELY ON COMPUTER MODELS THAT CAN'T RECREATE WHAT HAS ALLREADY OCCURED!

THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF EPIC FAIL BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN FAILING FOR 20 YEARS NOW!

The only one that is failing is you.

We have melted 40% of the North polar ice cap in the last 50 years, and we have just had the hottest year on record in the middle of a grand solar minimum.

Wake up, dude.

 

[westwall]

The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

Climate change odds much worse than thought

THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE MODELING CARRIED OUT BY THE ALARMISTS CAN'T RECREATE WHAT HAPPENED 10 DAYS AGO YOU FOOL! GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS AND TRY LEARNING SOMETHING FACTUAL! COMPUTER MODELS ARE NOT DATA! COMPUTER MODELS ARE THE CLIMATOLOGISTS VERSION OF A DOCTORAL THESIS. THEIR THESIS HAVE ALL FAILED. YOU ARE A COMPLETE AND UTTER FOOL TO CONTINUOUSLY RELY ON COMPUTER MODELS THAT CAN'T RECREATE WHAT HAS ALLREADY OCCURED!

THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF EPIC FAIL BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN FAILING FOR 20 YEARS NOW!

The only one that is failing is you.

We have melted 40% of the North polar ice cap in the last 50 years, and we have just had the hottest year on record in the middle of a grand solar minimum.

Wake up, dude.

I woke up 20 years ago and it came to fruition 5 years ago when I finally started looking at the evidence. You are the one who needs to wake up.

The evidence is against you. The public is against you. The politicians are against you. And now big business is pulling the plug on you as well. The science was found to be fabricated and soon (though not soon enough) it will all be a bad memory.

 

[Chris]

THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE MODELING CARRIED OUT BY THE ALARMISTS CAN'T RECREATE WHAT HAPPENED 10 DAYS AGO YOU FOOL! GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS AND TRY LEARNING SOMETHING FACTUAL! COMPUTER MODELS ARE NOT DATA! COMPUTER MODELS ARE THE CLIMATOLOGISTS VERSION OF A DOCTORAL THESIS. THEIR THESIS HAVE ALL FAILED. YOU ARE A COMPLETE AND UTTER FOOL TO CONTINUOUSLY RELY ON COMPUTER MODELS THAT CAN'T RECREATE WHAT HAS ALLREADY OCCURED!

THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF EPIC FAIL BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN FAILING FOR 20 YEARS NOW!

The only one that is failing is you.

We have melted 40% of the North polar ice cap in the last 50 years, and we have just had the hottest year on record in the middle of a grand solar minimum.

Wake up, dude.

I woke up 20 years ago and it came to fruition 5 years ago when I finally started looking at the evidence. You are the one who needs to wake up.

The evidence is against you. The public is against you. The politicians are against you. And now big business is pulling the plug on you as well. The science was found to be fabricated and soon (though not soon enough) it will all be a bad memory.

Bullshit.

I just told you the evidence, and you couldn't even dispute it.

 

[westwall]

The only one that is failing is you.

We have melted 40% of the North polar ice cap in the last 50 years, and we have just had the hottest year on record in the middle of a grand solar minimum.

Wake up, dude.

I woke up 20 years ago and it came to fruition 5 years ago when I finally started looking at the evidence. You are the one who needs to wake up.

The evidence is against you. The public is against you. The politicians are against you. And now big business is pulling the plug on you as well. The science was found to be fabricated and soon (though not soon enough) it will all be a bad memory.

Bullshit.

I just told you the evidence, and you couldn't even dispute it.

Ahhh poor Chrissy getting mad? You havn't presented a single legitimate fact you fool. Computer models are not facts. I can generate a computer model that will tell you the Earth will drop into a deep freeze in 10 years if you don't pump more CO2 into the atmosphere than is available on the planet. Computer models that are incapable of reproducing that which is known are useless. Intelligent people realise that. Religious fanatics such as yourself refuse to acknowledge that.

Have fun posting your false religious dogma and I will have just as much fun bopping it back down the rat hole from whence it came.

 

[edthecynic]

from Aug 8 2007. I used the Sep graph because it was very similar and directly off the Way Back machine
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
------------------------------------------------------
year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
---------------------------------
1880 -.26 *
1881 .29 *
1882 .07 -.24
1883 -.68 -.30
1884 -.63 -.41
1885 -.54 -.46
1886 -.28 -.39
1887 -.17 -.21
1888 -.32 -.06
1889 .28 -.04
1890 .20 -.11
1891 -.20 -.19
1892 -.51 -.21
1893 -.72 -.38
1894 .17 -.30
1895 -.66 -.22
1896 .19 -.10
1897 -.08 -.22
1898 -.15 .03
1899 -.41 .00
1900 .57 -.01
1901 .05 -.11
1902 -.13 -.13
1903 -.65 -.34
1904 -.48 -.35
1905 -.47 -.37
1906 -.02 -.21
1907 -.24 -.17
1908 .14 -.02
1909 -.27 .02
1910 .28 -.11
1911 .17 -.15
1912 -.88 -.08
1913 -.03 -.16
1914 .09 -.29
1915 -.15 -.33
1916 -.50 -.31
1917 -1.06 -.35
1918 .06 -.40
1919 -.10 -.07
1920 -.41 .17
1921 1.15 .15
1922 .18 .02
1923 -.07 .17
1924 -.74 -.05
1925 .36 -.05
1926 .04 -.02
1927 .15 .01
1928 .07 -.03
1929 -.58 .18
1930 .16 .15
1931 1.08 .27
1932 .00 .63
1933 .68 .61
1934 1.25 .44
1935 .04 .41
1936 .21 .45
1937 -.13 .37
1938 .86 .36
1939 .85 .45
1940 .03 .49
1941 .61 .35
1942 .09 .21
1943 .17 .19
1944 .14 .22
1945 -.03 .22
1946 .72 .17
1947 .10 .18
1948 -.08 .13
1949 .20 -.10
1950 -.28 -.05
1951 -.42 .14
1952 .32 .27
1953 .90 .32
1954 .85 .47
1955 -.03 .43
1956 .29 .26
1957 .14 .13
1958 .06 .08
1959 .17 .02
1960 -.24 -.01
1961 -.02 .02
1962 -.02 -.03
1963 .19 -.01
1964 -.07 -.05
1965 -.11 -.07
1966 -.24 -.16
1967 -.10 -.19
1968 -.28 -.19
1969 -.23 -.16
1970 -.11 -.21
1971 -.10 -.11
1972 -.35 -.03
1973 .24 -.05
1974 .15 -.08
1975 -.20 .06
1976 -.25 -.09
1977 .37 -.24
1978 -.52 -.16
1979 -.60 .02
1980 .22 -.12
1981 .64 -.02
1982 -.36 .10
1983 -.01 -.03
1984 .00 -.01
1985 -.42 .22
1986 .73 .29
1987 .83 .25
1988 .32 .51
1989 -.19 .50
1990 .87 .40
1991 .69 .25
1992 .30 .38
1993 -.44 .27
1994 .46 .10
1995 .34 .05
1996 -.17 .38
1997 .03 .47
1998 1.23 .51
1999 .93 .69
2000 .52 .79
2001 .76 .65
2002 .53 .55
2003 .50 .58
2004 .44 .66
2005 .69 *
2006 1.13 *

anything else? when are you going to break down and admit that your heroes lied to you?

If your data is from 2007 why does your link go to 2009?????
2006 1.30 0.76
2007 0.87 0.69
2008 0.11 *
2009 0.24 *

 

[IanC]

from Aug 8 2007. I used the Sep graph because it was very similar and directly off the Way Back machine
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
------------------------------------------------------
year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
---------------------------------
1880 -.26 *
1881 .29 *
1882 .07 -.24
1883 -.68 -.30
1884 -.63 -.41
1885 -.54 -.46
1886 -.28 -.39
1887 -.17 -.21
1888 -.32 -.06
1889 .28 -.04
1890 .20 -.11
1891 -.20 -.19
1892 -.51 -.21
1893 -.72 -.38
1894 .17 -.30
1895 -.66 -.22
1896 .19 -.10
1897 -.08 -.22
1898 -.15 .03
1899 -.41 .00
1900 .57 -.01
1901 .05 -.11
1902 -.13 -.13
1903 -.65 -.34
1904 -.48 -.35
1905 -.47 -.37
1906 -.02 -.21
1907 -.24 -.17
1908 .14 -.02
1909 -.27 .02
1910 .28 -.11
1911 .17 -.15
1912 -.88 -.08
1913 -.03 -.16
1914 .09 -.29
1915 -.15 -.33
1916 -.50 -.31
1917 -1.06 -.35
1918 .06 -.40
1919 -.10 -.07
1920 -.41 .17
1921 1.15 .15
1922 .18 .02
1923 -.07 .17
1924 -.74 -.05
1925 .36 -.05
1926 .04 -.02
1927 .15 .01
1928 .07 -.03
1929 -.58 .18
1930 .16 .15
1931 1.08 .27
1932 .00 .63
1933 .68 .61
1934 1.25 .44
1935 .04 .41
1936 .21 .45
1937 -.13 .37
1938 .86 .36
1939 .85 .45
1940 .03 .49
1941 .61 .35
1942 .09 .21
1943 .17 .19
1944 .14 .22
1945 -.03 .22
1946 .72 .17
1947 .10 .18
1948 -.08 .13
1949 .20 -.10
1950 -.28 -.05
1951 -.42 .14
1952 .32 .27
1953 .90 .32
1954 .85 .47
1955 -.03 .43
1956 .29 .26
1957 .14 .13
1958 .06 .08
1959 .17 .02
1960 -.24 -.01
1961 -.02 .02
1962 -.02 -.03
1963 .19 -.01
1964 -.07 -.05
1965 -.11 -.07
1966 -.24 -.16
1967 -.10 -.19
1968 -.28 -.19
1969 -.23 -.16
1970 -.11 -.21
1971 -.10 -.11
1972 -.35 -.03
1973 .24 -.05
1974 .15 -.08
1975 -.20 .06
1976 -.25 -.09
1977 .37 -.24
1978 -.52 -.16
1979 -.60 .02
1980 .22 -.12
1981 .64 -.02
1982 -.36 .10
1983 -.01 -.03
1984 .00 -.01
1985 -.42 .22
1986 .73 .29
1987 .83 .25
1988 .32 .51
1989 -.19 .50
1990 .87 .40
1991 .69 .25
1992 .30 .38
1993 -.44 .27
1994 .46 .10
1995 .34 .05
1996 -.17 .38
1997 .03 .47
1998 1.23 .51
1999 .93 .69
2000 .52 .79
2001 .76 .65
2002 .53 .55
2003 .50 .58
2004 .44 .66
2005 .69 *
2006 1.13 *

anything else? when are you going to break down and admit that your heroes lied to you?

If your data is from 2007 why does your link go to 2009?????
2006 1.30 0.76
2007 0.87 0.69
2008 0.11 *
2009 0.24 *

That link goes to the current GISS table, just like it did Aug 8 2007

 

[edthecynic]

from Aug 8 2007. I used the Sep graph because it was very similar and directly off the Way Back machine
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
------------------------------------------------------
year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
---------------------------------
1880 -.26 *
1881 .29 *
1882 .07 -.24
1883 -.68 -.30
1884 -.63 -.41
1885 -.54 -.46
1886 -.28 -.39
1887 -.17 -.21
1888 -.32 -.06
1889 .28 -.04
1890 .20 -.11
1891 -.20 -.19
1892 -.51 -.21
1893 -.72 -.38
1894 .17 -.30
1895 -.66 -.22
1896 .19 -.10
1897 -.08 -.22
1898 -.15 .03
1899 -.41 .00
1900 .57 -.01
1901 .05 -.11
1902 -.13 -.13
1903 -.65 -.34
1904 -.48 -.35
1905 -.47 -.37
1906 -.02 -.21
1907 -.24 -.17
1908 .14 -.02
1909 -.27 .02
1910 .28 -.11
1911 .17 -.15
1912 -.88 -.08
1913 -.03 -.16
1914 .09 -.29
1915 -.15 -.33
1916 -.50 -.31
1917 -1.06 -.35
1918 .06 -.40
1919 -.10 -.07
1920 -.41 .17
1921 1.15 .15
1922 .18 .02
1923 -.07 .17
1924 -.74 -.05
1925 .36 -.05
1926 .04 -.02
1927 .15 .01
1928 .07 -.03
1929 -.58 .18
1930 .16 .15
1931 1.08 .27
1932 .00 .63
1933 .68 .61
1934 1.25 .44
1935 .04 .41
1936 .21 .45
1937 -.13 .37
1938 .86 .36
1939 .85 .45
1940 .03 .49
1941 .61 .35
1942 .09 .21
1943 .17 .19
1944 .14 .22
1945 -.03 .22
1946 .72 .17
1947 .10 .18
1948 -.08 .13
1949 .20 -.10
1950 -.28 -.05
1951 -.42 .14
1952 .32 .27
1953 .90 .32
1954 .85 .47
1955 -.03 .43
1956 .29 .26
1957 .14 .13
1958 .06 .08
1959 .17 .02
1960 -.24 -.01
1961 -.02 .02
1962 -.02 -.03
1963 .19 -.01
1964 -.07 -.05
1965 -.11 -.07
1966 -.24 -.16
1967 -.10 -.19
1968 -.28 -.19
1969 -.23 -.16
1970 -.11 -.21
1971 -.10 -.11
1972 -.35 -.03
1973 .24 -.05
1974 .15 -.08
1975 -.20 .06
1976 -.25 -.09
1977 .37 -.24
1978 -.52 -.16
1979 -.60 .02
1980 .22 -.12
1981 .64 -.02
1982 -.36 .10
1983 -.01 -.03
1984 .00 -.01
1985 -.42 .22
1986 .73 .29
1987 .83 .25
1988 .32 .51
1989 -.19 .50
1990 .87 .40
1991 .69 .25
1992 .30 .38
1993 -.44 .27
1994 .46 .10
1995 .34 .05
1996 -.17 .38
1997 .03 .47
1998 1.23 .51
1999 .93 .69
2000 .52 .79
2001 .76 .65
2002 .53 .55
2003 .50 .58
2004 .44 .66
2005 .69 *
2006 1.13 *

anything else? when are you going to break down and admit that your heroes lied to you?

If your data is from 2007 why does your link go to 2009?????
2006 1.30 0.76
2007 0.87 0.69
2008 0.11 *
2009 0.24 *

That link goes to the current GISS table, just like it did Aug 8 2007

So why did you post that wrong link with the 2007 table????
Where is the correct link???

 

[IanC]

If your data is from 2007 why does your link go to 2009?????
2006 1.30 0.76
2007 0.87 0.69
2008 0.11 *
2009 0.24 *

That link goes to the current GISS table, just like it did Aug 8 2007

So why did you post that wrong link with the 2007 table????
Where is the correct link???

A New Leaderboard at the U.S. Open Climate Audit comment 31

I suggest that you read the article as well.

 

[IanC]

Actually I did make a mistake. That table is from july 23 2007. My apologies.

 

[konradv]

It's about the gases. If they keep going up, warming is inevitable, regardless of whether we can see any temperature rise at the present time. The computer models predict 1-4.5 degree rises. None I've seen predict a decline. Why would that be? The only logical answer seems to be Conservation of Energy. If GHGs are 25-30% above historical averages, where's that extra trapped energy going? Statistically only half would be re-emitted into space, so the other half must be warming the earth.

 

[IanC]

Google cached a version on Jul 23, 2007 1508 GMT. Here it is: (PRE Y2K FIX)
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
——————————————————
year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
———————————

1921 1.12 .14



1990 .88 .41
1991 .70 .26
1992 .31 .39
1993 -.43 .28
1994 .47 .11
1995 .35 .06
1996 -.17 .39
1997 .05 .48
1998 1.24 .54
1999 .94 .76
2000 .65 .88
2001 .90 .76
2002 .68 .69
2003 .65 .73
2004 .60 .80
2005 .85 *
2006 1.23 *


Sept 14 2007
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C) (AFTER FIX)
------------------------------------------------------
year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
---------------------------------

1921 1.15 .1



1990 .87 .40
1991 .69 .25
1992 .30 .38
1993 -.44 .27
1994 .46 .10
1995 .34 .05
1996 -.17 .38
1997 .03 .47
1998 1.23 .51
1999 .93 .69
2000 .52 .79
2001 .76 .65
2002 .53 .55
2003 .50 .58
2004 .44 .66
2005 .69 *
2006 1.13 *
---------------------------------

Oct 11 2007
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
------------------------------------------------------
year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
---------------------------------

1921 1.13 .13



1990 .88 .41
1991 .70 .26
1992 .31 .39
1993 -.43 .28
1994 .47 .11
1995 .36 .06
1996 -.16 .39
1997 .04 .48
1998 1.24 .52
1999 .94 .71
2000 .54 .81
2001 .78 .67
2002 .55 .57
2003 .53 .61
2004 .46 .68
2005 .71 *
2006 1.15 *


(from today)
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
------------------------------------------------------
year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
---------------------------------

1921 1.08 0.09



1990 0.92 0.46
1991 0.71 0.31
1992 0.37 0.44
1993 -0.35 0.34
1994 0.55 0.19
1995 0.43 0.14
1996 -0.06 0.48
1997 0.15 0.58
1998 1.32 0.63
1999 1.07 0.83
2000 0.69 0.94
2001 0.92 0.81
2002 0.68 0.72
2003 0.69 0.76
2004 0.61 0.84
2005 0.92 0.88
2006 1.30 0.76
2007 0.87 0.69
2008 0.11 *
2009 0.24 *





I left 1921 in because it was considered a top ten warmest year after the initial fix. These tables pretty much prove that NASA did change, and continue to change pre-1999 data. It would be very interesting to see the actual raw data but that is pretty much a state secret. But I do wonder how much of the warming trend is solely due to their 'adjustments'.

Obviously I had previously posted it correctly. A few too many wobbly pops last night.

 

[IanC]

It's about the gases. If they keep going up, warming is inevitable, regardless of whether we can see any temperature rise at the present time. The computer models predict 1-4.5 degree rises. None I've seen predict a decline. Why would that be? The only logical answer seems to be Conservation of Energy. If GHGs are 25-30% above historical averages, where's that extra trapped energy going? Statistically only half would be re-emitted into space, so the other half must be warming the earth.

An easy solution to that question is clouds. Depending on available heat the cloud systems vary from negative to positive feedbacks. Ocean currents, same thing. The earth has had a lot of shocks to the system and always made corrections, there is no reason to believe that the earth won't continue to adjust.

 

[edthecynic]

That link goes to the current GISS table, just like it did Aug 8 2007

So why did you post that wrong link with the 2007 table????
Where is the correct link???

A New Leaderboard at the U.S. Open Climate Audit comment 31

I suggest that you read the article as well.

Still no link!!!

From your linked article:

I had the old data active in my R-session but I can’t give a link to it

He can't give a link because he knows he is lying!!!

Below is the 2007 link I posted before which you ignored and below that is the link to the 2001 paper referred to in the 2007 link.

Why can't you face the fact that you've been HAD by your dishonest sources???

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2007/20070816_realdeal.pdf

Did correcting the flaw in the program change the time of calculated maximum temperature to 1934? No. If you look at our 2001 paper, and get out your micrometer, you will see that we found 1934 to be the warmest year in the United States, by a hair, of the order of 0.01°C warmer than 1998, the same as the result that we find now. Of course the difference in the 1934 and 1998 temperatures is not significant, and we made clear in our paper that such years have to be declared as being practically a dead-heat.

Indeed, when we receive new data each month, which often adds in new stations, or modifies the results at a small number of stations, the results for a given year can fluctuate as much as a few hundredths of a degree. Also the GISS ranking of years is commonly different than that obtained from the NOAA or British analyses. This is expected, as there are significant differences in the methods. For example, the urban warming that we estimate (and remove) is larger than that used by the other groups (as discussed in 2001 Hansen et al. reference above).

Let’s look (Figure 2) at the temperature anomalies in the four years that yield the warmest U.S. in our analysis. The U.S. mean temperature anomalies that we obtain range from 1.25°C in 1934 to 1.13°C in 2006. Thus the total range among these four years is just over a tenth of a degree. The uncertainty in the U.S. temperature is at least that large (see our published papers), so we can only say that these four years were comparably warm and the warmest year was probably either 1934 or 1998.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf

The U.S. annual (January-December) mean temperature is slightly warmer in 1934 than in 1998 in theGISS analysis (Plate 6).

 

[edthecynic]

Google cached a version on Jul 23, 2007 1508 GMT. Here it is: (PRE Y2K FIX)
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
——————————————————
year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
———————————

1921 1.12 .14



1990 .88 .41
1991 .70 .26
1992 .31 .39
1993 -.43 .28
1994 .47 .11
1995 .35 .06
1996 -.17 .39
1997 .05 .48
1998 1.24 .54
1999 .94 .76
2000 .65 .88
2001 .90 .76
2002 .68 .69
2003 .65 .73
2004 .60 .80
2005 .85 *
2006 1.23 *


Sept 14 2007
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C) (AFTER FIX)
------------------------------------------------------
year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
---------------------------------

1921 1.15 .1



1990 .87 .40
1991 .69 .25
1992 .30 .38
1993 -.44 .27
1994 .46 .10
1995 .34 .05
1996 -.17 .38
1997 .03 .47
1998 1.23 .51
1999 .93 .69
2000 .52 .79
2001 .76 .65
2002 .53 .55
2003 .50 .58
2004 .44 .66
2005 .69 *
2006 1.13 *
---------------------------------

Oct 11 2007
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
------------------------------------------------------
year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
---------------------------------

1921 1.13 .13



1990 .88 .41
1991 .70 .26
1992 .31 .39
1993 -.43 .28
1994 .47 .11
1995 .36 .06
1996 -.16 .39
1997 .04 .48
1998 1.24 .52
1999 .94 .71
2000 .54 .81
2001 .78 .67
2002 .55 .57
2003 .53 .61
2004 .46 .68
2005 .71 *
2006 1.15 *


(from today)
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
------------------------------------------------------
year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
---------------------------------

1921 1.08 0.09



1990 0.92 0.46
1991 0.71 0.31
1992 0.37 0.44
1993 -0.35 0.34
1994 0.55 0.19
1995 0.43 0.14
1996 -0.06 0.48
1997 0.15 0.58
1998 1.32 0.63
1999 1.07 0.83
2000 0.69 0.94
2001 0.92 0.81
2002 0.68 0.72
2003 0.69 0.76
2004 0.61 0.84
2005 0.92 0.88
2006 1.30 0.76
2007 0.87 0.69
2008 0.11 *
2009 0.24 *





I left 1921 in because it was considered a top ten warmest year after the initial fix. These tables pretty much prove that NASA did change, and continue to change pre-1999 data. It would be very interesting to see the actual raw data but that is pretty much a state secret. But I do wonder how much of the warming trend is solely due to their 'adjustments'.

Obviously I had previously posted it correctly. A few too many wobbly pops last night.

Again no link.