Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/revised_temp_data_reduces_glob.html > > > 1998 was not the hottest US year ever. Nor was 2006 the runner up. > > > Sure, had you checked NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies > (GISS) website just days ago, you would have thought so, but not > today. You see, thanks to the efforts of Steve McIntyre over at > http://www.climateaudit.org/, the Surface Air Temperature Anomaly > charts for those and many other years have been revised - > predominately down. > > > Why? > > > It's a wild and technical story of compromised weather stations and > hack computer algorithms (including, get this - a latent Y2K bug) > and > those wishing to read the fascinating details should follow ALL of > the > links I've provided. But, simply stated, McIntyre not only proved > the > error of the calculations used to interpret the data from the 1000 > plus US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) weather stations > feeding GISS, but also the cascading effect of that error on past > data. > > > You see, as Warren Meyer over at Coyoteblog.com (whose recent email > expressed a delight we share in the irony of this correction taking > place the week of the Gore / Newsweek story) points out: > "One of the interesting aspects of these temperature data bases is > that they do not just use the raw temperature measurements from each > station. Both the NOAA (which maintains the USHCN stations) and the > GISS apply many layers of adjustments." > It was the gross folly of these "fudge factors" McIntyre challenged > NASA on. And won. > > > Today, not only have the charts and graphs been modified, but the > GISS > website includes this acknowledgement that: > "the USHCN station records up to 1999 were replaced by a version of > USHCN data with further corrections after an adjustment computed by > comparing the common 1990-1999 period of the two data sets. (We wish > to thank Stephen McIntyre for bringing to our attention that such an > adjustment is necessary to prevent creating an artificial jump in > year > 2000.)" > But, as only the Gorebots actually believe the hype that recent year > to year temperature shifts are somehow proof of anthropogenic global > warming, why is this significant? > > As explained by Noel Sheppard over at Newsbusters: > > "One of the key tenets of the global warming myth being advanced by > [GISS head James] Hansen and soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore is that nine of > the ten warmest years in history have occurred since 1995." > Additionally, as broken by Rush Limbaugh on his radio show this > afternoon, Reuters is now reporting in a piece entitled Scientists > predict surge in global warming after 2009 that: > > "A study forecasts that global warming will set in with a vengeance > after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected > to > be hotter than 1998, which was the warmest year on record." > As so deftly observed by El Rushbo, who wonders how long NASA has > been > aware of the errors, many greenies have spread their nonsense using > 1998's bogus distinction to generate angst amongst the weak-minded. > > > Yet - thanks to a Blogging Scientist -- that's all changed now - > check > the newly revised GISS table. > > 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. > So, we're not really on a roller-coaster to hell, then? > > > Of course, eco-maniacs will argue that it's the global readings that > count, not those of the USA alone. Nuts to that. It's nearly > impossible to believe that when put to similar close scrutiny, > global > mechanisms will stand the heat any better than ours. > > > Besides, as GISS hosts the reference database of choice for all > manner > of enviro-mental-cases, one would think such a significant content > correction itself would spark huge news and greenie-card > reevaluation, > right? > > > Well -- as Noel asked and answered his readers: > "Think this will be Newsweek's next cover-story? No, I don't > either." > Perfect. > > > xponent > Global Steadiness Maru > rob
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
