Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
ace....your own article does: NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding...
The effect of the correction on 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. the changes are truly astounding?`...acknowledging a minor correction as having a HUGE impact on the global truly warming propaganda machine?
Sorry, but to me, that is the anti-global warming propaganda machine at work.
|
When Asher (the author of the citation I provided) says: "but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge." He is stating his opinion and he was wrong and stated the likelihood that he would be wrong. There is no intent to deceive, confuse or to even discredit Hansen.
When he says NASA silently released corrected figures he is being factually correct.
When he writes the changes are "astounding" he is specifically referring to the top 10 list of the warmest years. Many people including me, actively question the correlation between CO2 emissions and global warming. I think this is a legitimate question, the updated data lessens the evidence of a causal correlation.
Quote:
Top 10 GISS U.S. Temperature deviation (deg C) in New Order 8/7/2007
Year Old New
1934 1.23 1.25
1998 1.24 1.23
1921 1.12 1.15
2006 1.23 1.13
1931 1.08 1.08
1999 0.94 0.93
1953 0.91 0.90
1990 0.88 0.87
1938 0.85 0.86
1939 0.84 0.85
Here’s the old order of top 10 yearly temperatures.
Year Old New
1998 1.24 1.23
1934 1.23 1.25
2006 1.23 1.13
1921 1.12 1.15
1931 1.08 1.08
1999 0.94 0.93
1953 0.91 0.90
2001 0.90 0.76
1990 0.88 0.87
1938 0.85 0.86
|
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/200...ttest_yea.html
As you can see '01 goes off the list, and all of the changes shows more current years dropping and older years moving up, there are 4 instances of that on a list of 10. There are 4 years from the decade of the 30's on the list.
I hope Hansen sees these changes as being worthy of legitimate statistical discussion relative to the correlation between CO2 and global warming trends. As you know many scientist have proposed alternative explanations for the current global warming trend.
Also, I think what you may have picked up on was the tone from backyard scientist who got a kick out of sticking it to NASA and got pissed off at Hansen for his stonewalling on the issue. This is more a "nerd" (in many ways I consider myself a "nerd" and a backyard scientist, and I am not being derogatory) thing than a political thing.
P.S. Look at the two charts you provided. The first is based on US land surface, which account for 2% of the total global land surface, yet the US accounts for most of the increase in CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels. In that chart from 1930 to 2000 there is virtually no upward trend. When you look at the second chart the one based on global temperatures, you can see a clear upward trend for the 1930's. Perhaps you can provide a scientific explanation from someone who supports the theory that CO2 emissions are the cause. I won't hold my breath.