Post #21 my first, here is my comment:
Here is what I wrote in post #23 my second:
Quote:
I have read many references to the data and the correction. I did not see any bloggers using the corrected data in the manner in which DC's post suggests. Most clearly acknowledge the correction was minor.
However, what many do question the significance of many of the warmest days on record occurring prior to WWII. There was no intent to deceive, in anything I read on this issue. I think Hansen is overreacting and appears to be overly sensitive.
At any rate this issue has received almost no attention by any media source of merit conservative or liberal. I simply pointed it out because it seemed ironic that Tecoyah hoped someone "screwed up" and they had.
|
Here is my third #25:
Quote:
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. 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.
|
Here is my 4th #29
Quote:
|
Please address the question concerning US CO2 emissions and the appearance of a lack of a warming trend in the US since the 30's. That is the most important question to me at this time.
|
Here is my 5th #32
Quote:
|
Why do you continuously make personal attacks? The US land mass is 2% of the global land mass yet accounts for the majority of the increase in CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution. Yet, the US land mass has not incurred the same level of warming as in other areas of the globe. My question is a question in good faith. I first started reading research on this topic within the last 6 months or so. I have not read or seen all of the relevant information, and I have stated in the past that I my lack on knowledge on this subject and developing my views. Since I have been reading a lot of information, and to date nothing has adequately addressed this question. If what Rev says is true, I have not seen this question answered a million times.
|
I am not going to list everything, but now challenge your assertions. Feel free to read anything I have written on this topic.
At what point have I made an argument?
At what point did I make false accusations?
At what point have I engage in the discussion in a less than open-minded manner?
At what point did I make personal attacks?
At what point....
At what point....
And why do you continually focus on me rather than the issues and questions? Gee, I thought we were past the bullshit. As you say - I am wrong again.
Here is some more "cherry picked" stuff.
Quote:
Pasadena (CA) - NASA reported on Tuesday that after years of research, a team of scientists have assembled data showing that normal, decade-long changes in Arctic Ocean currents are largely responsible for the major Arctic climate shifts observed over the past several years. These periodic reversals in the ocean currents move warmer and cooler water around to new places, greatly affecting the climate. While they are not ruling out the possibility of a continual warming trend, the rate at which the Earth is warming seems to be far more stable than the Arctic would indicate.
The research team also discovered that the ocean currents have recently switched back to the route they took in the previous decades, prior to the significant warming seen throughout the 1990s. These new changes will likely put the Arctic regions back into a cooling cycle again, although it will likely take several years to be observed as changes on these immense scales, millions of cubic miles of water, take time.
|
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34866/118/
Should I continue reading about global warming or should I just stop at the IPCC report?