Nasa: Error in Temp calculations

[delayjf]

Apparently NASA has a little problem with their Math with regards to how they have been calculating the yearly Avg. temperature. 1998, the year they originally touted as the hottest on record - has been replaced by 1934. 2001 once in the top ten, has now dropped out.

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/american-iraq-data-1804986-year-america

[Tom]

I heard something about them using a year in which the USSR, after falling, did not report any temperatures, most of which were low (frigid) temps - whci grossly distorted the averge temp.

What amazes me about the lemming who follow this nonsense is that the polar ice melted at least once before - or else none of us would be here. Who asre THEY to say today's temperature is ideal for the planet?

Many of the sheep also insist in evolution - if that be so, then WE cannot be the end of it - there must be a beter species than man coming along - and maybe he likes it warmer. Every argument the sheep makes is so laughable.

How did we have such a warm 1934 and survive! :lol::lol::lol:

[46zilzal]

........and many many out there are abandoning science to some form of retroactive ignorance. Case is point.

[delayjf]

I heard something about them using a year in which the USSR, after falling, did not report any temperatures

One issue I heard was that as the Soviet Union decined that they closed down a lot of the reporting stations (several in cooler regions) that were previously used in the calculations.

[Bill Olmsted]

I heard something about them using a year in which the USSR, after falling, did not report any temperatures, most of which were low (frigid) temps - whci grossly distorted the averge temp.

What amazes me about the lemming who follow this nonsense is that the polar ice melted at least once before - or else none of us would be here. Who asre THEY to say today's temperature is ideal for the planet?

Many of the sheep also insist in evolution - if that be so, then WE cannot be the end of it - there must be a beter species than man coming along - and maybe he likes it warmer. Every argument the sheep makes is so laughable.

How did we have such a warm 1934 and survive! :lol::lol::lol:

A few more posts like this and I too, will have to conclude that the theory of evolution is suspect.

[46zilzal]

Having grown up reading that rag, it is not hard to believe that the Register MIGHT set up a decided right wing position on something that science should answer.

[PaceAdvantage]

Having grown up reading that rag, it is not hard to believe that the Register MIGHT set up a decided right wing position on something that science should answer.

The sad part is that you're just as bad as all the "right-wingers" you criticize for not "facing reality" when something is presented that goes against your stubborn, hard-wired ideology.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Doesn't warmer temp mean solar panels would be more effective? Why are these Gore-lite geniuses who can adjust the earth temp from decades ago not be smart enough to put solar heating and electric panels on their roofs?

[Tom]

Hey Bill, Mr Brainica....suppose YOU tell us what evidence there is that the ideal temperature for the earth is known? Your and zilly are tow of a kind - and we all nknow what kind.

Your ancestors thought the earth was flat.

So Mr. Science, how is that the ice age ended once before without mankind's help, and why is it so suprising that we are getting warmer again?

Or are you like Zill in taht you have no anssers, only troll darts to throw?:lol:
JERK!

[delayjf]

Having grown up reading that rag, it is not hard to believe that the Register MIGHT set up a decided right wing position on something that science should answer.

Your opinion of the OCR does not address the issue - Has NASA revised their temperature statistics as cited in the article or is Mark Steyn (Author) simply lying? If it’s accurate, look at the bright side – the error was discovered by a Canadian. :)

[Suff]

Propaganda. You guys are lucky you grew up in the Country. If you had spent anytime in the city where you needed a strong instinct for self-preservation, you woulda been cooked.


The revised numbers are for the UNITED STATES ground temperatures. They have no relevance to Global Warming. Global Warming is a compilation of Global Temperatures at specific Altitudes.

Globally- 2005 & 1998 remain the warmest in recorded history. #1 & #2 respectively.


They state that the 5 of the 10 hottest years on record are pre-1944? Again they are only using USA temperatures. When it comes to Global temperatures, all 10 of the top 10 hottest years ever recorded are post 1989.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok? You silly rabbits. I straighten you out enough? I can't keep coming around here and schooling you on the ways of the world. One day you seriously got to consider upgrading your game so your not an unwitting mark your entire life.

[Tom]

Good. Been pretty cold in the winter. We could use some warm weather.
BTW, better waterproof your basement......Gore says 20 feet!:lol:

What utter nonsense!

[melman]

So who is using a single point of the Earth to push Global Warming?? Why no less then James Hansen the Al Gore point man. Read the link.


In an attempt to depict earth's current temperature as being extremely high and, therefore, extremely dangerous, Hansen focuses almost exclusively on a single point of the earth's surface in the Western Equatorial Pacific, for which he and others (Hansen et al., 2006) compared modern sea surface temperatures (SSTs) with paleo-SSTs that were derived by Medina-Elizade and Lea (2005) from the Mg/Ca ratios of shells of the surface-dwelling planktonic foraminifer Globigerinoides rubber that they obtained from an ocean sediment core. In doing so, they concluded that "this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole [our italics], is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within ~1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years [our italics]."
Is there any compelling reason to believe these claims of Hansen et al. about the entire planet? In a word, no, because there are a multitude of other single-point measurements that suggest something vastly different.

Even in their own paper, Hansen et al. present data from the Indian Ocean that indicate, as best we can determine from their graph, that SSTs there were about 0.75°C warmer than they are currently some 125,000 years ago during the prior interglacial. Likewise, based on data obtained from the Vostok ice core in Antarctica, another of their graphs suggests that temperatures at that location some 125,000 years ago were about 1.8°C warmer than they are now; while data from two sites in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific indicate it was approximately 2.3 to 4.0°C warmer compared to the present at about that time. In fact, Petit et al.'s (1999) study of the Vostok ice core demonstrates that large periods of all four of the interglacials that preceded the Holocene were more than 2°C warmer than the peak warmth of the current interglacial.

[lsbets]

Wow - we have Suff telling delay its a good thing delay didn't need a good instinct of self preservation. That's funny. Suff - do a little checking. You're not half as tough as delay's little pinky toe. His instinct are more than likely a lot more honed than you could ever hope yours would be.

[Tom]

Don't they play 3 card monteyin the cities?
Lots of suckers there, I guess.
And scamers. :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

Ok? You silly rabbits. I straighten you out enough? I can't keep coming around here and schooling you on the ways of the world. One day you seriously got to consider upgrading your game so your not an unwitting mark your entire life.

You were a lot cooler (get it? Cooler, as in Global Warming) when you were playing horses....

[DanG]

Two things here and I certainly DO NOT pretend to be expert on the subject;

1st; In my view anyone who speaks with absolute certainty on “global warming” is trying to sell you their agenda. There is enough contradictory scientific evidence where if your 110% certain your either delusional or so wrapped up in your political ideal that you can’t see beyond your party. Everyone has a right to their opinion, it’s just when it’s stated in such absolute terms I start to question ones motivation.

2nd; My X brother in law worked for NASA and it was very interesting to talk to him about the program. The program is so WOEFULLY under-funded it is a disgrace. So few actual full time employees as they temp out work constantly. I find space exploration as a basic human endeavor that each generation owes to the next. When I follow government spending and then hear 1st hand the corners this organization is forced to cut, it is just disgusting IMHO. :mad:

[delayjf]

They have no relevance to Global Warming. Global Warming is a compilation of Global Temperatures at specific Altitudes.

Oh Really, So now that I know that NASA has been trumpeting the Global Warming cause using "inaccurate data" I should just accept as gospel anything the IPCC puts out? Not. Below is what McIntyne had to say about the IPCC's hockey stick theory.

McIntyre and McKitrick examined the construction and use of the data set of proxies for past climate, which were used to estimate the temperature record from 1400 to 1980. Their review found four categories of error: collation errors, unjustified truncation and extrapolation, use of obsolete data, and calculation mistakes. Correcting for these errors, they found that temperature for the early 15th century was actually higher than the 20th century.

NASA has already owned up to their mistakes - I wonder if the IPCC will do the same.