The Energon Pub

A change in climate history data at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies recently occurred which dramatically alters the debate over global warming. Yet, this transpired with no official announcement from GISS head James Hansen, and went unreported until Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit discovered it Wednesday.

For some background, one of the key tenets of the global warming myth being advanced by Hansen and soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore is that nine of the ten warmest years in history have occurred since 1995.

McIntyre has been crunching the numbers used to determine such things as published by GISS, and has identified that the data have recently changed such that four of the top ten warmest years in American history occurred in the 1930s, with the warmest now in 1934 instead of the much-publicized 1998.

As McIntyre wrote Wednesday...

There has been some turmoil yesterday on the leaderboard of the U.S. (Temperature) Open and there is a new leader.

[...]

Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900.

Most importantly, according to the GISS, 1998 is no longer the warmest year in American history. That honor once again belongs to 1934.

Simply awesome. Now all of the global warming psychos can stfu and let me drive my '72 Buick in peace.

Someone care to explain why it's been in the ninety's here every day, which, as far as I'm concerned, NEVER happens in Michigan?

EDIT: Moreover, where did you find this article? And what of the missing piece you cut out?

Shadowman wrote:Someone care to explain why it's been in the ninety's here every day, which, as far as I'm concerned, NEVER happens in Michigan?

EDIT: Moreover, where did you find this article? And what of the missing piece you cut out?

That would be because weather changes all the time Shadow. Hell it may have been warmer for you; but I live in NorthWest Lousiana and this has been our first day where the actual temp (not the heat index) reached over 100 degrees

anyone who does't thin global warming is happening is deluding themselves. i wish it wasn't true, but it is, of course i very much doubt 72 buicks are to blame, when you look at large scale industrial pollution with NOx, and other green house gases it's very difficult to say that it's us in are old cars, yes we're not helping, but it's the equivalent of telling a self harmer not to bite their nails.....

whether or not it's cuased by man or something else is the question.

also looking at those figure doesn't really indicate that those year happen to be really hot, their deviations from means, so ithe mean could bea anything and if the range in temperatures is quite extreme you'd get large deviations from that mean.

really that data tells us nothing without having the corresponding tempartures(at least that's what i got, it's confusing since i don't think the average temperature for the US has been hovering about 0 degrees C for the last hundred years or so)

Tammuz wrote:anyone who does't thin global warming is happening is deluding themselves.

Ummm, this GISS study just proved global warming is a crock of sh*t. No, I don't believe humanity has any significant impact on our world's climate. Note the term "significant." Significant does not mean none because I know you'll automatically jump to that conclusion.

If humanity were responsible for global warming than we shouldn't have pulled out of the ice ages until the invention and proliferation of internal combustion engines.

Besides, it's a complete fallacy that one can accurately deduce global climate change based on roughly 150 years worth of meteorlogical data. To put it simply, would judge all of earth's fossil record based solely on a few hundred years of samples? Of course not, the sample is way too small. Guess what? 150 million years ago the earth was completely tropical. Did all of that warmth come from dinosaurs driving around gas guzzling SUVs? Of course not. Global warming is just a ridiculous facade environmentalist whackos hide behind so they seem credible in a public light. This is essential because most environmentalist organizations have already destroyed their public reputations by their own past stupidity.

Secondly, most warming and cooling is associated with volcanic activity and oceanic flow. The more major eruptions in a certain period of time the colder the earth gets from the blocked sunlight. That's actually what caused the horrible cold snap in the middle ages. As far as oceanic flow, if the positions of continents interrupt certain flows it can greatly change the climate.

Over the past hundred years volcanic eruptions have sharply declined.

Global Warming psychos can cry and moan about anything and everything but it doesn't change two simple facts:

1. In the past century the average temperature has only risen a single degree; and
2. They can't conclusively prove the cause of this one degree increase.

Because of these two facts anybody who passionately believes in global warming simply calls you a moron and insists the debate has been over for years and that the entire scientific community has reached consensus. Basically, they're strategy for proving global warming is to simply not have any debate by saying the debate is already over.

In fact, I think global warming people are the political group I hate the most besides PETA.

Edit: The article was quoted on The Daily Gut which is where I found it.

Either way the article doesn't matter though. What matters are the GISS' findings which are irrefutable unless you think Cheney secretly runs NASA in his spare time.

I searched CBS, and found nothing on this story.

I found this on CNN, which is the opposite of your article.

Found nothing at ABC news.

Found something similar on Fox News, but not quite.

So where did you get this?

sorry bub, your plain wrong, the figures you gave indicate nothing without some sort statistical break down of what they actually are. a one degree deviation may not sound like much, but back in 1815 it cuased a year without summer.

if you want to go for argument from authority rather than actual logic, i list the following scientific associations as reflecting GLOBAL warming as happening;

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Joint science academies
U.S. National Research Council
American Meteorological Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society
Federal Climate Change Science Program
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
American Chemical Society
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

though aren't you contradicting yourself, first you say it's a crock of ****, and then you say it's due volcanic activity?

as i said in my first post global warming is happening, but i don't think motorists are blame, however humans probably are having an effect with our fossil fuel power stations(and nuclear too since steam is also a "greenhouse gas" and the NOx given off in the manufacture of catalytic convertors for cars.

Shadowman wrote:I searched CBS, and found nothing on this story.

I found this on CNN, which is the opposite of your article.

Found nothing at ABC news.

Found something similar on Fox News, but not quite.

So where did you get this?

Way to comprehend.

Yet, this transpired with no official announcement from GISS head James Hansen, and went unreported until Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit discovered it Wednesday.

It came from Climate Audit but right now their website is down. At any rate it doesn't change the findings of the GISS data or change the fact that 1934 displaced 1998 as the hottest recorded year on the leaderboard.

lkavadas wrote:Edit: The article was quoted on The Daily Gut which is where I found it.

Wow. I gotta tell you, that is probably the LEAST credible website I've seen all year.

Not to mention it looks so horribly right-wing.

Also, it's a blog.

Also, can you explain why we've had a drought for the past three months?

lkavadas wrote:Besides, it's a complete fallacy that one can accurately deduce global climate change based on roughly 150 years worth of meteorlogical data.

Sorry, but the meteorological records go back about 800,000 years more than that. Ice core samples in Antarctica go back to about that era, and give data on moisture, rainfall, gases in the atmosphere, soil consistency, and temperature of the time when the ice formed based on the general composition and structure like reading the rings on a tree.

Tammuz wrote:sorry bub, your plain wrong, the figures you gave indicate nothing without some sort statistical break down of what they actually are. a one degree deviation may not sound like much, but back in 1815 it cuased a year without summer.

if you want to go for argument from authority rather than actual logic, i list the following scientific associations as reflecting GLOBAL warming as happening;

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Joint science academies
U.S. National Research Council
American Meteorological Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society
Federal Climate Change Science Program
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
American Chemical Society
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

though aren't you contradicting yourself, first you say it's a crock of ****, and then you say it's due volcanic activity?

My point is that humanity is not a contributing factor to Earth's climate. Obviously global warming and cooling periods exist. 450 million years ago the earth was completely encased in ice. 300 million years later it was completely tropical.

So wow, you've really impressed me by listing organizations which supports historical climate change. What a bold proposition. Could you also list a bunch of scientific organizations which support evolution while you're at it? That would really blow my mind.

Whoa whoa whoa, hold on a second.

SO there was no official statement, but this "news" site has a story on it, and no reputable source (CNN, ABC, CBS) has one?

I'm thinking of a word that rhymes with "Bullflit."

lkavadas wrote:

Tammuz wrote:sorry bub, your plain wrong, the figures you gave indicate nothing without some sort statistical break down of what they actually are. a one degree deviation may not sound like much, but back in 1815 it cuased a year without summer.

if you want to go for argument from authority rather than actual logic, i list the following scientific associations as reflecting GLOBAL warming as happening;

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Joint science academies
U.S. National Research Council
American Meteorological Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society
Federal Climate Change Science Program
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
American Chemical Society
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

though aren't you contradicting yourself, first you say it's a crock of ****, and then you say it's due volcanic activity?

My point is that humanity is not a contributing factor to Earth's climate. Obviously global warming and cooling periods exist. 450 million years ago the earth was completely encased in ice. 300 million years later it was completely tropical.

So wow, you've really impressed me by listing organizations which supports historical climate change. What a bold proposition. Could you also list a bunch of scientific organizations which support evolution while you're at it? That would really blow my mind.

like i said it's arguments from authority which is a fallacy, so is your GISS says so argument. and no i could't give one for Evolutions, as i don't know EVERY scientific society on earth. that's a good parrallel though Global warming denail is like evolution denail, or aids denial, or holocaust denial.

so until you can explain those figures better, detailing what average they are deviating from, error bars and confidence limits, i'll stick to the the scientific consensus.

Shadowman wrote:Someone care to explain why it's been in the ninety's here every day, which, as far as I'm concerned, NEVER happens in Michigan?

EDIT: Moreover, where did you find this article? And what of the missing piece you cut out?

You must be very young? The most respectful thing I can say to this post is, the Earth didn't start the day YOU were born. I'm in my mid 30's and live in Northern Indiana and we have had MANY summers just as hot and several that were hotter then this year. You cannot evaluate the Earth's climate based on YOUR lifetime and what has gone on as far as YOU can remember.

Global warming is a fact. Humans causing it is fallacy. It drives me up the wall to see sheeple blindly follow those who use "human induced" global warming as a scare tactic to get votes. There is exactly ZERO scientific PROOF that humans are causing it. People don't realize how minute our presence is here on Earth. We are not going to change the weather on a global level. Now local pollution is a differant story and sanctions to control it are necessary but on a global level? Give me a break.

yet if we look at CO2 levels in from ice cores, we see atmospheric CO2 at about 280ppm for 10,000 years prior to the 18th century, from then till the mid 70s we see it gradually rising to about 330ppm(almost a 20% increase), from 1973 to the 2006 we see another increase of about 50ppm, to 380ppm.

CO2 is a green house gas, it does absorb infrared radiation.

if one removes all man made sources of increased CO2 into the atmosphere we find our selves with an inexplicable situation, what has cuased this increase in C02 levels? and how do we stop it?

Tammuz wrote:yet if we look at CO2 levels in from ice cores, we see atmospheric CO2 at about 280ppm for 10,000 years prior to the 18th century, from then till the mid 70s we see it gradually rising to about 330ppm(almost a 20% increase), from 1973 to the 2006 we see another increase of about 50ppm, to 380ppm.

CO2 is a green house gas, it does absorb infrared radiation.

if one removes all man made sources of increased CO2 into the atmosphere we find our selves with an inexplicable situation, what has cuased this increase in C02 levels? and how do we stop it?

Well, the early 70's is when they started mandating factories to clean up. It is when they started making them filter their chimneys (among other things). The early 70's is also when auto makers started getting forced to put emissions equipment on vehicles. This is only one small thing that should show you that all of this is part of the Earths natural cycle. Why has CO2 gone up AFTER they started requiring emissions on autos and factories? Why did the CO2 levels begin rising and continue to rise for many centeries before the industrial revolution? The bottom line is simple, it is a natural cycle and if you ask "what can we do about it?", the answer is nothing. We shouldn't be messing with the Earths natural cycles even if we were capable of altering it.

actually CO2 is what we like to pump out of internal combustion engines, ideally we'd like it pump out C02 and water(it's called complete combustion), the really harmful stuff is the product of incomplete combustion, other carbon compounds, like the seriouslt bad for for you carbon monoxide, or hydrogen cyaninde, some just cause cancer, and as the oxygen for combustion is usually supplied from the ambient atmosphere some of nitrogen in the air get's atomised and forms harful Nitrogen compounds(NOx)


that's where auto-catalysts come in, and they come in either the threeway or twoway variety; 3 ways reduce the NOx to N2 and O2 compounds, they oxidise C0(toxic, not greenhouse) to CO2(non-toxic, green house), and also oxidise carcinogenic carbon compounds from incomplete compounds to water and carbon dioxide. 2 ways just do the last two.

and you're data is incorrect, over the last 10 millenia the atmospheric CO2 levels fluctuate between 260 and 280ppm; it's only after the 17th century that they start rising significantly

And people said much the same thing when scientists were predicting that the Earth is COOLING. I'm more curious to find out what the next big thing scientists and politicos will have the mindless sheep jumping through hoops next with.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that there is global warming - a degree or two within the last 100-200 years. I don't think it's anywhere near the scream fest, bite my nails, end of the world, can't eat my ice cream in peace, scenarios that a third rate political HACK (and hypocrite to boot) would have me believe simply because he has nothing better to do with his time than release a propaganda movie. Yes, propaganda, anyone who wants to call this piece of crap and waste of celluloid a documentary needs to look up what that actually means.

Because I know anybody whow will mindlessly follow tripe as religious truth that they rented from Blockbuster won't take the time to actually do this, I did the leg work for you...

doc·u·men·ta·ry (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
n. pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

I also pulled this one up for you...

prop·a·gan·da /ˌprɒpəˈgændə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[prop-uh-gan-duh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.

Propaganda [from modern Latin: 'Propaganda Fide', literally “propagating the faith”] is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience.

Geologic evidence clearly points out that the Earth has been warming and cooling for as long as the Earth has existed. There have been constant changes between cooling periods and hot house effects since before mankind walked the Earth. Where did these green house effects come from? What, are you going to tell me the Flintstones caused the last tropical period as well?

Also, can you explain why we've had a drought for the past three months?

GASSSSPPPPPPP!!!!!!

Well, you have me convinced.

No, wait. Droughts happen all the time, and have done so since....get this, it'll blow your mind...before you were even born! And some even say, since before humanity began civiliation. Get out of town! Surely I jest! But no, it's true!!!!

This is your best evidence? Give me a break.

Tammuz wrote:and you're data is incorrect, over the last 10 millenia the atmospheric CO2 levels fluctuate between 260 and 280ppm; it's only after the 17th century that they start rising significantly

I completely understand the way emissions equipment works on automobiles. I am a certified mechanic. It's my livelyhood.

But I really want to respond to the above section of your post. First, I don't have any data because I didn't look it up. I was going by an earlier post (one of yours I think?) that said CO2 levels have been rising and gave my answer accordingly. Secondly, you say it's only after the 17th century that CO2 levels have begun to rise. What started it then? Maybe it was because people like Isaac Newton and Galileo wouldn't stop driving their gas guzzling SUV's and settle for Mini's instead? I'm sure the untimely death of Elizibeth 1 affected alot since she was the biggest advocate to cap how much polution the factories were pumping out? Sound silly? Well, so does the fact that humans are now, all of a sudden, responsible for something that has been going on for the entire life of the Earth.

Ikavadas, give me a break.

Do you ever come on here to post anything other than some right-wing idea to piss everyone off?

Daily Gut's a blog and a biased one at that. I refuse to even listen to a source that so blatantly has an agenda. The damn thing said “the global warming myth” even as it dug up some sketchy piece to “prove” it. And you run right on here with your stfu additude and flag avatar like it’s judgement day.

"The GISS study! The GISS study! This was all it needed to be proved wrong! Those hippy liberals didn't report it until one noble guy did the right thing and told the Daily Gut! It almost never got out, but now it has and at last I know I'm right, so suck my buick exhaust you psychos and spineless liberals!! I knew you were all lying!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!"

I don't want to debate it with you either. I don't know if it's human caused or not. Saving energy and gas is practical from a monetary stance so I do it. I don't have one stance or another on the issue. But you...

Why all the thinly vieled hatred? We’re either psychos or spineless aren’t we?

Change your motto. You’re the very definition of arrogance buddy.

Dark Zarak wrote:Whinefest here.

I'll break this down simply for you. The post from The Daily Gut doesn't matter. That's just where I found out about the GISS' study which lead to the movement on the Open Temperature Leaderboard.

GISS is run by NASA. The chief of GISS is James Hansen. Google him. He could not be any less anti-administration or any more Al Gore is god. Just google him and see for yourself.

The point of this post was to bring awareness that a super pro-global warming psycho crunched his numbers wrong, redid them, and then overturned his previous findings. And the jackass didn't even announce it to the public. He's leftie enough to be a NY Times editor.

So what is the point? That the numbers, some of the strongest evidence die hard global warming nutjobs use to defend their insipid theories, were wrong. And the actual evidence now contradicts the basis of their entire existence.

1998 the hottest year ever? No, 1934 was. And quite a few 1990s years got bumped down the list for years in 1930s. This is factual evidence. There is no bias. Unless you're saying that the GISS, a sub-organization of NASA run by a global warming lunatic, is actually a puppet of the Cheney administration.

Btw, 911 is a lie. It was Bush, right? Get over it. Humanity's impact on climate change barely even exists. And no one can prove otherwise.

QQ

Oh, and you're right. I do think most people are complete pussies and as my drill sergeant used to say, "There's no such thing as arrogance." Mmmmm, I love saying that.

And to Tammuz, denying humanity's impact on global warming is akin to denying the holocaust? Wow, what a pathetically corrupt statement to make. I'm sure the genocide of millions of human beings really makes for a wonderful comparison to junk science.

Why don't you global warming tree huggers just admit that you think GISS is a fraud, James Hansen is really Cheney in disguise, and then just dismiss it? I mean hell, it's only NASA saying this. WTF do they know about anything, right? Right?

Ikavadas, NASA isn't saying this. These numbers don't overturn the straightforward records of the hottest years in global history; they're about annual mean deviations in the contiguous 48 states. No one has reported them other than a right-wing website with the bad integrity to misrepresent their meaning to right-wing readers predisposed to believe simplistic debunking of science established and accepted for decades. That global warming exists, that its cause is additional CO2 in the atmosphere, and that this additional CO2 results from human activity are not seriously disputed among scientists. In popular media ultimately funded by companies which produce large quantities of CO2, however, it is quite disputed.

Loki rightly remembers that, several decades ago, scientists predicted global cooling by virtue of looking at long-term climate change while failing to take human activity into account. A small amount of global warming has actually helped us; without it, we'd be slipping into an ice age as the natural CO2 cycle would dip toward its lower end at about 200ppmv. The upper end of this cycle over the last 650,000 years runs up to 300ppmv, tops. We're currently at 383ppmv. That puts us in for higher temperatures than any experienced by humans. Even if you think that this unprecedented increase isn't our fault, shouldn't we be doing something?

Menbailee wrote:Ikavadas, NASA isn't saying this. These numbers don't overturn the straightforward records of the hottest years in global history; they're about annual mean deviations in the contiguous 48 states. No one has reported them other than a right-wing website with the bad integrity to misrepresent their meaning to right-wing readers predisposed to believe simplistic debunking of science established and accepted for decades. That global warming exists, that its cause is additional CO2 in the atmosphere, and that this additional CO2 results from human activity are not seriously disputed among scientists. In popular media ultimately funded by companies which produce large quantities of CO2, however, it is quite disputed.

Loki rightly remembers that, several decades ago, scientists predicted global cooling by virtue of looking at long-term climate change while failing to take human activity into account. A small amount of global warming has actually helped us; without it, we'd be slipping into an ice age as the natural CO2 cycle would dip toward its lower end at about 200ppmv. The upper end of this cycle over the last 650,000 years runs up to 300ppmv, tops. We're currently at 383ppmv. That puts us in for higher temperatures than any experienced by humans. Even if you think that this unprecedented increase isn't our fault, shouldn't we be doing something?

I always see this condescention toward more conservative minded people from liberal minded people. Conservatives are just a bunch of stupid rednecks that are "predisposed to believe simplistic debunking of science" yet those super smart genius liberals believe in the science that has been "established and accepted for decades". Pahleeze! Accepted by who? The genuis liberal mind? The same ones who prove the previous bit of science wrong every time we turn around? New science is consistantly proving old science wrong in many areas. Used to be global cooling, now it's global warming. Used to be good to have a higher carb low fat diet, then it was better to have a higher fat diet and low carb, now it's better to make it even. You say that the human effect on global warming isn't highly debated in the scientific community. Are you lying on purpose or just misinformed. This arguement goes WAY beyond the establishment. And for the last part of your post, even if we aren't causing global warming then shouldn't we do something about it? Why? Why should we mess with the Earths natural cycles? That would be catastrophic. If we actually had the ability to do so it is not in our intest to do it. But the fact that we DO NOT have the ability to do so tells you that no, WE should not do anything about it. It's not for us to screw with.

Honestly, who gives a crap whether a year in the 1990's is hotter than one in the 1930's? It doesn't make a difference as they are only a mere 60 years apart.

Compare this to how old the Earth is, and how many years back we can trace the temperature to.

60 years is nothing on the grand scale of things, having the majority of the hottest years in history in a 60 year span IS something to worry about.

To be honest though, I'm surprised at some of the things being said on both sides of the issue. Most I consider BS, other than what Tammuz says as he knows his stuff being in the field of science.

One argument I am also surprised to not see brought up is the affect of the growing human population. Because we all know that 1 person won't really affect the world, but combining the affect of Billions of people really adds up.