Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 General Skepticism
 NASA-1934 Warmest Year on Record!
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 7

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 09/22/2007 :  19:59:45  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote

Years of bad data corrected; 1998 no longer the warmest year on record.

Corrected data from NASA.



[Moved to the General Skepticism folder - Dave W.]

What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13457 Posts

Posted - 09/22/2007 :  20:25:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
NASA Weather Error Provokes Tempest in a Teapot

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 09/22/2007 :  20:26:00   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
And here is the global data, with 1998 coming in second to 2005.

1934 may be the warmest year in the continental United States, but that's a pretty small area compared to the whole world, ain't it?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 09/22/2007 :  20:36:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Jerome dodges the issue and tries to change the subject? Because otherwise, he'd have to admit that he's just been pwned, and he really doesn't like to do that.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13457 Posts

Posted - 09/22/2007 :  20:46:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
And then there is this:

1934 and all that

Sum total of this change? A couple of hundredths of degrees in the US rankings and no change in anything that could be considered climatically important (specifically long term trends).

However, there is clearly a latent and deeply felt wish in some sectors for the whole problem of global warming to be reduced to a statistical quirk or a mistake. This led to some truly death-defying leaping to conclusions when this issue hit the blogosphere. One of the worst examples (but there are others) was the 'Opinionator' at the New York Times (oh dear). He managed to confuse the global means with the continental US numbers, he made up a story about McIntyre having 'always puzzled about some gaps' (what?) , declared the the error had 'played havoc' with the numbers, and quoted another blogger saying that the 'astounding' numbers had been 'silently released'. None of these statements are true. Among other incorrect stories going around are that the mistake was due to a Y2K bug or that this had something to do with photographing weather stations. Again, simply false.

But hey, maybe the Arctic will get the memo.


Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 09/22/2007 :  21:08:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Insightful comment from "dhogaza" over at Deltoid:
Of course, "pre-Mac" the denialists were screaming "but, but, it's all within the error bars!!!!!"

Now they're saying ... "look! look! 1934's the warmest year!"
But it's still within the error bars.

I have to remember to check the dates on the stuff Jerome links to more closely. This hubbub is over a month old, and appears to be a dead issue already.

But hey, Asher got something correct:
I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media.
Is it any wonder?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 09/22/2007 :  22:21:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Cuneiformist

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Jerome dodges the issue and tries to change the subject.
Oh, that's not a limb. You're easily on terra firma with that prediction, my friend.


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 09/23/2007 :  03:30:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Lessee, '34.... Wasn't that around the time that OK & surrounding area suffered a drought that sent Okies, et al., scrambling to escape the "Dust Bowl?" Woody Guthrie wrote some music concerning it.


"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 09/23/2007 :  03:38:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Some things I find interesting here: The deniers originally denied there was any raise in global temperatures. When this proved untenable, they retreated to the next rear guard defense position, saying, yes, it's getting hotter, but it has nothing to do with human activities. But if they see even the slightest statistical or recording adjustment, they advance again to the original "no warming" stance.

The facts, and even their own earlier tacit concessions, mean nothing to these people. They're not trying to convince scientists, but only to sway public opinion in the most educationally backward countries, like the US, for the sake of delaying progress in reducing fossil fuel use.

BTW, it seems to me that the extent of the arctic polar ice pack is itself of of the most significant -- and undeniable -- "thermometers" available. The warming of both air and water has caused this floating ice (which, unlike melting glaciers, would not add to the sea's volume if melted) to cover a smaller area than ever recorded. Unlike the slow upward creep of mean global air temperature itself, the reduction in the extent of sea ice is a gallopingly obvious event. I think that when speaking to the general public, using pictures of physical changes can be more persuasive than numbers or graphs. Lousy at math and statistics, I certainly find them more telling.


But the following graph isn't bad, either. Note the dotted line showing what looks like an inexorable trend.


That trend brings up the question of what way we're heading. This image shows predicted ice thickness in the arctic ocean:


(All three images above are from Wiki's Polar Ice Pack article.) Scientists rarely need pretty pictures drawn to understand things, but the public, which will influence any eventual response to the MMGW crisis, certainly does.

Another clear gauge for statistically-challenged people like myself is the decline of glaciers. The following map from Wiki shows worldwide declines in the thickness of glaciers:




Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 09/23/2007 03:39:12
Go to Top of Page

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2007 :  10:40:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Jerome dodges the issue and tries to change the subject? Because otherwise, he'd have to admit that he's just been pwned, and he really doesn't like to do that.

Jerome will just abandon the thread like he has done here or like you said he will start arguing the definition of 'limb' or something.

I think in Jerome's world he is only wrong if he admitts he is wrong. The facts are irrelevent - only the admission counts. That is the only way I can come to grips with him saying he has be proven wrong only once().



If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2007 :  15:57:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil

NASA Weather Error Provokes Tempest in a Teapot


Last week, conservative blogs were positively atwitter with news that a climate change skeptic caught an error in NASA's weather data.


The problem here is the writer is expressing a bias with contempt right off the bat. From this stand point one has to question the motivation and presentation of what follows.

Now on top is 1934, with the previous winner, 1998, in second place. Five, rather than four, of the 10 hottest years in recorded US history now take place during the 1930's.

But as NASA climate modeler Gavin Schmidt pointed out, these rearrangements sounded much more impressive than they were. The years from 2002-2006 are still warmer than 1930-1934.


The numbers sounded impressive when the headlines howled that 1998 was the warmest year on record.

This is the point: Data that suggests a problem is presented as impressive, and data that is counter to the problem is unimpressive.





What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2007 :  15:58:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Cuneiformist

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Jerome dodges the issue and tries to change the subject? Because otherwise, he'd have to admit that he's just been pwned, and he really doesn't like to do that.


Did you really use the word "pwned"?

What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2007 :  16:01:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by filthy

Lessee, '34.... Wasn't that around the time that OK & surrounding area suffered a drought that sent Okies, et al., scrambling to escape the "Dust Bowl?" Woody Guthrie wrote some music concerning it.




Ahh, Haa!

This is anecdotal evidence of a cyclical environment.

What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2007 :  16:06:00   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by HalfMooner

Some things I find interesting here: The deniers originally denied there was any raise in global temperatures. When this proved untenable, they retreated to the next rear guard defense position, saying, yes, it's getting hotter, but it has nothing to do with human activities. But if they see even the slightest statistical or recording adjustment, they advance again to the original "no warming" stance.

The facts, and even their own earlier tacit concessions, mean nothing to these people. They're not trying to convince scientists, but only to sway public opinion in the most educationally backward countries, like the US, for the sake of delaying progress in reducing fossil fuel use.

BTW, it seems to me that the extent of the arctic polar ice pack is itself of of the most significant -- and undeniable -- "thermometers" available. The warming of both air and water has caused this floating ice (which, unlike melting glaciers, would not add to the sea's volume if melted) to cover a smaller area than ever recorded. Unlike the slow upward creep of mean global air temperature itself, the reduction in the extent of sea ice is a gallopingly obvious event. I think that when speaking to the general public, using pictures of physical changes can be more persuasive than numbers or graphs. Lousy at math and statistics, I certainly find them more telling.


I appreciate the graphs presenting factual evidence of a small period of time in which the earth is warming. This unfortunately says nothing about the warming that occurred in the 1930's and the cooling that took place after. Your evidence shows that there was and is a warming after a cooling. This is to my point that we are experiencing a natural cyclical temperature change.




What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2007 :  16:07:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Originally posted by filthy

Lessee, '34.... Wasn't that around the time that OK & surrounding area suffered a drought that sent Okies, et al., scrambling to escape the "Dust Bowl?" Woody Guthrie wrote some music concerning it.




Ahh, Haa!

This is anecdotal evidence of a cyclical environment.

How so?




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2007 :  16:10:00   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by furshur

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Jerome dodges the issue and tries to change the subject? Because otherwise, he'd have to admit that he's just been pwned, and he really doesn't like to do that.

Jerome will just abandon the thread like he has done here or like you said he will start arguing the definition of 'limb' or something.

I think in Jerome's world he is only wrong if he admitts he is wrong. The facts are irrelevent - only the admission counts. That is the only way I can come to grips with him saying he has be proven wrong only once().


Was this bait?

In fact; most here would attest that I generally do not let go, as opposed to your assertion that I abandon threads.

You are not even getting the facts contained within your insults correct. If you choose to insult at least get your facts straight first.




What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 7 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.55 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000