Y2K Bug Drastically Changes US Climate Data

I did get some satisfaction out of that article just because I can't stand the overblown histrionics surrounding the global warming theorists. So much for those climate models.

If indeed we are experiencing warming, I'm in the camp that believes it will push us into a big chill once the ocean convection currents shut down and stop distributing equatorial heat to the northern latitudes. To the debate forum! gogogogo

 

holy crap, is this right??

and 5 of the 10 warmest years occur before WWII??

 

Yawn, how many of you actually read that thing? If so, how many actually understand what that guy did?

Calling the bug a Y2K by-product is misleading. US happened to change the temperature measurement procedure in 2000. Could had happen in any year. Thus as correctly pointed out, there is a slight inconsistency in the 5 years averaging window used to compute the mean. The affect data only applies to US.

The effect on worldwide temperature record? Nil.

The effect no US temperature record? Very little. "But the effect on the U.S. global warming SKEPTIC propaganda machine could be huge." The blogger surely stir up the pot with that blog. Please, your effort can stand on its own merit, adding bias the blog would only diminish the integrity of the article.

BEFORE the data correction, 4 of the 10 warmest year occur before WWII.

But by all means, please completely overblown this correction. I mean if a guy mixed up "its" and "it's" in an article, he is now statistically a liar and will not be allowed to touch a pen ever again, right?

 

1st of all....eassyy. it's ok.

the article never suggests it does anything but measure the effect on the US temperatures.

5 of the 10 warmest years accor before WWII. out of curiousity, do you know how many years we've been measuring in this way? if it's around the turn of the century...there were less years before WWII than after.

 

Here is your answer. This is also the data set used in that blog

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

 

great...

so if 1880 is my start date.

1880 - 1939 = 59 years

1940 - 2007 = 67 years


So 5 of the 10 warmest years in the US occurred in the first 59 years the data was recorded. And the other 5 were recorded in the 67 years since. Trend?

 

Haha, none. Drawing observation from a small subset of data is often has little significance. Especially when the data is being fit into a non-established model. . It can however provide some awesome sound bites, which is what the blogger did by implicating GLOBAL warming with US dataset.

PS: stat is hard and dry.

 

this is the problem, though. i agree with you. we have very limited information.

and i must say...i would assume that if the globe is warming, that the US ought to be as well. otherwise, it's something less than GLOBAL warming. which is part of the point made in the thread about this in D&D right now.

 

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought)
______

This is just the 'evolution revisited' thread in the D & D ~ the fringe will pounce on this saying global warming is not happening when in fact we are talking about a 1-2% correction.

 

but also . . . any doubt on a 'established theory' is dismissed out of hand
. . .not unlike that scientist say religious people do . . .

amaznig when your side dismisses something .. . the other is just picking
but
If the other side does it .. they are ignorant Zealots

Rocket River
Shouldn't QUESTIONING be good for all sides?

 

I have to admit, sometimes I have a hard time understanding what point you're trying to make...?

I think KingCheetah was talking about the fringe. There are r****ds on the fringe on all sides of all debates. Sometimes their opinions have merit, but very infrequently.

I think what's important in the Global Warming debate, at least for me as a layperson, is what do the majority of accredited scientists believe...and it seems pretty clear to me, most of them (1) question by default, and (2) believe Global Warming is definitely a problem, to varying degrees.

I'd be very very very surprised if this blog changes any of their opinions on that.

 

but isn't global warming nothing more than a MINOR fluctuation in temperature? we're not talking about temps rising 10 degrees on average. we're talking about the consequences of them rising 1-2 degrees. right??

i'm not the fringe...i'm just not a scientist of any kind, so i have no idea. i can only read what others say about it. i'm not out there testing ice samples. i'm not sawing through trees to read information from the rings.

the danger here, to me, is labelling anyone who dares question as "the fringe."

 

This is pointless. There is an almost worldwide consensus (among scientists at least) that global warming is 99% real.

That data only changes things if the dates are BEFORE industrialization. Even 60 years ago we were burning fossil fuels and dispensing them in the ozone. Think of how many coal power plants there were.

 

Before we get too deep into this -- is there another source besides a blog?

 

In my understanding this statement is more or less correct. Average global temperatures since the beginning of the 20th century have risen about .7 degrees (before any adjustment this might cause) and the little ice age was about .2 degrees. I seem to want to say that the consequence are supposedly described as a bit larger - more like 4-6 degrees in the near term - but that is just off the top of my head. I think in the longer term there are some more severe predictions.


Three things:

1. The site that actually discovered the story, http://www.climateaudit.org, has been nonfunctional since this was posted here, and the only thing that comes up is an error message in Czech or Slovenian or something similar. I would like to get it from the horse's mouth.
   
   
2. As stated above I can't get the story from the source but supposedly the data error only effects data on North America. I'm sure some people will think my mentioning this is some sort of cop out but it is very relevant as all along people have been saying the picture is only clear when examined as a whole.
   
   
3. With the exception of the littlegrerenfootballs link, every blogger's story and every post here that champions this story seems to be as much about 'sticking it' to Al Gore or the environmentalists as any real concern over the science. That this is universally becoming like a D&D political debate where people revel in the schadenfreude is disturbing to me.
   

 

99%?
What is Concensus? 51%? 60%? 80%?

a concensus of PEOPLE beleive in a higher power. . .

Rocket River

 

Keep trying to convince the world that the Earth is flat Rocket River. As you say, questioning is good for all sides.

 

Yes, let's just never solve any problems, as long as there's at least one idiot who doesn't think they exist.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/