Y2K bug did have a victim - Al Gore and Global Warming

[SUBMAN1]

Funny.

-S

Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data

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

My earlier column (http://www.dailytech.com/New+Scandal+Erupts+over+NOAA+Climate+Data/article8347.htm) this week detailed the work of a volunteer team to assess problems with US temperature data used for climate modeling. One of these people is Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org (http://www.climateaudit.org/). While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or "jump" in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000.

These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.
McKintyre notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1868) and acknowledged the problem as an "oversight" that would be fixed in the next data refresh.

NASA has now silently released corrected figures (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt), and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary (http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html) of the events.

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the US global warming propaganda machine could be huge.

Then again-- maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media.


http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+Finds+Y2K+Bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm

[Letum]

oh....ok.....
*burns fridges and tires*
*farts*

edit: Is WG still around? I'm starting to miss him!
/masochist blog

[SUBMAN1]

oh....ok.....
*burns fridges and tires*
*farts*

edit: Is WG still around? I'm starting to miss him!

I think methane is the greatest cause of GW, so quit it already! :D

[Letum]

oh....ok.....
*burns fridges and tires*
*farts*

edit: Is WG still around? I'm starting to miss him!
I think methane is the greatest cause of GW, so quit it already! :D
It's the chemical that traps the most heat (60x more than CO2), it is the biggest cause of the greenhouse effect but it doesn't cause climate change/global warming because there is nothing causing an imbalance in methane levels. As much goes into the atmosphere as comes out and it comes out quickly compared to CO2.

However when big natural methane hydrate and permafrost deposits have been released in the past there have been very, very big, yet brief, temperature rises.
No one quite knows what could cause methane hydrate and permafrost methane deposits to become unstable on a global scale.

However, if we do get a large, natural methane release then there is nothing we can do about it!


*edit* I wonder if that blog is by THE Michael Asher

[SUBMAN1]

...However, if we do get a large, natural methane release then there is nothing we can do about it!...


Sure there is something that you can do about it - Knocking off some cows comes to mind (eating grass and processing it in 7 stomach's creates much methane). Guess we will have to eat a lot of beef for a while!

-S

[Letum]

...However, if we do get a large, natural methane release then there is nothing we can do about it!...

Sure there is something that you can do about it - Knocking off some cows comes to mind (eating grass and processing it in 7 stomach's creates much methane). Guess we will have to eat a lot of beef for a while!

-S


hehe....we are talking about a few 100,000 years of cowpats trapped at the bottom of great rivers and ice shelfs here.

We could allways light a match to it...........:hmm:

[STEED]

We are still in the ice age people remember that. ;)

[SUBMAN1]

We could allways light a match to it...........:hmm:

FOOOOOOOMMMMMM! Does that about sum it up?


Actaully, I watched an artcle about that white frozen fuel source. Could solve the energy crisis for a while. It burns quite readily, even when frozen.

-S

[Skybird]

Some news not from 7 years back.

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/hurricanefrequency.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6929668.stm

[Letum]

Yup!
It's Global Climate Change that is important.
Not Global Warming.

[samniTe]

are people still denying global warming?










my god.

[waste gate]

are people still denying global warming?










my god.

Check it out samniTe.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=114748t

[SUBMAN1]

are people still denying global warming?

my god.
I don't think anyone is denying it, just that the cause is in question. I'd beleive it were only us if it were not that Jupiter and Pluto for example were not experiencing the same thing. People's CO2 and CH4 (The topic of this thread:D) output probably contributes, but is probably not as contributing as some people would have you believe. I think we should take a look at Solar System warming and re-evaluate. Somehow, I am pretty sure that we don't have all the facts to be able to put your finger on the exact cause. It is probably best described as a combination of causes.

Worst case scenario - the sun is running out of fuel and slowly getting hotter. We could all be dead as it slowly expands and engulfs the first few planets, including ours.

-S

PS. That new data also throws up many questions as to the rate of warming.

[SUBMAN1]

Here are some reasons why I am skepticle about what is being shoved down our throats on Global Warming. It is part of a natural cycle on every planet. The problem is, even though some like Jupiter are predicted, it seems to be happening system wide. Pluto, without any atmosphering changes over the time of observations, is heating up for no reason. Weird, huh?

Some links for Jupiter and Pluto:

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/newsroom/pressreleases/20031208a.html

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6985/abs/nature02470.html

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1697309.htm


Some alternative theories to Global Warming - I find this one interesting:

http://biocab.org/Cosmic_Rays_Graph.html#anchor_77

Hmm - 150 years in Medieval times to GW when it will take 200 years in the Industrial age? This sounds more like a natural cycle than human activity:

http://biocab.org/Global_Warming.html#anchor_32


Now what do we make of Stardust? Does this have implications for GW? I am very curious to the extend that this can have effects - espcially since it can enter the atmosphere, and have effects on the Sun - maybe this is the cause for Plutos rise as well:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...223..589V

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=12353

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=33618


The point is, as I said above - we don't have all the facts. That is my biggest issue. I don't doubt we have some effect on our climate (especially the CH4 output described above :p), but the extent of that effect is what I question. I have more ideas too, but I think this list is a good start.

-S

[JSLTIGER]

are people still denying global warming?

my god.
Worst case scenario - the sun is running out of fuel and slowly getting hotter. We could all be dead as it slowly expands and engulfs the first few planets, including ours.

Actually this one's true...the sun is burning through its fuel and getting closer to Earth at the same time, but it's actually cooling as it goes. But this scenario is not something that we need to worry about for quite a while as the sun is only about halfway through its life expectancy.

[TteFAboB]

are people still denying global warming?

If you've read the story of the thread, obviously not! They're so convinced they don't even need to double check their data.

[fatty]

Damn Al Gore and his Y2K liberal global warming conspiracy. I am shaking my fist over here.

[Heibges]

oh....ok.....
*burns fridges and tires*
*farts*

edit: Is WG still around? I'm starting to miss him!

I think methane is the greatest cause of GW, so quit it already! :D

I agree that GW is full of methane.

And of course you must remember James Watts, the renowned scientist who discovered that cows and squirrels were responsible for not only global warming but acid rain as well.

[NefariousKoel]

are people still denying global warming?










my god.

Uhh.. yeah.

Profit. That's what it's about. Carbon credits can suck it. Suck it good, even.:|\\

[Skybird]

Some general philosophizing:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GlobalWarming2.php

I do not reject the apparent fact that planets due to orbital changes (eccentricity) can be influenced in their climate processes by sun, with sun'S activity changing, too. Or better: it is no proven fact, but it seems to be a reasonable asusmption to imagine that changes in these variables to a ceertain degree can influence a planet's climate. If these chnages are so immense that they make a feelable difference, or if felt difference need to be associated with other, maybe even intermittent, variables than stellar ones, is something totally different. However, the amtosphere of solar system's planets are of such differences and planets have so different solar orbit and rotation characteristics that it has often been underlined that events on one planet cannot necessarily be taken as an explanatory precedent for events on another planets. for example, Mar's atmosphere's density, albedo, rotation cyclce and speed of seasonal chnages as well as length of climatic micro- and macro cycles do not compare to that of Earth.

So, while theories on stellar dust, orbital changes and changes in sun activity may hint at minor chnages in earth'S climate, they neverthelss so far seem to be highly unblikely to ever explain the very rapidly happening, sudden climate chnages we experience now - which certainly not by pure random chance alone correlate with the appearing consequences from man's industrial lifestyle in the carbon-age. It is a common practice in science that if several alternate theories to explain a phenomenon seem to be available, attention goes to the one which is the least complex and most simple one. And that explanation is the correlation between the immense emissions of various gases caused by man, and the rise of mean temperatures, and frequency of weather extremes.

Note that I rarely, if ever, speak of global warming, but of climate change. currently it seems to be most likely that it will result in "warming", but especially with regard to maritime processes in the oceans our knowledge and understanding is far from complete, and it could at leats be imagined that due to self-dynamics we still do not fully understand the trend of warming could trigger processes in the ocean that not only work to the contrary, but in fact cause a massive cooling in parts of the earth, just think of the decline on the Gulf stream's activity. Currents could be massively changing due to changes in temperature means, salt saturation and water density, and we also need to gain more knowledge on the effects of algas.

So, the current hype about stellar explanations of global warming I have a problem with, because the explanatory value seems to be very small, and that it so often is coming from and is supported by parties that have an interest in trying to prevent changes of current industrial ways of doing as long as possible, and so distract attention from the harming consequences of "dirty" industrialised production by coming up with "alternatives" of often questionable credibility ("CO2 helps to foster global forests, the more CO2, the better!"), does not make it any better.

So, I neither need the UN nor Al Gore to come to my conclusions. In fact, I haven't seen the Gore movie when it was on TV one or two months ago. To kick ideas just because of names and faces is iditoic anyway. Better deal with the idea itself. Persons are relatively unimportant - until you aim at propaganda or anti-propaganda only.

It also seems to me that a growing part and maybe already a majority of American citizens are way ahead of their official backward-oriented politics anyway, concerning these questions. Many cities and communities are already acting and try to adapt to climate changes whose full consequences are even not yet fully felt. While federal politicians and industrial lobbies still talk and delay (maybe with the exeption of Arnold), many local administrations and ordinary people already act - and change. :up: Very good!

I currently read a nice book, which in humouristic and entertaining language sums uup the evolution of life on earth, and the developement of the geological face of earth and the history of the oceans, the various ages, and the dominant life forms in them and their fates; it is by the same guy who wrote this very intense doomsday thriller "The Swarm", Frank Schätzing. The title is "Nachrichten aus einem unbekannten Universum" and if you understand German, this is a both very educative and entertaining reading I'm sure it will be translated into english, too, sooner or later). The author certainly does not claim to be a scientist and to cover the ground completely, but you get a very good overview, in a very easy-handed way. fun to read, and a thick book.

[Letum]

Woo to that post SB!
Enjoyable to read and not wrong!

[Konovalov]

So, I neither need the UN nor Al Gore to come to my conclusions. In fact, I haven't seen the Gore movie when it was on TV one or two months ago. To kick ideas just because of names and faces is iditoic anyway. Better deal with the idea itself. Persons are relatively unimportant - until you aim at propaganda or anti-propaganda only.

Couldn't agree more. :yep: I guess it is the easy and lazy thing to do for these people. Excellent post by the way. :up:

[Skybird]

...except the obligatory many typos coming from my speed-typing...

[Letum]

...except the obligatory many typos coming from my speed-typing...

See if you can find a spell checker plug-in for your browser. It saves me from spelling disasters!
Google toolbar is good for FFox

[Tchocky]

Update. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-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).

[Letum]

Update. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-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).

Well Quell Surprise!
Thanks for the link! :up:

[Tchocky]

It's only one reading, with an info change like this there are a thousand ways to see it

[Skybird]

...except the obligatory many typos coming from my speed-typing...

See if you can find a spell checker plug-in for your browser. It saves me from spelling disasters!
Google toolbar is good for FFox
I have it, I'm just too lazy to use it. :oops:

[NefariousKoel]

Are you people done with the circle jerk?

I just had the worst ice storm in the past decade last winter. Of course, it seems to happen here once every decade. These idiots still don't know how to predict weather.

I always said: Maybe I should've been a meteorologist because there's job security for someone who fvcks up all the time. I can predict it better walking outside. :doh:

[Letum]

Are you people done with the circle jerk?


*googles "circle jerk"*
:huh: Gah!

Wow, thats the second time in 2 topics you have insulted people and questioned their masculinity/sexuality.

Now I can just about understand the insulting, but the other bit......?......you got issues!