Monday, April 15, 2013

Top Ten Warmest Years on Record According to NASA's Latest Calculations

  1. 1934
  2. 1998
  3. 1921
  4. 2006
  5. 1931
  6. 1999
  7. 1953
  8. 1990
  9. 1938
  10. 1939......Hm, it seems that 5 of those of those years just happen to fall prior to 1940, the explosion of CO2 emissions, etc.. How in the hell is this possible, you ask? James Hansen, that's how. Apparently the dude was cooking the books prior to 2007 and it wasn't until Mr. McIntyre's investigation that he was busted on the thing. Gee, I wonder what else they've been lying to us about.

18 comments:

Jerry Critter said...

I don't know where you get your information since you don't provide references, but according to Reto Ruedy, a program manager at the NASA's Goddard Institute, 13 of the hottest years have occurred in the last 15 years.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NEW_RANKINGS.pdf - I don't blame you for not knowing this, Jerry. The media went out of their way to sweep it under the rug.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

To be fair, this report came out in 2007 and so some of the years after that could have ended up making the list instead (even though the temperature has in fact dipped slightly from the El Nino high of 1998).

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/jack-kelly/global-baloney-497984/ Well, at least one media outlet covered it (this, while Time and Newsweek totally ignored it).

Jerry Critter said...

Just looks like an unreferenced chart from a climate change denying site.

Les Carpenter said...

It doesn't fit the template.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

This is their mission statement, Jerry. They sound pretty balanced and reasonable to me - "ICECAP, International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, is the portal to all things climate for elected officials and staffers, journalists, scientists, educators and the public. It provides access to a new and growing global society of respected scientists and journalists that are not deniers that our climate is dynamic (the only constant in nature is change) and that man plays a role in climate change through urbanization, land use changes and the introduction of greenhouse gases and aerosols, but who also believe that natural cycles such as those in the sun and oceans are also important contributors to the global changes in our climate and weather. We worry the sole focus on greenhouse gases and the unwise reliance on imperfect climate models while ignoring real data may leave civilization unprepared for a sudden climate shift that history tells us will occur again, very possibly soon."......And what about the Post Gazette? Is that a denier site, too?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html - This is straight from The NASA web site in which they actually thank Mr. McIntyre for his input.

Jerry Critter said...

Yes, and they say in the same reference:


The effect on global temperature (the left side of the figure; see larger GIF) was of order one-thousandth of a degree, so the corrected and uncorrected curves are indistinguishable.


Big correction!

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Jerry, they modified the temperatures post 1970 by .15 of a degree Celcius. That's 21% of the reported increase over the 100 year period (.7 of a degree Celsius). That's a fair amount.

Jerry Critter said...

Let me repeat what is said in your reference:

"The effect on global temperature (the left side of the figure; see larger GIF) was of order one-thousandth of a degree, so the corrected and uncorrected curves are indistinguishable."

dmarks said...

Jerry's scrutiny is fair enough. I remember my scrutiny of your quoted claim that windmills were the main cause for forest fires. But overall you have done a great job, Will, of looking at this from a scientific-not-ideological viewpoint. The claims of some of "consensus" as an excuse to stifle scientific progress by intentionally ignoring rock-hard evidence is disturbing and unintellectual. If they are afraid of evidence, that is not science they are supporting.

I've also decided I am going to lift my blog comment screening. If W-Dervish decides to repeat his act of posting scores of profanity-laced spams in which he talks about his penis, I will just turn it on again. Less effort than him venting his phallic obsession anyway.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I'd like to know how they (an outfit that was under the auspices of a crazy person at the time, a person who had already fudged once and who had even gone as far as to compare trains carrying coal to the trains carrying Jews to Nazi concentration camps) came up with that figure, Jerry. Yes, the contiguous 48 only represent a small part of the earth's surface but there are also massive amounts of the surface which do not have any readings at all. And the fact that he ONLY fudged the temperature of the United States (jacking up the post 1970 temps and jacking down the pre 1970 temps by roughly .15 of a degree Celsius) in an effort to bolster his claims isn't a sufficient enough of a transgression for you. He had to do more than that?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Good luck, dmarks. As for the forest fire claim, that one came from the CA Forestry Service and I believe that it pertained to the area of the Altimont Wind Farm in which a large number of the windmills had in fact caught on fire. Obviously areas in which said windmills do not exist couldn't possibly start a fire.

dmarks said...

Will: I've even heard global warming True Believers seriously propose that scientifically informed people who are skeptical of trendy theories and don't buy into this be stripped of free speech rights, imprisoned, or judged insane.

Here is a link to one of these more rabid Torquamadas: "Climate change skeptics are mentally ill says one professor"

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition, certainly not being brought back by extremely arrogant charlatans masquerading as scientists.

Seriously, I thought we were supposed to have left the idea of persecuting people because they do not share a certain faith way back in the dark ages.

dmarks said...

Will: As for your question for Jerry, I don't know about him, but I hold scientists to a high standard. I don't respect them if they intentionally lie about evidence in order to push forth shaky theories. Not just once, but many times. There are plenty of actual scientists who don't do this.

This gets to be like Dan Rather, with his claim of Bush going AWOL, all based on a forged document he knowingly flogged on the media after the hoax was known. Rather told us that the evidence was fake but the story was true, and he destroyed a long and distinguished career as a (formerly) respected journalist.

Silly science-fiction writers like Michael Mann are in the same league. And like Rather, he has filed frivolous lawsuits in self-righteous anger at those who see through his charade.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Wow, so they really think that Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Sallie Baliunas, Tim Ball, Ivar Giaever (Nobel Prize in Physics), Freeman Dyson, Patrick Michaels, Ian Plimer, Ian Clark, Jan Vezier, Judith Curry, William Gray, Tim Patterson, Peter Taylor, Ryan Maue, Christopher Scotese, Robert Carter, Nir Shaviv, David Archibald, Henrick Svensmark, David Holland, William Happer, James Peden, Paul Reiter, etc. are crazy, huh? They must really and truly think that the "science is settled"

dmarks said...

Just like Galileo was crazy, yup.