New NASA Data Still Proves Global Warming is Real
By David Cassel
Yes, there’s a glitch in NASA’s data about U.S. air temperatures. But the corrected data still shows a warming trend that’s unmistakeable.
Many arguments against global warming require a carefully-slanted presentation of the statistics. Here’s what global warming skeptics are saying — and the evidence from NASA’s most recent statistics.
The new figures show global warming is a myth
These new figures don’t show anything about global warming. They’re exclusively for the United States.
The new figures show a huge discrepancy
Actually, the discrepancy isn’t that huge. A climate web site reviewed NASA’s figures and reported “an upward discontinuity” which would inflate the reported temperatures — by just one degree Centigrade in the winter, and only 0.8 degrees annually.
1998 was not America’s hottest year on record
This is true — but it’s the second hottest year ever recorded in the U.S., and the hottest in the last 73 years.
America’s hottest and third-hottest years were before World War II
This is also true. But the second- and fourth-hottest year were in the last nine years (1998 and 2006.) That argument is just a way of re-stating the statistics to downplay the significance of the recent hot years.
For example, at the Daily Tech blog, Michael Asher emphasized that the #1 and #3 slots are taken by 1934 and 1921 — but then blithely decided not to mention the #4 slot at all (though 2006 was the fourth-hottest year ever recorded in the United States.)
Sentences can always be constructed in several ways, to either include or exclude the recent hot years. For example, these statements are also true.
- Two of the four hottest years have occurred within the last ten years
- Four of the eight hottest years have occurred since the 90s.
5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II.
No one ever disputed there were several very hot years before World War II. In fact, NASA’s old statistics had always shown that four of the ten warmest years were pre-World War II. The new stats now just show five hot pre-war years instead four — which is hardly a compelling revision.
The years 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 are now below the year 1900 and no longer even in the top 20
I first read this on a blog called Grandma is an Idiot. Another way to phrase that would be “these five years are among the 25 hottest ever recorded” — but Grandma Is an Idiot chose to arbitrarily draw their line for a cutoff at “the top 20.”
3 (not 9) of the hottest years took place since 1995
NASA’s old statistics already showed this to be true, so this statement doesn’t reflect any change from our past understanding. Newsbusters makes this argument - but it requires a little misdirection. By referring to years “since 1995,” you can conveniently leave out 1990, which was one of the eight hottest years ever recorded in the United States.
But there’s always going to be a freakishly hot year — which is why NASA also calculated the mean temperature over a five-year period of time. If you graph those, you see a pretty clear pattern. Even with the new data, 7 of the hottest 10 five-year periods have still occurred in the last ten years. And we don’t have five-year means centered around 2005 and 2006 yet — though 2006 has already proven itself to be one of the 10 hottest years (again, using the updated statistics.)
We’ll have to wait another two years before there’s five-year means centered around 2005 and 2006, but 2006 has already proven itself to be one of the 10 hottest years ever. (And yes, that’s using the updated statistics.) But the graph of NASA’s newest data already shows one important and unmistakeable conclusion.
Seven of the hottest 10 five-year periods have still occurred in the last ten years.
Related:
Entry was posted
on Friday, August 10th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
under 
Print This Post
Read more entries by David Cassel.
Stumble It!
August 10th, 2007
David,
You make some very true and valid points. However, I note several things that concern me. First is that you point out wording that is used to downplay GW and reword it. But the same argument can be said about your wordings on the supporting side. Both sets of wordings are true. The problem is that neither are scientific statements. I don’t even see errorbars. Are the differences in the noise? I agree there seems to be a trend, but this is poor data collection and auditing from a data analyst point of view. It’s frustrating.
The second, and perhaps bigger, concern is your (and popular media) use of the term “skeptic” to mean “denier”. There are basically three groups as far as GW: the believers, the deniers, and the skeptics. Believers say there is clear global warming and it’s unquestionably anthropogenic, and are prone to confirmation bias. Deniers say there is no global warming or that it’s natural, and are prone to confirmation bias.
Skeptics are, by proper definition, agnostic towards a given conclusion, but accept the conclusion of good science, but only to the degree to which the science supports. Skeptics point out errors on both sides. Skeptics push for better science. Skeptics abhor overstated conclusions that are not supported by the data on either side of an issue. Skeptics are critical thinkers, not followers of a belief.
It is unfortunate that the term has been used more and more to mean someone who has “an attitude of doubt” which is not it’s intended meaning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism), particularly when applied to scientific conclusions.
I am a skeptic. But I am not a denier. I believe that anthropogenic GW is real because there is more credible evidence to suggest it than to deny it. But it’s far from conclusive. What I do know is that both deniers AND believers use every trick and manipulation in their arguments full of bad science, statistics, and unsound arguments. Bad science includes poorly audited data measurement, lack of calibration and accuracy information, lack of disclosure of source data and processing algorithms, and reliance on highly tweaked non-linear models. This NASA revelation is only one small part of the poor quality control of the data and processing.
Manipulation includes leading people to assume that correlation of CO2 and Temp change means CO2 CAUSED it (despite an 890 year lag) and statements that, as you point out, could be reworded to support the opposite conclusion.
Poor arguments include the percentage of scientists or papers that agree with it. Popular opinion, even among scientist, does not make anything true. From orbital mechanics to laws of motion to relativity, the popular opinion of scientists were wrong at the time. As Einstein said (paraphrased), “If they were right it would only take one.”
In the end, I’m not disagreeing with your points. They are good points. But don’t fall into the trap of doing the same thing the other way and overstating conclusions without rigorous understand of the data and the conclusions that can be drawn from it.
August 12th, 2007
The real problem in belief, skepticism and denial, is that most of us, myself included being founded in History and Literature, not Science, lack the math, biological and anthropoligical backgrounds to make an intellengent analyses of the data available. We on the outside must simply put our trust in the credentials and integrities of those who claim to know the science of global warming. Thus, one day I can read the work of someone who believes, and the next day I can read the work of someone who claims global warming does not exist. Ultimately the argument will sway toward those who have the loudest voice and mother nature will go right on taking it’s course.
August 12th, 2007
“7 of the hottest 10 five-year periods have still occurred in the last ten years.”
right…
maybe you should read what you are writing before posting it
August 13th, 2007
I am a regular reader of your article. And I am very impress with your blog upon Global Warming. Now I am also write a blog upon effects and causes of Global Warming. This blog is collection of news & reviews like the study found that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays. Some researchers had also suggested that the latter might influence global warming because the rays trigger cloud formation.
August 13th, 2007
If the surface temperatures were used for a Master’s thesis, it would have been thrown out. The database is corrupt. The ’science’ is speculation.
October 27th, 2007
Perhaps someone can make sense of the last sentence, but its on a par with the logic of the rest of the blog.
The whole argument is a ’strawman’.
Is the supposed average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere the correct metric to measure climate? Hardly, changes in ocean currents have changes in
temps. far greater than anything AGGase’s could do, and they change in decadel cycles or multi-decadel for which there is little predictive ability.
Get up to speed on the greenhouse effect, it was proved false by two Austrian Physicists in July 07, or better still, read “Apocalypse Canceled” Monkton, for a well argued case for natural forces being by far the major cause of what warming there is.
October 28th, 2007
im in 7th grade and my science teacher told us that global warming is real, well i spoke out and said that was his oppinion.now i have a 2 page essay due tommorow giving proof that it isnt real if anyone nows websites thatcould help me. i i dont do the report i get I.S.S (in school suspention) i dont like my science teacher,but istill like science!!!!
November 18th, 2007
well no one knows if global warming is real or not. There is so much contradicting evidence i think people should stop being dramatic pussies claiming the world is going to end. NO ONE HAS ANY IDEA WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. The earth has hotter years then others and while having colder years then others. (.)(.)
/
:=====>()
November 18th, 2007
well no one knows if global warming is real or not. There is so much contradicting evidence i think people should stop being dramatic pussies claiming the world is going to end. NO ONE HAS ANY IDEA WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. The earth has hotter years then others and while having colder years then others.Enjoy (.)(.)
/
:=====>()
May 15th, 2008
GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
October 16th, 2008
It’s UNREAL!!!!!! Why? Because the warming ended with the twentieth century. Global temperatures since then have not changed, within statistical limits of observation, and a cooling trend may very well on the way.
December 20th, 2008
I have checked out many canadian weather stations temperature records that go back more than 100 years. The information is all available online. I’ve looked at annual temperatures, 10 year and 30 year rolling average temperatures. There was a warm period in the 20’s to 40’s and a definate cooling period in the 60’s and 70’s. I am old enough to remember when there were warning of another ice age in the media of the mid 70’s. If human carbon production is the cause of temperature change does that mean that we had more man made carbon in the 20’s to 40’s than we had in the 60’s and 70’s after the post war boom? Also I encourage people to check a the web site, http://www.surfacestations.org to see how many weather stations in the USA have significant error in them because of the way they Are situated. Why is it that there are a number of intelligent credible experienced climatologists who have diverging views on global warming? Why doesn’t Al Gore show that when the carbon /temperature graphs are layed on top of each other that the temperature moves up or down first before the carbon moves up or down? If I were to need life saving heart surgery and I had a choice on the one had between having an experienced heart surgeon who had many successful operations and on the other hand having a life time politician who watched ER every week operate on my heart I would choose the heart surgeon. Why are we choosing a lifetime politician, ie Al Gore instead of many highly qualified intelligent climatologists. Since when are Politicians totally and completely believable?
March 26th, 2009
Why! I think global warming is a complete myth!!! Nothing is happening at all!! This site is rrrrrrrrrrrrrrruuuuuuuuuuuuuubbbbbbbbiiiiiiiiiissssssssshhhhhhh! Honestly! Give us the facts not some made up graphs that don’t prove a sausage! Scientists are just JESTERS in scientists coats!! All this stupid Rubbish gobbledygook means absolutely nothing!! Zilch. nada! Null! Zero!!!!!!!!!!! If you believe in this brain washing nonsense then you are a fool and thats the truth! Scientists are just trying to get people worried so they will get more money so they can live in the lap of luxury while we all live in fear! Well i’m not falling for it and neither should you!!!!!!!!!!!! This completely bonkers and if you think i am going to fall for this nonsense that everyone is posting on this godforsaken website then you are barking up the wrong tree. Honestly though, If you think rationanally then you will realise that you can’t actually read these stupid graphs! That is how you tell whether or not this whole baloney is true. So take my advice and Get off this site!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
March 26th, 2009
This completely bonkers and if you think i am going to fall for this nonsense that everyone is posting on this godforsaken website then you are barking up the wrong tree. Honestly though, If you think rationanally then you will realise that you can’t actually read these stupid graphs! That is how you tell whether or not this whole baloney is true. So take my advice and Get off this site!!!!!!!!!!!!!!