Hottest year on record, GLOBALLY. Which is it?

Question

Here is a link by one of our deniers in a previous post. In the link it clearly states 1934 was the warmest year on record for the UNITED STATES.

"climatologists at the Goddard Institute of Space Science in New York now accept that 1934 was historically the United States' hottest year since records began" (August 16, 2007)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/16/1

But, here is what NASA GISS shows, straight from their website, with 1934 and 1998 tied for the warmest UNITED STATES temps on record (January 11, 2008)

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

Since this is the GLOBAL Warming section, why do they (deniers)insist on showing US records?

Here is the NASA GISS website, plain as day. Nowhere does it show 1934 as the warmest year on record GLOBALLY.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

NOAA, same thing...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/perspectives.html

HadCRUT, again it's the same thing...

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

Is this deception on the deniers part? The data is right there if you open your eyes!

Answer 1

NASA GISS: 2005

NOAA: 1998

HadCRUT: 1998

But nowhere is 1934 mentioned as the warmest year on record Globally. Whoever said that has never looked at the charts, looked at them but doesn't understand how to read them, or is deliberately trying to mislead people.

Answer 2

Either 1998 or 2005, depending on which dataset you choose.  1934 was a very unremarkable year in terms of global temperatures.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pr...

Oh and by the way, the satellites also have it as 1998.

http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_descrip...

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/0...

I agree that claiming 1934 is the hottest year is probably a case of confirmation bias.  It combines the no warming myth with the conspiracy theory myth.  People want to believe it, so they neglect the rather critical bit of information that this was a correction of US data which had an absolutely miniscule impact on global temperature data.

Answer 3

Just a  couple months ago it was new Snow records

Answer 4

All but one agency says 1998.    1934 is for the US only.   2005 was hot in the NH and in most of the US, but not as hot in the SH - and NASA GISS relies on more surface stations, which is good, but most of them are in the NH, thus there is a NH bias, and GISS does not adjust for this bias.

The other agencies do.

Answer 5

It was 1934.  This isn't really disputed by either side . . .  except by Dana who continuously criticizes people for manipulating and cherry-picking information when he's doing the exact same thing here.  Pretty hypocritical, don't you think?  When something doesn't fit to his sad argument, he just throws it by the wayside as if it doesn't exist.  Pathetic.  

Answer 6

The whole concept of an "average global temperature" to an accuracy and precision of 0.1C before satellite data ... is a bit preposterous.

How exactly were thermometers calibrated and read in the olden days?  To the nearest degree F?  Any records from the ocean areas?

But I'm glad you posted this question.  When 1998 was posited as the warmest on record, it was part of the-world-is-going-to-h**l-in-a-hand basket litany.  If things were as warm in 1934 and the world didn't end, then maybe life and polar bears are a bit more robust than folks give them credit for.

What I would like to know is if you have any training in statistics and understand accuracy, precision, variance, etc.

What I see in the data is that it is very "noisy", with the effect claimed on the same order as the natural background variance.

Go to this site:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=h...

I don't expect you to read the text, just look at the graphs and see what an enormous difference it makes when you show the y axis in degrees instead of tenths of a degree.

All of a sudden, when you are not down in the weeds, things today don't look so much different than in the past.  Not enough to persuade anyone to go back to simpler times, living in huts, starving to death, and watching their children die before age five.

  

Answer 7

Well 114 degrees in Nevada.

Answer 8

Yes, 1934 was the hottest year on record. I think that was the year Al Gore's dad first considered having children...

Answer 9

1934 was warmer than 1998, Mr. Hansen should stop tampering with temperature data.

Answer 10

1986.........

Answer 11

Highest global temperatures:

1) 1100 BC

2) 1300 AD

3) 1998 AD

Answer 12

I don't know how many times I have corrected someone claiming that "NASA's correction made 1934 the warmest on record". It is ridiculous. Like I said on another question, misrepresentation by denialist sources is what has caused the confusion, and it is quite frustrating.

Had/CRU, RSS,  and UAH say 1998, and NASA says 2005. All you have to do is go to their sites.

What is the warmest year on record? Three out of four metrics agree 1998. NASA uses the same data NOAA does, so I wouldn't consider the two separate.

Answer 13

Richard it is also been noted that NASA has not yet corrected the other international records as yet because they are so badly corrupted with errors it will take possibly years to make them accurate. Somebody spent a lot of time messing up those data files in order to be able to use them to promote global warming. Now it took NASA almost a year to correct the US records alone, how long do you think it is going to take to research and correct those fr the rest of the world. As they fix them they will post the correction just as they did with the US ones.

Dana and the other agencies per usual will trail NASA by years as the truth conflicts with their politics.

Answer 14

I believe that the main issue here is the credibility of the data and methodology used in determining climate trends.  If NASA and other so-called 'accomplished'  climate agencies keep changing/massaging/manipulating/fixing climate data, it's kinda tough to embrace their opinions.

They need to admit that climate science is in its infancy.... be patient.... and shut up until they can prove their ability to determine what effect man has on climate.... if any.

Answer 15

It was around 248 million years ago, commonly known as the permian, Triassic boundary.

Answer 16

its called confirmation bias. we all tend to select new information that tallies with our existing world view.

scientists recognise this and try to avoid it. various methods for correcting for this have been developed, the most obvious being the double blind trial.

Answer 17

2006

Answer 18

Since 1880's only two periods have shown long term trends. The first(1910-1945), the second (1976-current) both are used as comparisons and contrast. Singular event years, offer little in the way of scientific fidelity.