How much longer can obfuscations propagate regarding 1998 being the warmest year Globally?

Question

Apparently, someone didn't like the truth and had my question deleted. If a doubter is so confident in their views, then why would you have it deleted?

Here is the science again. The following link is GLOBAL temps from NASA GISS:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

The following link is for US temps from NASA GISS:

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

Now, when someone references NASA GISS and states 1998 was the warmest year, they are wrong. When NASA GISS clearly shows GLOBAL temps in 2005 as the warmest. To say otherwise is disengenuous, because they have been corrected many times. I understand there are other datasets, but I am comparing apples to apples with regard to the source, NASA GISS.

Answer 1

What I find amusing in relation to this question is the behavior of those who claim to be 'skeptics'.  In a recent question, one of these self-proclaimed 'skeptics' chose a jello answer as best and said "Glad your(sic) here to combat the propagandists"

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Supposedly we're the propagandists, and yet it's the 'skeptics' who are trying to pass off lower 48 United States data as global data.  It's the 'skeptics' who are trying to argue that global warming has stopped even though any simple statistical analysis proves otherwise.  It's the 'skeptics' who present data tables and say "trust me, this proves global warming has stopped" while the "propagandists" present graphs and statistical analyses.

1998 may or may not have been the warmest year globally.  NASA GISS - which has the only dataset that models for the Arctic, where the warming is greatest - says that it was.  When your source evidence comes from NASA, you cannot honestly argue that 1998 is the hottest year on record.  If you want to make that argument, use the Hadley Centre data.  You still might not be correct, but at least you won't be purposefully dishonest.

The 'skeptics' make it clear that they have no interst in science or honesty.  They're only interested in furthering their cause of global warming denial.  For that reason, they are not skeptics, they are deniers.  When they either stop lying about the data or at least criticize those who do instead of awarding them 'best answers', then perhaps they will warrant the label of 'skeptic'.

Answer 2

Dude, you can't ignore the margin of error and try to make factual statements. The NASA data clearly states that within the margin of error that temp in 2005 was the same as 1998-not warmer.

The build in a margin of error for a reason, because they make mistakes. You can't just ignore it.

Answer 3

You know as well as I do that the Hadley Center (and other researchers - see the first link) reports 1998 as the warmest. NASA also used to report it as the warmest in 10 years but has now changed that.

What does NASA (your source) now say the warmest year on record is? 1934 (see the last link). What how can that be...that would mean GW is wrong. Strange.

---- Edit ----

That is the point of the Hadley Center data. Your question implies that they are wrong or there is no reason to claim 1998 as the warmest year. The Hadley Center data says 1998 is the warmest. The NASA data used to say it is the warmest.

So what GISS says 1998 wasn't the warmest? Does that prove all other data wrong? And isn't it funny that two organizations that propagate GW have different data sets. I thought the "science was settled". How can it be settled if the data doesn't match.

Answer 4

Perhaps I can help on this one?The rankings were based on exclusions due to a large positive Arctic anomaly and certain regions. So in reality one could say that 2005-1998 both had record setting years. Not what anyone wanted to hear, but what the h_ll.

Answer 5

I don't think it's particularly important which year is warmest.  The National Climatic Data Center has 1998 as warmest, but no one said that the rise in global average temperatures would be monotonic.  The trend is clear, and upward.

Answer 6

Interesting how you truncated some of what Dr.Hansen said to mislead others.  I wonder why believers have to resort misleading and false data to get their point across.  Is this because the facts just don't support your claims?

Maybe this is why Algore needed a movie set to simulate ice melting, or animated polar bears because none were endangered.

Dr. Hansen made outrageous claims about 1998 being the

warmest year on record in the U.S.  Clearly this was not true as his peer reviewed math was wrong.  The correct year was 1934.

Since the data is just the US, does this make the data invalid?  Of course not, as the US is still a part of the globe.  And if co2 levels are responsible for temperatures, then the increase over the last 75 years should show significant long term rise, but it doesn't as no year has been warmer than 1934.

Nice try though.

Answer 7

It seems to me that the important thing is that almost every year in the 90s and the current decade has been measurably warmer than the rest of the century.  Global temperatures oscillate up and down for all kinds of reasons, but the overall trend is an alarming rate of warming.  We should focus on what to do about that, not fight over the details of which recent year was warmer.

Answer 8

I know I sound like a broken record, but you can blame right wing talk radio for most of the willful ignorance of skeptics.  The only place I have ever found a continual spewage of misinformation on GW (other than the specific pseudoskeptic internet sites) is right wing talk radio. I listen to it daily just to sit in fascination at how they bend and twist information for their audience. For some people, this is all they will listen to and they truly don't know better.

Whenever you see people use words like "Algore" or blame the "mainstream media" for quoting scientists, these things are taking *directly* from the Rush Limbaugh show.