Skip to comments.
NASA Admits Error: 1934 Back to Warmest Year in U.S.
Climate Audit ^
| August 8th, 2007
| Steve McIntyre
Posted on 08/08/2007 9:07:54 PM PDT by chipengineer
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-57 last
To: SatinDoll; xcamel
What was the sunspot trend between 1930-1940?
Does that also track with the observed temperatures before 1940 ... (Before the “cooling” trend of the 1965-1978, and the warming trend between 1978-1998?)
41
posted on
08/09/2007 4:19:06 AM PDT
by
Robert A Cook PE
(I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
To: Stellar-Spectrum
42
posted on
08/09/2007 4:50:41 AM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(Profile updated Tuesday, August 7, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
To: SteveMcKing
I would not trust the quality of data from 1934 to be compared with that of todays standards. Given the recent revelation regarding the placement of numerous NOAA weather stations near A/C exhaust ducts, black asphalt parking lots and the like, I wouldn't trust "data" taken this morning, either.......
43
posted on
08/09/2007 6:18:33 AM PDT
by
Thermalseeker
(Made in China: Treat those three words like a warning label)
To: Wonder Warthog
To: SteveMcKing
"I am right." And your knowledge of accurate thermometry is precisely what??
The technology back in the 1940's was quite capable of making temperature measurements accurate to 100'ths of a degree Celsius. Adding electronics actually is more likely to cause errors than prevent them.
In the final analysis, the accuracy depends on how often and how well the sensors (thermometers or electronics) were/are calibrated. In the 1940's the techs doing the work were much more likely to be sufficiently well trained to get it right. Today, they're likely to be high-school dropouts working from a printout, sloppily.
To: chipengineer
46
posted on
08/09/2007 7:18:29 AM PDT
by
sono
(“This concludes our coverage.” Finally, Overbite speaks sense.)
To: SteveMcKing
I have a neighbor who family has collected data for the National Weather Service since 1905 as volunteer weather observers under the Cooperative Weather Observer Program. Yep, three generations of the same family doing this for 102 years.
47
posted on
08/09/2007 8:14:16 AM PDT
by
Between the Lines
(I am very cognizant of my fallibility, sinfulness, and other limitations.)
To: Robert A. Cook, PE
I don’t really know. But I’m sure the information is available somewhere on the internet. The weather cycles about every 11 years from very warm to cool, and that correlates with the cyclic appearances of the sunspots. But what is was in the 1930’s to 1940’s - I just don’t know. Of course, more than sunspot activity can account for warming or cooling, an uptick in volcanism comes to mind as a prime cause of atmosperic cooling.
To: chipengineer
AGW`ers will laugh at this as inconsequential.
To: chipengineer
Perfect. All the talk about how we are dangerously increasing in temperature, and now they realize they just had a Y2K bug, and actually half of the hottest ten years were BEFORE WWII. Watch how this doesn’t make the big news.
50
posted on
08/10/2007 10:54:53 AM PDT
by
onja
("The government of England is a limited mockery.") (France is a complete mockery.)
To: chipengineer
51
posted on
08/10/2007 10:56:45 AM PDT
by
VOA
To: chipengineer
Seems kind of a convenient mistake since the item was published at the height of the GW movement.
52
posted on
08/10/2007 10:58:42 AM PDT
by
Vision
("Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, whose confidence is in him." Jeremiah 17:7)
To: chipengineer
There is also something else missing from the NASA faux data and that was the loss of hundreds of Russian and Siberian weather stations in the 90s. When the Soviet Union collapsed the funding to maintain them disappeared. Hundreds of cold-weather readings were missing from the world weather calculations without any proper weighting. This is another factor that if accounted for would break off the end of the “hockey stick”. NASA has to come clean with all of it’s methods and data and allow many more outside independent reviews.
53
posted on
08/10/2007 11:40:29 AM PDT
by
PA Engineer
(Liberate America from the occupation media.)
To: PA Engineer
To: chipengineer
To: chipengineer
1934 just might have been AGW. I'm sure this baby had a carbon footprint as big as any SUV!
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
That’s a great interview. Turns out that 1934 is corroborated in Northern Europe as well.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-57 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson