1998 was not the hottest year in US history. It was 1934.

[David S]

We have been told in apocalyptic terms that 1998 was the hottest year on record and evidence that global warming is caused by us. We're all doomed.! Well dammit it was not the hottest year. And 1934 became the hottest without the high CO2 levels of today.

The importance of US weather data can be seen from this map of worldwide weather stations.
http://www.sailwx.info/wxobs/stationpick.phtml

We have way more than anyone else. Possibly that makes our data more accurate.

[ilikeverin]

Yes, our data is certainly more accurate concerning the United States.  However, it cannot be used to extrapolate global trends.  It isn't called American warming, after all.

[CultureKing]

We have been told in apocalyptic terms that 1998 was the hottest year on record and evidence that global warming is caused by us. We're all doomed.! Well dammit it was not the hottest year. And 1934 became the hottest without the high CO2 levels of today.

The importance of US weather data can be seen from this map of worldwide weather stations.
http://www.sailwx.info/wxobs/stationpick.phtml

We have way more than anyone else. Possibly that makes our data more accurate.

GLOBAL warming, your data proves absolutely nothing, you need to look at the global picture.

[Sam Spade]

Whilst the United States is unlikely to mirror the rest of the world's temperatures or its temperature changes, it is illogical to presume that the US lives merely in a vacuum or that it's temperature numbers and trends should not correlate to some degree in some larger timeframe to the world's temperature numbers and trends.

Translated into English:  If the US shows warming, it is likely the world is experiencing similar warming; if the US doesn't, the world likely isn't.

The charges of American centrism being raised here are merely strawmen that have nothing to do with the data or the observations.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In the interests of intellectual honesty, I noticed that the United States is actually a bit under 2% of the Earth's area. So there was a relative revision of 0.03 degrees between 1934 and 1998 in 2% of the world's surface area. Big deal.

Whilst the United States is unlikely to mirror the rest of the world's temperatures or its temperature changes, it is illogical to presume that the US lives merely in a vacuum or that it's temperature numbers and trends should not correlate to some degree in some larger timeframe to the world's temperature numbers and trends.

Translated into English:  If the US shows warming, it is likely the world is experiencing similar warming; if the US doesn't, the world likely isn't.

The charges of American centrism being raised here are merely strawmen that have nothing to do with the data or the observations.

If you were smart enough to understand the graph I had posted, you'd see that there has been considerable GLOBAL warming since 1934.

[Gabu]

If you were smart enough to understand the graph I had posted, you'd see that there has been considerable GLOBAL warming since 1934.

As I understand the article, there was an error in the data from past years that made it look as though temperatures in the US had increased more than they had.  The argument was that it was possible that these same errors might have been made in other global temperature data, not that the US data matters more than the other data.

[David S]

If you were smart enough to understand the graph I had posted, you'd see that there has been considerable GLOBAL warming since 1934.

As I understand the article, there was an error in the data from past years that made it look as though temperatures in the US had increased more than they had.  The argument was that it was possible that these same errors might have been made in other global temperature data, not that the US data matters more than the other data.

You're right about the "argument", but I would also suggest that the US has the most complete temperature data covering the time period in question, 1930 to present.

As you can see from the map linked to  below there is an abundance of weather stations in the US and to a lesser extent in western Europe, but considerably fewer through out the rest of the world. But the map is for the current era. How many of those stations were operating in the 30's?

http://www.sailwx.info/wxobs/stationpick.phtml

At http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ you can click on any area of the globe and get  a list of weather stations nearby. The list also shows how long those stations have been in operation. In the US, many stations cover the time period from the 30's to the present. In Europe there are fewer but still maybe enough to provide a reasonable data supply. But in the rest of the world there are not so many. Realistically how many weather stations were recording temperature data on the oceans, or the polar regions or the undeveloped countries during the 30's ?
I suggest that the US data is the most complete record available for that time period.

[David S]

Some of you have commented that 1934 is only one year and is therefore not very meaningful. But the global warming crowd also told us that 9 of the hottest years occurred since 1995. That statement is also now shown to be incorrect. Only 3 of the hottest years occurred since 1995 and 3 occurred in the 30's. So it isn't just a single year.

[Gabu]

You're right about the "argument", but I would also suggest that the US has the most complete temperature data covering the time period in question, 1930 to present.

Which is, however, irrelevant if the US was anomalous in its warm temperatures around the 1930s.  What really matters is whether or not this was seen in the rest of the world.

[Person Man]

Yeah, otherwise the theory would be known as "American Warming"

[David S]

Gabu go to the map at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/> then click anywhere in Antarctica. You will get a list of the closest weather stations. The list shows the years those stations were in operation. See how many were operating in the 30's.
Maybe I'm wrong but I count zero. There is a similar situation in the Arctic. Although there I find some sites that were operating in the 30's most are not operating now. So where does the data come from? Also how about the oceans which cover 70% of the earths surface?
According to this site http://www.uscg.mil/History/webcutters/rpdinsmore_oceanstations.html
there were ocean weather ships operating in the Atlantic and Pacific from 1940 to 1980. Ten were in the Atlantic and three in the Pacific. That's pretty sparce coverage for the Oceans. But even those ships weren't there in the 30's. BTW about half of the weather ships were operated by the US.

The point of all that is that outside the US and parts of europe there aren't many places where continuous data exists from the 30's to today. So how can you judge if the US data is an anomoly if you don't have comparable data from large portions of the rest of the world.

[Gabu]

What?  I didn't say that the US data was an anomaly.  I said that what matters is whether or not it was.  If it was, this means nothing.  If it was not, then this does mean something.

[David S]

What?  I didn't say that the US data was an anomaly.  I said that what matters is whether or not it was.  If it was, this means nothing.  If it was not, then this does mean something.

I don't mean to be argumentative but how do you know if its an anomoly if you are lacking data for the rest of the world?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

For some reason they changed the URL of the global temperature graphs. Anyways, there is much less variance in the temperature at the global level, then the 2% of the surface that is the United States. From these graphs, it's really no contest what the warmest years were.

To even out statistical noise, they also have a 5 year mean, which has been going steadily up since 1970.

[Gabu]

What?  I didn't say that the US data was an anomaly.  I said that what matters is whether or not it was.  If it was, this means nothing.  If it was not, then this does mean something.

I don't mean to be argumentative but how do you know if its an anomoly if you are lacking data for the rest of the world?

I'm not saying that I do know anything... I'm talking in hypothetical terms.

[David S]

Well here is one more way of looking at it.
The last graph labeled "coverage" shows that in 1930 there was about 80%  coverage in the Northern Hemisphere and 50% in the southern hemisphere.

So what does "coverage" mean ? According to their definition it means; "the percent of hemispheric area located within 1200km of a reporting station."

Let me give you a hypothetical example to illustrate that. Lets say you have a weather station in Detroit. Now draw a circle around it with a radius of 1200km. Everything within that circle is assumed to be "covered" by the weather station in Detroit. So how big is the circle? Well it extends north to the southern tip of James Bay in Canada and south to the northern edge of the Florida panhandle. Now does anyone really think a station in Detroit can be representative of those extreme locations? But even with that very broad definition of "coverage",  in the 30's  20% of the northern hemisphere was not covered and 50% of the southern hemisphere was not covered. So do you really have enough data from the rest of the world  to say the high temps experienced in the US during the 30's was an anomaly?

[Gabu]

So do you really have enough data from the rest of the world  to say the high temps experienced in the US during the 30's was an anomaly?

Why are you still acting as if I'm saying that it was?  I don't know what else to say to convince you that that wasn't what I was saying.

[2952-0-0]

Obviously this cannot mean that tree rings and ice cores can never, ever, ever, be considered as climate evidence. After all, inconvenient facts should be hated and despised whenever possible.

[David S]

Obviously this cannot mean that tree rings and ice cores can never, ever, ever, be considered as climate evidence. After all, inconvenient facts should be hated and despised whenever possible.

Temperature data collected with precision thermometers is more accurate than any of those. Tree rings are affected by temperature, but also by CO2 and rainfall.

As for ice cores; If the Vostok ice core data is to be believed then the earth has been warmer than now several times during the current warming period and also in previous warming periods.  In each of the following years it was warmer than now. Check the data yourself at. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/deutnat.txt
(Note in the ice core data 0 is the temperature for the present time.)

(You might have to cut and paste the link to your URL window)

Holocene, (the current warm period)
Years       Temp-C
Before
present
397      1.33
4509      1.13
8135      2.06

Previous warming periods
 Year BP         Temp-C

128453      3.08
237975      2.2
322638      3.19
410483      2.13
 
Also it rose faster than .7C per 100 years in each of the following intervals:
Years      Delta T -C
495 to   397   2.41
726 to   637   1.52
2374 to 2291   2.6
2760 to 2670   1.95

[Ban my account ffs!]

The most significant climatic trend in my area since European settlement had its origins in the 1910s, worsened in the 1920s, and peaked in the 1930s.  From the beginning of weather records in the 1890s until 1909, the area was very wet, even by today's standards. 

Unprecedented logging of hte forests reduced humidity and by 1910, a major drought year, fires began to burn.  Devastating fires in 1910 and 1917 led to a practice of burning slash and other debris from logging soon after harvesting the wood to prevent catastrophic fires.  With all mature pine trees harvested, the slash fires killed hte seedlings and new saplings, and the pine forests never regenerated, instead becoming forests of much lower quality tree species like quaking aspen and balsam fir.

The amount of rain that fell each decade fell from 226" in 1900-1909 to 191" in 1910-1919 to 180" in 1920-1929 down to a record low of 161" in 1930-1939.

1936 was by far the most extreme and driest year on record for the area with temperatures plummeting to -50*F or colder on several occasions and temps not reaching above 0*F from mid-January until the end of February 1936.  By May, temps were soaring into the 90s and for 2 weeks in July, temps soared above 100*F, reaching 107*F 3 days in a row on July 11th, 12th, and 13th.  To put this in perspective, the temperature has not reached 100*F in my city since 1977.

During the 1936 growing season (April-October), only 9" of rain fell, well below the average of 21".

Luckily, by the dirty '30s, the timber in our vast forests had been exhausted and reforestation began, making the climate gradually more humid again as more sustainable logging practices took hold.  Each decade got wetter from '50s on, and 1999 was the 2nd wettest year on record.

Very high water levels and major storms that flattened thousands of acres of forests caused major forest die back in northern Minnesota, and the driest summer in 25 years and hte hottest temps since 1936 in summer 2006 led to the 30,000 acre Cavity Lake fire on the Gunflint Trail in northeastern Minnesota after lightning ignited a fire.

Our winters have become significantly warmer since 1980 and winter severity indexes which take into account snowpack, extreme cold events, and length of frost free-periods have seen a major reduction in winter severity, particularly after 1980.

Outside of a major volcanic eruption in 1991 that significantly reduced summer temperatures in 1992, 1993, and 1994 across the upper midwest, the 1980s and 1990s were by far the warmest and nearly the wettest period on record in the region.

While some winters in the 1870s and early 1880s were extremely warm, climatologists have tied these to very strong ENSO events in the Pacific ocean and they came off an extremely volatile period of extremely nasty winters in the 1850s, 1860s, and early 1870s.

Natural climate variability is strong in the midwestern U.S., but one cannot ignore the increasing trend towards warmer temperatures, especially during winter.  Winter severity since 1997 has been particularly low and winter-dependent industries have suffered majorly.

While some people argue that doing anything about global warming will cost our economy too much money, they do not take into account that the changing climate is already drastically affecting the economy in negative ways across the world as the winter tourism industry suffers from low snowfall and warm temperatures, turning winter from a period of recreational opportunities, to a period with warmer temperatures with fewer opportunities.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Growing season precipitation in Minnesota, 1895-2006:

[7,052,770]

Is anyone on this board a climatologist?  Didn't think so.

Therefore, no one here is qualified to try to draw their own conclusions.  The only option is to listen to the climatologists, who have nearly unanimously said that global warming is real, caused by human release of CO2, and is the major threat to humanity this century.

[David S]

If the scientists were as unanimous as you say then I would probably agree with you, but they aren't. Richard Lindzen is a professor of climatology at MIT. This is what he had to say about the claim that 2500 scientists all support the IPCC's report:

"Lindzen Says UN IPCC does not Reflect Thousands of Scientists – Only a Dozen or so Scientists:

Senator Inhofe was absolutely right. All that's coming out Friday is a summary for policymakers that is not prepared by scientists. Rob is wrong. It's not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of about 13 of the scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit."

Source: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=7E60E3FA-802A-23AD-4291-E3975CBB96CB

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

None of the 928 peer reviewed papers looked at disagreed with the scientific consensus on global warming.  While Lindzen is a rare climcatologist who has personal views that differ from the consensus position, he still believes that global warming is occurring.


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

[David S]

None of the 928 peer reviewed papers looked at disagreed with the scientific consensus on global warming.  While Lindzen is a rare climcatologist who has personal views that differ from the consensus position, he still believes that global warming is occurring.


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Believing in global warming and believing that it is due to anthropogenic CO2 are two entirely different things. Most, if not all, scientists agree that there is warming but they don't all agree that it s due to CO2.

BTW here is a list of 60 other scientists who don't believe in CO2 induced warming.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605&rfp=dta