The world has never seen such freezing heat

[Naked Gents Rut]

Good work.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Nice to see that I've made your sig too. Sure glad I didn't manage to rile you up at all.

It's your hero biscuit.

[Deity Dude]

Other findings from the NASA update:

In a stunning turn of events data (quietly) released by NASA shows that the 4 warmest years ever recorded occurred in the 1930's, with the warmest year on record being 1934 (not 1998).

Other aspects of the data are just as stunning.

Only 4 of the top 10 warmest years occurred in the past 10 years (1998, 1999, 2006)

Out of the top 10 warmest years half occurred before 1940

The years 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 were cooler than the year 1900

1996, just two years before what Al Gore called the hottest year in the history of the planet, was actually cooler than average.

1921 was the third warmest year in recorded history (behind 1934 and 1998).

Had we been living in 1934 we would have heard the same claims of global warming, this is the evidence that we would have heard at the time:

8 of the past 10 years had been above average.

1934 was the warmest year ever recorded. The warmest in over 54 years!

Shift that to 1944 and you would have seen that 17 of the past 21 years had been warmer than average.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Other findings from the NASA update:

... link

[Unimatrix11]

So, first i´d like to know, how NASA can tell us anything about 1934. Second, i dont know the reputation of the telegraph. I dont say both must be impossible - just asking.

Climate change is supposed to be a global phenomenon and thus, it has hard, or rather impossible, for any individual to ´experience´ it. Even if the countries of micronesia will quit the UN, because they simple dont exist anymore, it needn´t be because of global temperature rise - it suffices, if the poles, or rather the icecovered landmasses, get warmer, for example.

But in general, by what we know of science, not only collected climate data, the earth´s temperature SHOULD rise. The greenhouse effect and the molecular properties of CO2 for example are known for over a century. We also know, that we emit huge quantities of CO2 (among other greenhouse gases). Add a number of other factors (deforestation etc.) Global warming should not surprise us - actually it should surprise us if it didnt occur. It could have been predicted, say, in the 30´s, if anyone had put 1 and 1 together.

The effects of it can also be seen in data, other than meteological. Insurrence costs because of ´natrually caused´ damages have skyrocketed in the past decades. Of course this again is not proof - just an indicator, as many other factors than anthropogenic climate change may have contributed to that.

BTW, just this week, we had another record night in northern Germany: The hottest ever (16°C peak temp) recorded in November. And the last time i remember we had a white Xmas is when i was a kid - and thats like 20 years ago. But back then, it seems to me now, it was like every second year or so... But that´s just local and a subjective retrospective observation.

EDIT: I think, i would actually have problems, explaining my nephews what a sleigh is good for - and that kinda makes me sad...

EDIT II: Talking about NASA and climate change: Does anyone know, if there is a comparitive selection of pics showing the poles at fixed dates of each year in succesion ? Cause that is what matters kinda - and a change should be noticeable ´with the naked eye´ by now.

[DRoseDARs]

So there's no weather data to research anywhere in any format in the history of EVAH that predates the formation NASA? Or are you saying only data gathered afterwards is of any validity? You're European, aren't you? Wouldn't arguing that only data gathered after the formation of the ESA be more up your alley?

[Unimatrix11]

I just wonder why NASA would publish any (new) meteorological data about times that predate its founding. I´d like to know the method - i dont say there is none.
NASA is great by the way. It´s ESA´s idol. Stunning what they achieved using miles, yards and inches... We never even understood how far they actally did get.

[DRoseDARs]

Well couldn't the same be asked of ANY scientific body attempting to analyze or report on data older than itself? NASA isn't a one-trick pony, it has expanded its role in the sciences since its original purpose of getting USAmericans into space was fulfilled. They didn't close up shop then, they continued on to other ventures and later expanded their scope beyond simply ferrying people between the ground and orbital space. Not everything NASA does has to involve launching stuff and preferably not exploding.

[Theben]

Well there's global warming, global cooling (solar minimum that may or may not continue for several years), and global dimming (fine particulates in such numbers that they block sunlight). Plus other crap I'm sure is out there I'm not aware of. Anyways it adds up to a cluster**** of variables that I doubt any model can accurately predict of the moment.

[Unimatrix11]

But i assume they still gather their data with satelites ?

In the meantime, i have tried to figure the possibity of only newer data (since NASA was founded) could of altered general picture that much, but didnt come to a decicive conclusion by the text posted. Suppose it was based on NASA data only, it would mean, they found a way to look into the past of the planet´s climate with a satelite (if the answer to the question above is ´yes´), kinda. If so, how so, and how far and accurate (accuracy being a tricky question i suppose - for anyone in this case). That´s all what i want to know about NASA in this context right now.

[Unimatrix11]

Yeah, Theben, but so is what determines how fat i am. But i still know, that if i drink a lot of beer, i am more likely to get fat. Other activities (EDITED) may counter that, but the more beer i drink, the more i need of the counter to keep my weight.

EDIT: We can not influence the solar minimum. Maybe we could counter global warming by dust particles, literally blocking the sun, but that certainly is no counter to climate change.

[DRoseDARs]

Not all of the data used by NASA is gathered by NASA, nor is all of the data gathered from pre-NASA written records. Naturally they use satellite data, but coring samples from ice, mud/soil/clay, even trees provide a much clearer (and accurate) picture of climate over time than any written records from days of yore. NASA doesn't fund all these gathering ventures itself, but rather makes use of what data they gather and what data is shared within the scientific community. NASA does joint ventures all the time to shoulder the financial burden with others. You're thinking NASA too much as a monolithic body; it really isn't.

[Unimatrix11]

I doubt it be more reliable than measuring since the 19th century. The thermometer being a standard instrument (whichs practial use requires accuracy - in chemistry for example) for a long time, the only major problem is the locality of the device. Those are standardized, too, now, but i dont know since when. But this source of error also applies to sample taking, as you cant really tell if this or that sample was constantly shadowed 150 years ago or not. You´d also have to take at least as many samples as they have been record station for any time covered to match the grid of the records, which btw, is lacking, i´d think.

So: long range, like pre 1850 (depending on region probably), and short range, maybe from 1960 on, i´d say, samples and satelites (mainly for uncorvered regions only though), but in between i´d say records. How well do satelite- and ground-record data match anyways, today, i´d like to know....

[Lancer]

Will the new ice age reach the tropics?

[Winston]

GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

Now there's an inconvenient finding.