NASA now say 1934 was hottest year on record (not 1998).

[freedomlover]

Until last week 1998 was believed to be the hottest year on record. And most years since then were believed to be in the top ten hottest years on record. I've heard Al Gore repeat that many times. Fair play to him, he wasn't lying, it was what NASA said and their records showed. Until last week, that is. Now NASA have revised down their temperature estimates for most years in the 1990s and 2000s. As a result, 1934 is now the hottest year on record. And four of the top ten hottest years on record are now from the 1930s. Most of the years since 2000, which were until last week believed to be in the top ten hottest years have now dropped out of the top ten completely and some don't even make the top twenty. I wonder if 2007 will even make the top fifty.

http://www.thenaturaltruth.blogspot.com/

[Rebel CNC]

I'm still waiting for the mini ice age that the scientists were predicting in the 1970s. I have great plans for a moneyspinning ski resort on Mount Brandon!

[scitilop]

Until last week 1998 was believed to be the hottest year on record. And most years since then were believed to be in the top ten hottest years on record. I've heard Al Gore repeat that many times. Fair play to him, he wasn't lying, it was what NASA said and their records showed. Until last week, that is. Now NASA have revised down their temperature estimates for most years in the 1990s and 2000s. As a result, 1934 is now the hottest year on record. And four of the top ten hottest years on record are now from the 1930s. Most of the years since 2000, which were until last week believed to be in the top ten hottest years have now dropped out of the top ten completely and some don't even make the top twenty. I wonder if 2007 will even make the top fifty.

http://www.thenaturaltruth.blogspot.com/

And are we supposed to believe this? How can you retrospectively downgrade temperature estimates for the past 20 years? What new technology has allowed this to happen? For me, this reeks of any global warming propaganda.

[cain1798]

A couple of points on this bearing in mind climate change issues are not my forte.

Firstly, the story is true and NASA messed up their climate change data causing scenes of jubilation across the right-wing blogosphere. Or more accurately, their maths was wrong. Indeed the change was only identified by a Canadian blogger who decided to look at the maths and discovered their figures were a mess.

But the point being missed is that NASA's figures refer only to US temperatures, not global, and the US makes up only 2% of the world's surface. According to the chap who identified the error it doesn't mean that global warming and climate change have been disproven. Even with the adjusted figures, the 10 hottest global temperatures have occured since 1989.

Check this out (Very accessible) for more info:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200708120001?f=h_latest

There are other sites with more complete information but you'd need a knack for statistics I don't have to understand them.

[freedomlover]

Until last week 1998 was believed to be the hottest year on record. And most years since then were believed to be in the top ten hottest years on record. I've heard Al Gore repeat that many times. Fair play to him, he wasn't lying, it was what NASA said and their records showed. Until last week, that is. Now NASA have revised down their temperature estimates for most years in the 1990s and 2000s. As a result, 1934 is now the hottest year on record. And four of the top ten hottest years on record are now from the 1930s. Most of the years since 2000, which were until last week believed to be in the top ten hottest years have now dropped out of the top ten completely and some don't even make the top twenty. I wonder if 2007 will even make the top fifty.

http://www.thenaturaltruth.blogspot.com/

And are we supposed to believe this? How can you retrospectively downgrade temperature estimates for the past 20 years? What new technology has allowed this to happen? For me, this reeks of any global warming propaganda.

Its definitely true that NASA have done this. But, I haven't the slightest idea what it means. I'm no scientist. Merely reporting what NASA say. Neither have I commented on its significance, as I don't know. The global warming sceptics are now saying it proves they were right. While those who believe in global warming are saying it makes no difference. Maybe some scientist can post an explanation for the NASA change and what it means for the global warming debate.

[Kf]

The nutjobs mine the internet and find something to assure themselves we can carry on as normal.

[EoinMn]

I wouldn't use Michael Graham or Mark Steyn as authoritative voices on climate change.

BTW the NASA figures refer to USA temperatures, not global temperatures.

[EoinMn]

Its definitely true that NASA have done this. But, I haven't the slightest idea what it means. I'm no scientist. Merely reporting what NASA say. Neither have I commented on its significance, as I don't know. The global warming sceptics are now saying it proves they were right. While those who believe in global warming are saying it makes no difference. Maybe some scientist can post an explanation for the NASA change and what it means for the global warming debate.

Well I'm no scientist either but my view on this is..
NASA had published figures for the (deviation from the mean for) years since 1880. Some blogger/scientist found a flaw in the NASA's calculations and NASA have now revised their figures.
Its good to have people challenge each other's research. Modern science is founded on skepticism and peer review. This blogger has been proven correct to be skeptical. But because he was right about this dataset does not mean he is correct about gobal warming in general.

[ibis]

As so often, this is a storm in a teacup, about media-friendly 'data' The phrase "the hottest year on record was 1998" had no real meaning or significance for the reality of climate change - any more than one can point to any particular piece of weather as evidence for climate change (see thread in question). It's a matter of trends, not individual pieces of data - and in particular not something as trivial as "hottest year", where it is only necessary to be 0.1 degree hotter than every other year to win the title.

However, "hottest year on record" is immediately comprehensible as a concept, and certainly sounds like it means something, so the media (and eco-worriers) have been incorrectly using it as "evidence".

The NASA data appears to have been miscalculated (hey, it's from the people who crashed on Mars because they misconverted 10 feet into 30 metres), and has now been quietly re-calculated and re-released after climate change deniers found the error.

This has convinced the deniers that the remaining 100% of the evidence must also be incorrect - but then everything does.

[expat girl]

I'm still waiting for the mini ice age that the scientists were predicting in the 1970s. I have great plans for a moneyspinning ski resort on Mount Brandon!

I think the Galtees would be a much better bet...Galtee Mor is approx same height, steep enough, fewer precipices, and closer to large population centres. Come to think of it, Lugnaquilla might be better again...

ye mightn't have to rely on the whole global cooling thing either....we'll get a Newfoundland style climate if and when the Gulf stream gives up the ghost.....