Reader comments
Global heat wave after 2009?

"Years of bad data corrected; 1998 no longer the warmest year on record"
http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm

"http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+Finds+Y2K+Bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm"

Concur with above comment. Recalibrated data suggests 1998 NOT hottest year.

...and here is a link to the corrected graph.

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

Wow, they cant tell what the weather will be like in 2 week but we're supposed to believe they can tell what it'll be like in 2 years. Just like how this was going to be the worst hurrican season in history... And oh no! I guess this means we better be careful who we vote for in 2008 ...until the headline "Terrorist Plan Worst Attack in History for 2009!" Oh no! What will we ever do?

Here is the link to the corrected data.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/revised_temp_data_reduces_glob.html

Remeber y2k?

Revised Temp Data Reduces Global Warming Fever

Only problem with this is, if you are up on your news, NASA just discovered that 1998 wasn't the hottest,1913 was.

Bad data set... yes. But, why so skeptical of these conclusions? y2k didn't happen but that doesn't mean we aren't in the midst of a potentially catastrophic climate change. Certainly it would be prudent to cut down our C02 emissions and do everything in our power to prevent these predictions from ever coming to pass.

I think there is reason for skepticism, but like Brian said...do your part. I know people that refuse to do simple things like recycle and they make it so easy...and smart($$). The world is running out of resources. We really do destroy things like a virus, do what you can to slow down the effects.

Well Brian perhaps because there's a better than good chance that a lot of the global warming studies and conclusions have been based off bad data being skeptical about said inaccurate conclusions is only correct.

And so now the first question in the minds of many will be is this information based off correct data, or are some using/invoking erroneous information for whatever reason?

I wonder if the mammals alive during the end of the last ice age also panicked about rising temperatures?

The historical data on average annual changes in temperature as a result of ice ages is at least double the wildest predictions being made about global warming, yet the earth survived. Greenland was actually once green and covered in trees, and all that ice on it now was water in the ocean, yet the earth survived, and so did life.

And look at this graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

On a historical basis, the temperatures and CO2 levels today still do not eclipse those of ages past. Natural temperatures have been higher in the past than any temperature increases predicted by global warming, and life has still thrived and exploded even in the hottest temperatures and highest CO2 levels, not to mention sea levels that include the melted ice of Greenland.

And now we get this substantial NASA error that indicates that totally changes temperature records, making 1913 the #1 hottest year in the past 100 years.

I just hope scientists don't end up tossing their reputation in with the likes of politicians and HMOs by abandoning the scientific method and attempting to vigorously disprove what they believe.

Snowed in Buenos Aires for the first time since 1918... not too warm a day.

Methinks cows and volcanoes deserve more attention.

NASA data to support the 1998 statements are so flawed. The bottom line of this is that 1998 is no longer the hottest year on record. Four of the top ten hottest years on record are from the 30s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939 while only three of the top ten warmest years on record are from the last ten years, '98, 2006 and 1999. Online research numbers are available.

All you have to do is study a little history, both ancient and modern, to realize that there have been times in the past when overall World temperatures were much higher. Is man contributing to the problem? Probably, but very little. If the planet is in a warming cycle (and I think it is) there isn't much man will be able to do to stop it. There's nothing wrong with trying to be good stewards of our environment; recycle, reduce our emissions, etc. Just keep in mind that all it takes is one good sized volcanic eruption to reduce World temperatures by a 1/2 degree or more. A Super-Volcanoe could reduce temperatures by up to 5 degrees. Then we wil all be screaming about how cold it is. Just something to think about ... Makes me feel like a flea on a dog's back.

Nobody is saying global warming will destroy the Earth and end humanity. But it will be disruptive. It will cause more dramatic weather cycles including hotter summers and colder winters, including wild swings in the temperatures, which is why snow in Buenos Aires goes more to prove global warming than disprove it. And even if global warming didn't exist, we are gobbling down the finite oil resources at a rate that our grandchildren will have every right to label us as selfish pigs. Modern agriculture is based on fossil fuels--to transport food 1000s of miles and to create the synthetic fertilizers it relies upon and as oil becomes more and more scarce food costs will go up. And plastic comes from oil and is integral to modern life. Whether or not you believe in global warming, mindless oil consumption will create many problems for future generations who will undoubtedly revile us. And if, and it's likely to be so, global warming becomes painfully obvious to the world your descendents will be happy to know that you felt safer driving a giant behemoth and that your feelings were far more important than their survival.

All you ppl talking about the NASA error. The flaw concerned *US* land temperatures, not *global* temperatures.

Read the DailyTech article completely and you'll find: "The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge."

So, while *affecting* the data, the correction don't change the status of *global* warming.

They can't even predict the correct temparature more that 3-days out. How can they expect any credibility for this report?

Maybe Al Gore could throw a bucket of water on the sun and save us all.