"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.

In the debate over global warming, people always talk about several relationships. Those relationship include CO2 and temeperature, temperatures and extreme weather, and temperatures and disasters. But there is one relationship they (meaning GW alarmists) never talk about: CO2 and economic strength. There is a clear correlation between CO2 emissions per capita and GDP per capita. The more CO2 you emit, the stronger the economy.

What is also interesting, is that of the above relationships (CO2/temperatures, CO2/GDP, temperatures/weather and temperatures/storms) CO2/GDP has the strongest correlation and therefore the most closely interrelated. At best, there is a long term correlation between CO2 and temperature (but no proven causation), and there is NO proven correlation between temperatures and extreme weather and disasters.

Therefore:

There is no good reason to believe that increased CO2 emissions will cause worse storms and weather, or that increased temperatures will do more harm than good. Reducing CO2 emissions "just to be safe" is quite foolish because we would accomplish nothing and damage our economy. There may be other reasons to change our energy policies, but climate change should not be a reason to use less fossil fuels.

Many of the commenters sound scientifically literate enough to be aware of the recent Intelligence Squared debate that was carried on National Public Radio, in which the New York City audience was polled before and after the six panelists presented their arguments on the proposition, "Global warming is not a crisis." The majority opinion shifted from against the proposition to in favor of it. I think that reflects the views of many people as they are asked to actually weigh the evidence as well as the near-totalitarian measures that some claim are justified by the "crisis".

If you simply review the series of UN IPCC reports over the last two decades, the trend is toward more limited global warming. Thus, the modeled range of sea level rise by 2100, 93 years from now, is between 7 and 22 centimeters, a maximum of 10 inches, about 1/10th of an inch a year. That is within the range of historical sea level rise during the 20th Century, as ice accumulated during the last Ice Age continues to melt. Given that a storm surge from a single storm can be 10 to 20 feet in height, if your beach house is built to cope with those extremes, it should be able to handle another 10 inches a century from now.

That is the essential point about all of the temperature forecasts. The normal variation during a single summer day here in eastern Idaho is 40 degrees from sunrise to the maximum. The highs and lows vary by 10 degrees in the course of a week. How much difference does an additional degree or two in 100 years make? The biggest gains are supposed to be in warming during winter. Since it can get to 25 below zero here, a rise to a minimum of 22 below doesn't sound too bad.

Claims for catastrophic ecological change are speculation rather than fact. I am sure there were ecological changes when the mile thick ice over Chicago melted and left the Great Lakes, but nothing like that is in the offing.

The key question is, how much can we do about it? The people who want to regulate us to death for other reasons seize on global warming to scare us into obedience. The previous scares about the "ozone hole" and "acid rain" were also exaggerated. The 1990 National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program reported that hundreds of scientific studies found that acid rain was limited to a few lakes in the northern Adirondacks of New York, but Congress went ahead and created a massive program anyway, limiting use of high sulfur coal from West Virginia.

The ozone "hole" is an annual decrease that arises from two factors: ozone is created by UV light hitting oxygen, but during the antarctic winter, the South Pole is in darkness and the ozone machine is turned off. Ozone is unstable and breaks down of its own accord. It can be accelerated by chlorine, but only if the reaction is catalyzed by ice crystals in the stratosphere. The only place cold enough for those ice crystals is over Antarctica in winter. Even then, the decrease in ozone levels was only about 10%, and they always recover when spring and sunlight return. Unless your home is in darkness several months a year, you need not worry about ozone loss increasing UV radiation overhead.

The real irony is that the fake scares of the ozone hole and acid rain have, according to the UN IPCC, exacerbated global warming! The acid rain restrictions on high sulfur coal have decreased shading from sulfate particles, which some scientists claim caused the 40 year DROP in global temperatures until we started to regulate air pollution in the 1970s. The chemical refrigerants substituted for CFCs to protect the ozone layer are many times more effective than CO2 in trapping heat. In fact, the IPCC has estimated that the Montreal Protocol has ADDED 2 to 3 times the amount of heat that the Kyoto Protocol is supposed to subtract.

In other words, the IPCC admits that the biggest single factor contributing to global warming is stupid government overreaction to atmospheric scientists claiming we must take drastic action to prevent global disasters!! And now they want to do it again!

European countries that have reduced carbon emissions are actually finding it to be economically advantageous, due to opportunities created by the new industries. Excessive C02 emissions are already hurting our economy - just try to get insurance in a state where hurricanes may hit. The costs of climate change will be tremendous.

And there is a definite correlation between increased temperatures and the strength of storms - it is well documented. The warmer the oceans, the stronger the storms that form over them.

Climate, unlike daily weather patterns, is a well understood science. There is no doubt in any credible scientists mind that we need to take action; the hard part will be getting people out of their SUV's, into public transit, and developing alternative forms of energy. Each of these actions will help the climate, and the economy. We have to get our heads out the the sand, and accept that changes will be needed.

Break out the sunscreen baby! Woo!

1998 wasn�t the hottest decade on record, 1934 was. Just this week it was reported that the calculations were wrong because of an error in the formulae used to calculate this. That means they had better look at their assumptions again.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html

check the graphs again. 2005 was the warmest year in the last century, with most of the last decade being the warmest years on record.

Al Gore is a good guy!

1913 was the hottest year? Well that does it, clearly this proves beyond any doubt that the so called "scientists" who are suggesting global warming is an issue that we might want to pay some attention to, are conspiritorial left wing tyrants who want to destroy all we hold sacred. Finally I can buy that Hummer I've hand my eye on for so long with out guilt...
This message board kind of looks like it was put together by Fox News...

Seems like a good scientific method. 50% chance of being hotter than the last year? You've got to be kidding.. I guess flipping a coin should also be able to predict the same outcome with the same accuracy. I'm a genius.

The sky is falling!!!

Good Grief, are the comments here really a representative sample of who reads this paper?

I've not seen so much garbage spouted since I was in grade school.

Do some real reading, and some real research of the scientific literature, and then come back and post.

Good grief, Charlie Brown,

you disagree with many or most of the posters here, and yet you have not a single argument or fact to support your beliefs - just ad hominem attacks.

Shameful. Small wonder you can't get the little red-headed girl to be your friend.

I think time will only tell. I think by now the world should know things will not get better. End of that one..lol