NASA says1934 was the hottest year on record therefore has the US been cooling since then?

Question

In one more devastating blow against the global warming or "climate Apocalypse" supporters such as former Vice President Al Gore, NASA stated today that it was wrong when it release a report that 1998 was the warmest year ever recorded in modern history.

According to H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), NASA scientist and famous man-made global warming proponent James Hansen's well-known claims that 1998 was measured as the warmest year on record in the U.S. were the result of a serious mathematical error. NASA has now corrected that error, and 1934 is now known as the warmest year on record, with 1921 the third warmest year instead of 2006 as was also previously claimed.

Moreover, NASA now also has to admit that three of the five warmest years on record occurred before 1940-it has up until now held that all five of them occurred after 1980.

And perhaps most devastating of all to the man-made global warming backers, it is now admitted that six of the 10 hottest years on record occurred when only 10% of the amount of greenhouse gases that have been emitted in the last century were in the atmosphere.

NASA has been forced to correct calculations for temperatures of the last 120 years taken from ground-based measuring facilities. Critics of the man-made global warming theory have long been vocal that these measurements are distorted because the ground, and even more the urban ground where most of these measurements took place, is warmed considerably by human activities and cannot accurately represent atmospheric conditions.

"Much of the current global warming fear has been driven by Hansen's pronouncements, and he routinely claims to have been censored by the Bush administration for his views on warming. Now that NASA, without fanfare, has cleaned up his mess, Hansen has been silent -- I guess we can chalk this up to self-censorship," said Burnett.

So why have the temperatures not gone up with increased CO2 output like global warming theory says?

Answer 1

As you can see by the answers here, there will be a "from my cold dying hands" clinging to temperature data like the "hockey stick" graph, 1998 being the hottest year ever (well at least since CO2 has been added), the 2000s being the warmest decade (well at least since the MWP), the "recent warming is unprecedented, etc.



The reason they are so vehement on this point is that it is absolutely needed to support their theory. It is also needed for there to be a problem. Without it, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.



Now none of this data has anything to do with proving what is causing it. But without it, there is no case. Hence, you are arguing into a brick wall with questions like this I'm sorry to say.

Answer 2

"In one more devastating blow against the global warming or "climate Apocalypse""



Even for you this is ridiculous



The 1934 temperature relates to the U.S. only, not globally, but I think you know that. How do you get a U.S. temperature to relate to either global warming or any sort of 'blow' against anything.

As deniers have been trying to play this 1934 U.S. temp point for years this is also not really anything new either, are you really sure you want to use phrases like 'cherry picking' given that the fundamentals of your question are irreverent to the subject of global warming. If there were a section (or a theory) called U.S. warming you may have a point, but there isn't.

In a global sense (using NOAA data) these are the top ten warmest years (they have 2005 1st and 1998 2nd) but they have no 1934 (at all) anywhere in the top ten.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=13&submitted=Get+Report#gtemp

Answer 3

In 1934 there weren't all that many reporting stations, and the jet stream was unknown. El Nino effect wasn't known either and the wave theory of weather fronts was fairly new. Direct general data was scanty at best. Research wasn't pursued as it is today and the instrumentation was primitive. Now we know a lot more and while there have been some significant ups and downs in the 'known' direct temperature readings the general trend is up. What is the relationship of CO2 to warming? CO2 above a given number of parts per million establishes a robust 'greenhouse effect' that cause the earth to retain added amounts of heat. All of this heat has to go somewhere. The heat gets transferred to bodies of water, the earth and to ice fields. The 'greenhouse effect' is a slow and steady venue. Until the CO2 accumulation reaches 450ppm plus or minus there will be no sudden and sustained spike in world temperatures as is the case with other reasons for heat spikes as the person who posted this 'question' suggested. As almost all of this CO2 is man made and has in historical terms been rapid in its buildup the idea that it's not significant doesn't hold up. In 1955 the CO2 level was 310ppm, up from 284ppm in the early 1800s. In 2009 it was up to 386ppm and increases at the rate of 12 to 15ppm per decade. At 400ppm 'warming' becomes significant and there's less and less ice to absorb the heat. At 450ppm...we don't know what the effect will be, except we do know there will be more retained heat..a lot more!

Answer 4

NASA Admits that 1934, Not 1998, was the Warmest Year on Record

Published August 14, 2007 by:

Brant McLaughlin

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/347541/nasa_admits_th%20at_1934_not_1998_was.html?cat=58



Well despite the obvious errors that was written, which have been pointed out above, this is pretty bad. Is the best you can do is to bring up a 3 year old blog? Also you should give credit to your sources even if the sources are incorrect.

Answer 5

Hansen be silent??? LOL



He just published a book "Storms of my Grandchildren. The Truth about the Coming Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity".

Answer 6

1934 was the 3rd hottest year on record for the LOWER 48 UNITED STATES according to NASA GISS. Here is the actual data from high to low (top 10 US temperatures)



Year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean

1 1998 1.32 0.63

2 2006 1.30 0.76

3 1934 1.20 0.38

4 1921 1.08 0.09

5 1999 1.07 0.83

6 1931 0.96 0.21

7 1990 0.92 0.46

8 2001 0.92 0.81

9 2005 0.92 0.88

10 2007 0.87 0.69



http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt



Here is global data, you know, with the other 97% of the planet, so there is no confusion (something tells me you'll ignore it as you've done previously).



Rank Year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean

1 2005 0.62 0.55

2 2007 0.57 0.55

3 2009 0.57 *

4 1998 0.56 0.38

5 2002 0.56 0.48

6 2003 0.55 0.54

7 2006 0.54 0.53

8 2001 0.48 0.44

9 2004 0.48 0.55

10 2008 0.43 *



http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt







Now, I want to see your proof, so Put Up, or Shut Up. And stop trying to confuse global and continental US temps in the same post. Talk about cherry picking!

Answer 7

Not sure what to make of this, because the pronouncement is only in the US. Though to be honest, given the variability in the results, the small amount of temp change actually seen and the large uncertainties in the modeling process, I have no idea in the slightest how they can pretend such certainty nor how they can make such scary claims of destruction. It is kind of funny though, how the media treats things. If your results show a variation from 1.5 degree change to 12 degree change, the media always talks about the 12, even though that holds the lowest probability. What is really disturbing is that scientists ahve written articles on the max as if they do not realize that the 12 is just not going to happen.

Answer 8

You're making a common error, which I'm sure you've made before and no doubt you will continue to make in future.



Maybe you can spot the difference, and maybe this time you'll remember the difference?:

1) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/graphics/maps/large/us-map.gif

2) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/graphics/maps/large/xx-map.gif

Answer 9

2006 was the warmest U.S. year. That's only a fraction of what's wrong with the trash above.



http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

Answer 10

"So why have the temperatures not gone up with increased CO2 output like global warming theory says?"



They have. You're just cherry-picking.



http://sites.google.com/site/europa62/climatechange/sngtaco21870