of climate change (global warming, when they can fit it in) reporting that has become virtually the BBC’s trademark is put in an interesting light by this saga of diligence on the part of bloggers (I presume scientists too, but maybe just enthusiasts).
Today the BBC have regaled us with British scientists’ latest grandiose attempts to predict the weather ten years ahead. The BBC assert that “Currently, 1998 is the warmest year on record, when the global mean surface temperature was 14.54C (58.17F).”
Well, perhaps they are out of date; indeed misled and misleading. According to the story I linked above, NASA’s data for the US was in fact skewed by a Y2K hiccup, and thus 1934 is in fact the warmest year on record– at least for the USA (other data were upset too, apparently, and generally in the direction of downgrading recent temperatures relative to the past, but this is the most notable example). Perhaps that would not affect the global data, but I suspect it would come close to upsetting those set-in-stone league tables of temperature which the (basically) man-made global warming proponents of the BBC hammer home at every opportunity.
Oh, and I suppose I should point you in the direction of NASA’s “new” data, which can be found here.
Update: Don’t miss HotAir’s analysis, including former Nasa scientist Bryan Preston’s view. “Can we at least get some peer review before we build the ark?”
All I want, as a farmer, is for them to get the next three days correct. Note that, quite topically, the BBC Weather page has ‘frozen’ this morning – it’s stuck on yesterday’s forecast!
You’re confusing the regional temperature of the US with the global average.
David Gregory-
I stated specifically that this might not change the global averages, but that doesn’t seem to have been examined yet. At any rate it’s a pretty remarkable detail and one which might well impact on the global averages- which the BBC are still gaily promulgating. Indeed, it would be surprising if, assuming the NASA figures to be the basis of the generally accepted figures, the statistics for the world temperatures didn’t have to be altered in some ways, and the top ten or twenty refigured somewhat.
David Gregory (BBC):
You’re confusing the regional temperature of the US with the global average.
It is clear from Ed’s original post that he drew this distinction.
Hint to DG: engage brain before engaging rebuttal mode.
If the data from the US are dodgy then it’s not an unfair inference to believe that most of the other measurements elsewhere in the world are also uncertain. Predictably, this uncertainty has no perceptible effect on the religious zealotry of the MMGW/MMCC reportage at the BBC nor the BBC’s partiality in deciding not to engage seriously (or at all) with the sceptic side of the story.
[Self-promoting link to Tarun’s own blog deleted.
We don’t always object to that sort of thing if it’s a good link, but Tarun had posted the same comment on over a thousand other blogs.]
Edited By Siteowner
I notice that then BBC n its coverage of the foot & mouth outbreak provides as a PDF download this morning the Initial report into Pirbright site by Health and Safety Executive [94.5KB]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6939717.stm
However, it doesn’t run with the story of the possibility of Bio-terrorism. It really is amazing that the sentiment of “Sabotage” is now on the news agenda, that the BBC will not run with it. I wonder why? Too speculative, we don’t want to go there? In a climate where the Police & CPS are defending the mad Muslim Imams, who should we all consider is up for Bio-terrorism right now? Answers on a postcard to the CPS. I wonder if the BBC will provide those helpful headlines soon on BBC News 24 “Suspect is a white scientist in his 40s”
Andrew King, who was brought in by the Institute of Animal Health (IAH), in Pirbright, Surrey, suggested that it was time to call in the police.
Dr King, a former head of molecular biology at the IAH, said that biosecurity was so tight that he felt the outbreak had to have been caused deliberately. He told The Times: “As far as I am concerned the authorities have failed to find any chink in the armoury of the establishment’s bio-security. What you are left with is human movement, which is not a matter for the institute, it’s a police matter. It’s very, very unlikely that it could be spread by accident. People do not spread the disease easily.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2231397.ece
Quite clearly, none of NASA’s temperature data was reproducible, otherwise others would have noticed the error sooner. Science is supposed to be based on findings that are reproducible and verifiable by others, yet this piece of alarmism was clearly never validated. Claims that the science behind MMGW is solid, and show that the world reached a record temperature in 1998, are based on an error and if repeated will be based on a lie.
It will be interesting to see who continues to use this data, and how.
Edited By Siteowner
It also appears that many of the temperature readings used for all these claims by the UN etc were sited wrongly, next to air conditioning plants in some cases! And amazingly the data is slowly being removed from the official websites!
Go read Tim Blair in Oz for lots of good stuff about the climate change tax scam being pushed by Labour and the BBC and their friends.
Oops – should have been “bad luck Mr Mr M”
Huh? — Ed.
Edited By Siteowner
Well, as GBEHBawgies says, it will be interesting to see who continues to use this (discredited) data, and how.
The Irving stuff [since deleted – Ed.] simply pointed out that he continued to use discredited data to put across his world view, Should we not expect Al-beeb to do likewise with their pet data?
“MattLondon:
Oops – should have been “bad luck Mr Mr M”
Huh? — Ed.”
This was a correction to a post, short but erudite and witty, that explained about Canadians and knighthoods (something someone said earlier).
It appeared to have been published but I noticed a typo, sent my correction, only to find that the original hadn’t actually been published!
Sorry I thought it was worth repeating the point as the post states the two facts may very well not be linked, before promptly linking them. No so much an example of bias as sloppy thinking.
David, you said “You’re confusing the regional temperature of the US with the global average”, which Ed had clearly not done.
Chuffer: I find the above website a lot more accurate for UK weather than BBC/Met Office.
I’ve been doing some unofficial testing of BBC to Accuweather with my work colleagues and it have proven a lot more accurate on 3 day forecasts then BBC weather.
If you use firefox you can have a nice extension that shows the forecast for any UK postcodes/address. It’s called ForecastFox
Telford: And I quote “Perhaps that would not affect the global data, but I suspect it would come close to upsetting those set-in-stone league tables of temperature which the (basically) man-made global warming proponents of the BBC hammer home at every opportunity.”
Seem to be making a link to me.
Ed clearly distinguishes between the US temperature record and the global temperature record, but suspects (as did a lot of other people on the web) that the resultant change in the global temperature record that will have to now be calculated may be big enough so that 1998 is no longer the hottest year on record. There is simply no confusion here whatsoever, except for your inability to admit that your initial claim that Ed was confused was simply wrong.
“Telford: And I quote “Perhaps that would not affect the global data, but I suspect it would come close to upsetting those set-in-stone league tables of temperature which the (basically) man-made global warming proponents of the BBC hammer home at every opportunity.”
Seem to be making a link to me.”
One wonders why the BBC employs people who seem to lack basic reading comprehension skills. The passage you yourself quoted clearly flagged up the fact that it was a hypothesised link that would need further investigation to be confirmed.
Ok, well here’s the further investigation;
B-BBC: ” Perhaps that would not affect the global data, but I suspect it would come close to upsetting those set-in-stone league tables of temperature which the (basically) man-made global warming proponents of the BBC hammer home at every opportunity.”
According to the scientists the impact on the global temperature record, about a thousandth of a degree
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/08/nasa-weather-er.html
And it’s worth flagging up this bit about the American Temperatures;
“Five, rather than four, of the 10 hottest years in recorded US history now take place during the 1930’s.
But as NASA climate modeler Gavin Schmidt pointed out, these rearrangements sounded much more impressive than they were. The years from 2002-2006 are still warmer than 1930-1934.”
So overall an interesting story but your conclusion was based on a conceptual miss step. I don’t see how stating it might be a miss step in the original post validates what you posted. As I said, sloppy thinking.
DG, shall I tell you the secret reason why I left the post a bit open? The secret, secret reason? :-). Because I knew that people like Hansen and yourself would club together to play down this error. Now, let me expand a bit. (Hansen, btw, is the main source in the article you link to for the insignificance of the mistake of which he was the author).
The errors, we know, related to information gained from readings “made at weather stations in the United States”.
Ok, with me so far?
The USA is one of the biggest countries with the most advanced science base in the world. If the USA’s figures were adjusted downward, then probably the most reliable and comprehensive data in the overall data were being downgraded.
I do not expect the likes of Hansen to admit that the best data they had just went south. I don’t expect Africa to give us the data needed to analyse climate change. I doubt Russia has a comprehensive and organised enough network to do so, despite the grand aspirations its science has had.
Therefore I placed a caveat (without writing a treatise) but was determined to leave the question open- not out of sloppy thinking, but out of an analysis of the relative importance of US data which we would likely never hear, not least because organisations such as your own with the time and resources to examine the matter would give it only a cursory look and return to your MMGW business.
>I don’t see how stating it might be a miss step in the original post validates what you posted.
You didn’t say it *might* be a mistep. You clearly asserted that Ed had confused the two, when clearly he hadn’t. (And it wasn’t a misstep anyway!)
How many times does this have to be said? Is the BBC, as MDC wonders, employing people who lack basic comprehension skills, or can you just not admit your initial error?
DG(BBC)
Why not just save time and post;
“la la la la I’m not listening”
(The standard response to anyone querying climate change science)
Actually David M I am listening and I’m not “clubbing together” with anyone to play down the error, ed.
Your reasoning is flawed. As I said at the top you are confusing regional with global. And indeed you do despite your caveat that you won’t do it.
Think about it. 1998 was the hottest year on record in the US, it’s now number two after a correction of .15 degrees c.
Apply that globally and given the relative sizes of the US and the globe the result is hardly likley to allow you to reach the conclusion that “it would come close to upsetting those set-in-stone league tables of temperature which the (basically) man-made global warming proponents of the BBC hammer home at every opportunity.”
Because it won’t.
David, a small point- do you really mean the globe? Aren’t we in fact talking about land area? Some confusion there.
Furthermore, I invite you to follow the links on the article you posted to where Steve Mcintyre gives his view-
ok, well, here it is:
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/does_hansens_error_matter_gues.html
Now, scroll down to where he says “Even without the recent changes, the U.S. history contrasts with the global history: the U.S. history has a rather minimal trend if any since the 1930s, while the ROW has a very pronounced trend since the 1930s.”
He then goes on to outline some of the problems with RoW stations- short existence, within urban developments etc. In fact, what he says clearly supports the notion that the US data is among the most reliable- so what I said about the US data being among the best available clearly has some force.
For example he says “there is a real concern that the need for urban adjustment is most severe in the very areas where adjustments are either not made or not accurately made.”
Now then, I don’t expect the BBC to take this seriously, but I for one will not back down, and nor do I have any need to.
Another factor in my phrasing was the fact that considering that the “global data” are contradicted by local data in an area as crucial as the US, it might and probably will change the approach of journalists to these lists of warmest years. The fact that the BBC has been leading the way in the use of data which are questionable should make you ashamed, not proud DG.