- Thread starter
- #61
Never. Ed is not a cynic. He's a delusional follower of a failed religion.
you are correct sir.
unfortunately I am stupid enough to get pissed off at being called a liar.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Never. Ed is not a cynic. He's a delusional follower of a failed religion.
Chris- give it a rest. this sandbox is for me and edthecynic
What will be the effect of adding 1,000 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere?
Based on empirical evidence not much.
Never. Ed is not a cynic. He's a delusional follower of a failed religion.
you are correct sir.
unfortunately I am stupid enough to get pissed off at being called a liar.
What will be the effect of adding 1,000 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere?
Based on empirical evidence not much.
The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.
The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.
Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.
The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.
Climate change odds much worse than thought
That 1010 video was quite the eye opener for a lot of people. It scares the crap out of me that some people contemplate that sort of action even if it was just a 'joke'.
Based on empirical evidence not much.
The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.
The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.
Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.
The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.
Climate change odds much worse than thought
THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE MODELING CARRIED OUT BY THE ALARMISTS CAN'T RECREATE WHAT HAPPENED 10 DAYS AGO YOU FOOL! GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS AND TRY LEARNING SOMETHING FACTUAL! COMPUTER MODELS ARE NOT DATA! COMPUTER MODELS ARE THE CLIMATOLOGISTS VERSION OF A DOCTORAL THESIS. THEIR THESIS HAVE ALL FAILED. YOU ARE A COMPLETE AND UTTER FOOL TO CONTINUOUSLY RELY ON COMPUTER MODELS THAT CAN'T RECREATE WHAT HAS ALLREADY OCCURED!
THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF EPIC FAIL BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN FAILING FOR 20 YEARS NOW!
The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.
The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.
Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.
The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.
Climate change odds much worse than thought
THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE MODELING CARRIED OUT BY THE ALARMISTS CAN'T RECREATE WHAT HAPPENED 10 DAYS AGO YOU FOOL! GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS AND TRY LEARNING SOMETHING FACTUAL! COMPUTER MODELS ARE NOT DATA! COMPUTER MODELS ARE THE CLIMATOLOGISTS VERSION OF A DOCTORAL THESIS. THEIR THESIS HAVE ALL FAILED. YOU ARE A COMPLETE AND UTTER FOOL TO CONTINUOUSLY RELY ON COMPUTER MODELS THAT CAN'T RECREATE WHAT HAS ALLREADY OCCURED!
THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF EPIC FAIL BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN FAILING FOR 20 YEARS NOW!
The only one that is failing is you.
We have melted 40% of the North polar ice cap in the last 50 years, and we have just had the hottest year on record in the middle of a grand solar minimum.
Wake up, dude.
THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE MODELING CARRIED OUT BY THE ALARMISTS CAN'T RECREATE WHAT HAPPENED 10 DAYS AGO YOU FOOL! GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS AND TRY LEARNING SOMETHING FACTUAL! COMPUTER MODELS ARE NOT DATA! COMPUTER MODELS ARE THE CLIMATOLOGISTS VERSION OF A DOCTORAL THESIS. THEIR THESIS HAVE ALL FAILED. YOU ARE A COMPLETE AND UTTER FOOL TO CONTINUOUSLY RELY ON COMPUTER MODELS THAT CAN'T RECREATE WHAT HAS ALLREADY OCCURED!
THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF EPIC FAIL BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN FAILING FOR 20 YEARS NOW!
The only one that is failing is you.
We have melted 40% of the North polar ice cap in the last 50 years, and we have just had the hottest year on record in the middle of a grand solar minimum.
Wake up, dude.
I woke up 20 years ago and it came to fruition 5 years ago when I finally started looking at the evidence. You are the one who needs to wake up.
The evidence is against you. The public is against you. The politicians are against you. And now big business is pulling the plug on you as well. The science was found to be fabricated and soon (though not soon enough) it will all be a bad memory.
The only one that is failing is you.
We have melted 40% of the North polar ice cap in the last 50 years, and we have just had the hottest year on record in the middle of a grand solar minimum.
Wake up, dude.
I woke up 20 years ago and it came to fruition 5 years ago when I finally started looking at the evidence. You are the one who needs to wake up.
The evidence is against you. The public is against you. The politicians are against you. And now big business is pulling the plug on you as well. The science was found to be fabricated and soon (though not soon enough) it will all be a bad memory.
Bullshit.
I just told you the evidence, and you couldn't even dispute it.
If your data is from 2007 why does your link go to 2009?????from Aug 8 2007. I used the Sep graph because it was very similar and directly off the Way Back machine
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
------------------------------------------------------
year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
---------------------------------
1880 -.26 *
1881 .29 *
1882 .07 -.24
1883 -.68 -.30
1884 -.63 -.41
1885 -.54 -.46
1886 -.28 -.39
1887 -.17 -.21
1888 -.32 -.06
1889 .28 -.04
1890 .20 -.11
1891 -.20 -.19
1892 -.51 -.21
1893 -.72 -.38
1894 .17 -.30
1895 -.66 -.22
1896 .19 -.10
1897 -.08 -.22
1898 -.15 .03
1899 -.41 .00
1900 .57 -.01
1901 .05 -.11
1902 -.13 -.13
1903 -.65 -.34
1904 -.48 -.35
1905 -.47 -.37
1906 -.02 -.21
1907 -.24 -.17
1908 .14 -.02
1909 -.27 .02
1910 .28 -.11
1911 .17 -.15
1912 -.88 -.08
1913 -.03 -.16
1914 .09 -.29
1915 -.15 -.33
1916 -.50 -.31
1917 -1.06 -.35
1918 .06 -.40
1919 -.10 -.07
1920 -.41 .17
1921 1.15 .15
1922 .18 .02
1923 -.07 .17
1924 -.74 -.05
1925 .36 -.05
1926 .04 -.02
1927 .15 .01
1928 .07 -.03
1929 -.58 .18
1930 .16 .15
1931 1.08 .27
1932 .00 .63
1933 .68 .61
1934 1.25 .44
1935 .04 .41
1936 .21 .45
1937 -.13 .37
1938 .86 .36
1939 .85 .45
1940 .03 .49
1941 .61 .35
1942 .09 .21
1943 .17 .19
1944 .14 .22
1945 -.03 .22
1946 .72 .17
1947 .10 .18
1948 -.08 .13
1949 .20 -.10
1950 -.28 -.05
1951 -.42 .14
1952 .32 .27
1953 .90 .32
1954 .85 .47
1955 -.03 .43
1956 .29 .26
1957 .14 .13
1958 .06 .08
1959 .17 .02
1960 -.24 -.01
1961 -.02 .02
1962 -.02 -.03
1963 .19 -.01
1964 -.07 -.05
1965 -.11 -.07
1966 -.24 -.16
1967 -.10 -.19
1968 -.28 -.19
1969 -.23 -.16
1970 -.11 -.21
1971 -.10 -.11
1972 -.35 -.03
1973 .24 -.05
1974 .15 -.08
1975 -.20 .06
1976 -.25 -.09
1977 .37 -.24
1978 -.52 -.16
1979 -.60 .02
1980 .22 -.12
1981 .64 -.02
1982 -.36 .10
1983 -.01 -.03
1984 .00 -.01
1985 -.42 .22
1986 .73 .29
1987 .83 .25
1988 .32 .51
1989 -.19 .50
1990 .87 .40
1991 .69 .25
1992 .30 .38
1993 -.44 .27
1994 .46 .10
1995 .34 .05
1996 -.17 .38
1997 .03 .47
1998 1.23 .51
1999 .93 .69
2000 .52 .79
2001 .76 .65
2002 .53 .55
2003 .50 .58
2004 .44 .66
2005 .69 *
2006 1.13 *
anything else? when are you going to break down and admit that your heroes lied to you?
If your data is from 2007 why does your link go to 2009?????from Aug 8 2007. I used the Sep graph because it was very similar and directly off the Way Back machine
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
------------------------------------------------------
year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
---------------------------------
1880 -.26 *
1881 .29 *
1882 .07 -.24
1883 -.68 -.30
1884 -.63 -.41
1885 -.54 -.46
1886 -.28 -.39
1887 -.17 -.21
1888 -.32 -.06
1889 .28 -.04
1890 .20 -.11
1891 -.20 -.19
1892 -.51 -.21
1893 -.72 -.38
1894 .17 -.30
1895 -.66 -.22
1896 .19 -.10
1897 -.08 -.22
1898 -.15 .03
1899 -.41 .00
1900 .57 -.01
1901 .05 -.11
1902 -.13 -.13
1903 -.65 -.34
1904 -.48 -.35
1905 -.47 -.37
1906 -.02 -.21
1907 -.24 -.17
1908 .14 -.02
1909 -.27 .02
1910 .28 -.11
1911 .17 -.15
1912 -.88 -.08
1913 -.03 -.16
1914 .09 -.29
1915 -.15 -.33
1916 -.50 -.31
1917 -1.06 -.35
1918 .06 -.40
1919 -.10 -.07
1920 -.41 .17
1921 1.15 .15
1922 .18 .02
1923 -.07 .17
1924 -.74 -.05
1925 .36 -.05
1926 .04 -.02
1927 .15 .01
1928 .07 -.03
1929 -.58 .18
1930 .16 .15
1931 1.08 .27
1932 .00 .63
1933 .68 .61
1934 1.25 .44
1935 .04 .41
1936 .21 .45
1937 -.13 .37
1938 .86 .36
1939 .85 .45
1940 .03 .49
1941 .61 .35
1942 .09 .21
1943 .17 .19
1944 .14 .22
1945 -.03 .22
1946 .72 .17
1947 .10 .18
1948 -.08 .13
1949 .20 -.10
1950 -.28 -.05
1951 -.42 .14
1952 .32 .27
1953 .90 .32
1954 .85 .47
1955 -.03 .43
1956 .29 .26
1957 .14 .13
1958 .06 .08
1959 .17 .02
1960 -.24 -.01
1961 -.02 .02
1962 -.02 -.03
1963 .19 -.01
1964 -.07 -.05
1965 -.11 -.07
1966 -.24 -.16
1967 -.10 -.19
1968 -.28 -.19
1969 -.23 -.16
1970 -.11 -.21
1971 -.10 -.11
1972 -.35 -.03
1973 .24 -.05
1974 .15 -.08
1975 -.20 .06
1976 -.25 -.09
1977 .37 -.24
1978 -.52 -.16
1979 -.60 .02
1980 .22 -.12
1981 .64 -.02
1982 -.36 .10
1983 -.01 -.03
1984 .00 -.01
1985 -.42 .22
1986 .73 .29
1987 .83 .25
1988 .32 .51
1989 -.19 .50
1990 .87 .40
1991 .69 .25
1992 .30 .38
1993 -.44 .27
1994 .46 .10
1995 .34 .05
1996 -.17 .38
1997 .03 .47
1998 1.23 .51
1999 .93 .69
2000 .52 .79
2001 .76 .65
2002 .53 .55
2003 .50 .58
2004 .44 .66
2005 .69 *
2006 1.13 *
anything else? when are you going to break down and admit that your heroes lied to you?
2006 1.30 0.76
2007 0.87 0.69
2008 0.11 *
2009 0.24 *
So why did you post that wrong link with the 2007 table????If your data is from 2007 why does your link go to 2009?????from Aug 8 2007. I used the Sep graph because it was very similar and directly off the Way Back machine
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
------------------------------------------------------
year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
---------------------------------
1880 -.26 *
1881 .29 *
1882 .07 -.24
1883 -.68 -.30
1884 -.63 -.41
1885 -.54 -.46
1886 -.28 -.39
1887 -.17 -.21
1888 -.32 -.06
1889 .28 -.04
1890 .20 -.11
1891 -.20 -.19
1892 -.51 -.21
1893 -.72 -.38
1894 .17 -.30
1895 -.66 -.22
1896 .19 -.10
1897 -.08 -.22
1898 -.15 .03
1899 -.41 .00
1900 .57 -.01
1901 .05 -.11
1902 -.13 -.13
1903 -.65 -.34
1904 -.48 -.35
1905 -.47 -.37
1906 -.02 -.21
1907 -.24 -.17
1908 .14 -.02
1909 -.27 .02
1910 .28 -.11
1911 .17 -.15
1912 -.88 -.08
1913 -.03 -.16
1914 .09 -.29
1915 -.15 -.33
1916 -.50 -.31
1917 -1.06 -.35
1918 .06 -.40
1919 -.10 -.07
1920 -.41 .17
1921 1.15 .15
1922 .18 .02
1923 -.07 .17
1924 -.74 -.05
1925 .36 -.05
1926 .04 -.02
1927 .15 .01
1928 .07 -.03
1929 -.58 .18
1930 .16 .15
1931 1.08 .27
1932 .00 .63
1933 .68 .61
1934 1.25 .44
1935 .04 .41
1936 .21 .45
1937 -.13 .37
1938 .86 .36
1939 .85 .45
1940 .03 .49
1941 .61 .35
1942 .09 .21
1943 .17 .19
1944 .14 .22
1945 -.03 .22
1946 .72 .17
1947 .10 .18
1948 -.08 .13
1949 .20 -.10
1950 -.28 -.05
1951 -.42 .14
1952 .32 .27
1953 .90 .32
1954 .85 .47
1955 -.03 .43
1956 .29 .26
1957 .14 .13
1958 .06 .08
1959 .17 .02
1960 -.24 -.01
1961 -.02 .02
1962 -.02 -.03
1963 .19 -.01
1964 -.07 -.05
1965 -.11 -.07
1966 -.24 -.16
1967 -.10 -.19
1968 -.28 -.19
1969 -.23 -.16
1970 -.11 -.21
1971 -.10 -.11
1972 -.35 -.03
1973 .24 -.05
1974 .15 -.08
1975 -.20 .06
1976 -.25 -.09
1977 .37 -.24
1978 -.52 -.16
1979 -.60 .02
1980 .22 -.12
1981 .64 -.02
1982 -.36 .10
1983 -.01 -.03
1984 .00 -.01
1985 -.42 .22
1986 .73 .29
1987 .83 .25
1988 .32 .51
1989 -.19 .50
1990 .87 .40
1991 .69 .25
1992 .30 .38
1993 -.44 .27
1994 .46 .10
1995 .34 .05
1996 -.17 .38
1997 .03 .47
1998 1.23 .51
1999 .93 .69
2000 .52 .79
2001 .76 .65
2002 .53 .55
2003 .50 .58
2004 .44 .66
2005 .69 *
2006 1.13 *
anything else? when are you going to break down and admit that your heroes lied to you?
2006 1.30 0.76
2007 0.87 0.69
2008 0.11 *
2009 0.24 *
That link goes to the current GISS table, just like it did Aug 8 2007
So why did you post that wrong link with the 2007 table????If your data is from 2007 why does your link go to 2009?????
2006 1.30 0.76
2007 0.87 0.69
2008 0.11 *
2009 0.24 *
That link goes to the current GISS table, just like it did Aug 8 2007
Where is the correct link???
Google cached a version on Jul 23, 2007 1508 GMT. Here it is: (PRE Y2K FIX)
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
1921 1.12 .14
1990 .88 .41
1991 .70 .26
1992 .31 .39
1993 -.43 .28
1994 .47 .11
1995 .35 .06
1996 -.17 .39
1997 .05 .48
1998 1.24 .54
1999 .94 .76
2000 .65 .88
2001 .90 .76
2002 .68 .69
2003 .65 .73
2004 .60 .80
2005 .85 *
2006 1.23 *
Sept 14 2007
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C) (AFTER FIX)
------------------------------------------------------
year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
---------------------------------
1921 1.15 .1
1990 .87 .40
1991 .69 .25
1992 .30 .38
1993 -.44 .27
1994 .46 .10
1995 .34 .05
1996 -.17 .38
1997 .03 .47
1998 1.23 .51
1999 .93 .69
2000 .52 .79
2001 .76 .65
2002 .53 .55
2003 .50 .58
2004 .44 .66
2005 .69 *
2006 1.13 *
---------------------------------
Oct 11 2007
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
------------------------------------------------------
year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
---------------------------------
1921 1.13 .13
1990 .88 .41
1991 .70 .26
1992 .31 .39
1993 -.43 .28
1994 .47 .11
1995 .36 .06
1996 -.16 .39
1997 .04 .48
1998 1.24 .52
1999 .94 .71
2000 .54 .81
2001 .78 .67
2002 .55 .57
2003 .53 .61
2004 .46 .68
2005 .71 *
2006 1.15 *
(from today)
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
------------------------------------------------------
year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
---------------------------------
1921 1.08 0.09
1990 0.92 0.46
1991 0.71 0.31
1992 0.37 0.44
1993 -0.35 0.34
1994 0.55 0.19
1995 0.43 0.14
1996 -0.06 0.48
1997 0.15 0.58
1998 1.32 0.63
1999 1.07 0.83
2000 0.69 0.94
2001 0.92 0.81
2002 0.68 0.72
2003 0.69 0.76
2004 0.61 0.84
2005 0.92 0.88
2006 1.30 0.76
2007 0.87 0.69
2008 0.11 *
2009 0.24 *
I left 1921 in because it was considered a top ten warmest year after the initial fix. These tables pretty much prove that NASA did change, and continue to change pre-1999 data. It would be very interesting to see the actual raw data but that is pretty much a state secret. But I do wonder how much of the warming trend is solely due to their 'adjustments'.
It's about the gases. If they keep going up, warming is inevitable, regardless of whether we can see any temperature rise at the present time. The computer models predict 1-4.5 degree rises. None I've seen predict a decline. Why would that be? The only logical answer seems to be Conservation of Energy. If GHGs are 25-30% above historical averages, where's that extra trapped energy going? Statistically only half would be re-emitted into space, so the other half must be warming the earth.
Still no link!!!So why did you post that wrong link with the 2007 table????That link goes to the current GISS table, just like it did Aug 8 2007
Where is the correct link???
A New Leaderboard at the U.S. Open Climate Audit comment 31
I suggest that you read the article as well.
I had the old data active in my R-session but I cant give a link to it
Again no link.Google cached a version on Jul 23, 2007 1508 GMT. Here it is: (PRE Y2K FIX)
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
1921 1.12 .14
1990 .88 .41
1991 .70 .26
1992 .31 .39
1993 -.43 .28
1994 .47 .11
1995 .35 .06
1996 -.17 .39
1997 .05 .48
1998 1.24 .54
1999 .94 .76
2000 .65 .88
2001 .90 .76
2002 .68 .69
2003 .65 .73
2004 .60 .80
2005 .85 *
2006 1.23 *
Sept 14 2007
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C) (AFTER FIX)
------------------------------------------------------
year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
---------------------------------
1921 1.15 .1
1990 .87 .40
1991 .69 .25
1992 .30 .38
1993 -.44 .27
1994 .46 .10
1995 .34 .05
1996 -.17 .38
1997 .03 .47
1998 1.23 .51
1999 .93 .69
2000 .52 .79
2001 .76 .65
2002 .53 .55
2003 .50 .58
2004 .44 .66
2005 .69 *
2006 1.13 *
---------------------------------
Oct 11 2007
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
------------------------------------------------------
year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
---------------------------------
1921 1.13 .13
1990 .88 .41
1991 .70 .26
1992 .31 .39
1993 -.43 .28
1994 .47 .11
1995 .36 .06
1996 -.16 .39
1997 .04 .48
1998 1.24 .52
1999 .94 .71
2000 .54 .81
2001 .78 .67
2002 .55 .57
2003 .53 .61
2004 .46 .68
2005 .71 *
2006 1.15 *
(from today)
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
------------------------------------------------------
year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
---------------------------------
1921 1.08 0.09
1990 0.92 0.46
1991 0.71 0.31
1992 0.37 0.44
1993 -0.35 0.34
1994 0.55 0.19
1995 0.43 0.14
1996 -0.06 0.48
1997 0.15 0.58
1998 1.32 0.63
1999 1.07 0.83
2000 0.69 0.94
2001 0.92 0.81
2002 0.68 0.72
2003 0.69 0.76
2004 0.61 0.84
2005 0.92 0.88
2006 1.30 0.76
2007 0.87 0.69
2008 0.11 *
2009 0.24 *
I left 1921 in because it was considered a top ten warmest year after the initial fix. These tables pretty much prove that NASA did change, and continue to change pre-1999 data. It would be very interesting to see the actual raw data but that is pretty much a state secret. But I do wonder how much of the warming trend is solely due to their 'adjustments'.
Obviously I had previously posted it correctly. A few too many wobbly pops last night.