Print 119 comment(s) - last by Andy35W.. on Nov 27 at 6:30 AM

GISS's October Data. The large reddish-brown area in Russia is actually September readings.
Amateur team finds NASA error similar to one they discovered a year ago.

NASA'S Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) is one of the world's primary sources for climate data. GISS issues regular updates on world temperatures based on their analysis of temperature readings from thousands of monitoring stations over the globe.

GISS’ most recent data release originally reported last October as being extraordinarily warm-- a full 0.78C above normal. This would have made it the warmest October on record; a huge increase over the previous month's data.

Those results set off alarm bells with Steve McIntyre and his gang of Baker Street irregulars at They noted that NASA's data didn't agree at all with the satellite temperature record, which showed October to be very mild, continuing the same trend of slight cooling that has persisted since 1998. So they dug a little deeper.

McIntyre, the same man who found errors last year in GISS's US temperature record, quickly noted that most of the temperature increase was coming from Russia. A chart of world temperatures showed that in October, most of Russia, the largest nation on Earth, was not only registering hot, but literally off the scale. Yet anecdotal reports were suggesting that worldwide, October was actually slightly colder than normal. Could there be another error in GISS's data?

An alert reader on McIntyre's blog revealed that there was a very large problem. Looking at the actual readings from individual stations in Russia showed a curious anomaly. The locations had all been assigned the exact temperatures from a month earlier-- the much warmer month of September. Russia cools very rapidly in the fall months, so recycling the data from the earlier month had led to a massive temperature increase.

A few locations in Ireland were also found to be using September data.

Steve McIntyre informed GISS of the error by email. According to McIntyre, there was no response, but within "about an hour", GISS pulled down the erroneous data, citing a "mishap" and pointing the finger of blame upstream to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration (NOAA).

NOAA's Deputy Director of Communications, Scott Smullens, tells DailyTech that NOAA is responsible only for temperature readings in the US, not those in other nations.

The error not only affected October data, but due to the complex algorithm GISS uses to convert actual temperature readings into their output results, altered the previously published values for several other months as well. The values for August 2008, for instance, changed by 0.11C and the global anomaly as far back as 2005 increased by a hundredth of a degree.

GISS is run by Dr. James Hansen, a strident global warming advocate who has accused oil companies of "crimes against humanity".  Hansen recently made headlines when he travelled to London to testify on behalf of a group of environmentalists who had damaged a coal plant in protest against global warming. Hansen also serves as science advisor to Al Gore.

Dr. Hansen could not be reached for comment.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By PitViper007 on 11/11/2008 4:11:57 PM , Rating: 5
I bet Dr. Hansen was so ecstatic about the October readings that he didn't even bother to verify them or have them verified. This is the problem that I see with the proponents of AGW, they believe in it so ardently, that nothing else matters, much less facts. There's a term for belief that strong. Know what it is? RELIGION!

By the way Michael, I think there is an error in your story.
A few locations in Ireland were also found to be using October data.

Shouldn't that be September data? Anyway, great post.

By masher2 (blog) on 11/11/2008 4:14:38 PM , Rating: 2
> "Shouldn't that be September data? "

Corrected; thanks for the heads up.

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By slash196 on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By AWeav09 on 11/11/2008 9:23:29 PM , Rating: 5
Actually, Michael Crichton held quite the opposite stance on global warming...

By jgvandemeer on 11/12/2008 11:40:42 AM , Rating: 2
I could be wrong, but I think that was his point.

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By lucasb on 11/11/2008 4:56:25 PM , Rating: 1
There's a term for belief that strong. Know what it is? RELIGION!

Some intellectually challenged people claim that adherence to the scientific method is a sort of religion.
Also, some people are quick to claim partisanship when the facts and mainstream opinion doesn't agree with their beliefs.

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By porkpie on 11/11/2008 5:08:06 PM , Rating: 5
Michael Crichton has words of wisdom on the topic of "mainstream opinion".
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics....

Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By foolsgambit11 on 11/11/2008 5:38:59 PM , Rating: 3
Um, I think you mean had words of wisdom. I mean, come on, are we supposed to pay attention to a guy who couldn't even stay alive?

Enough irreverence about death. Of course consensus is what you have before something becomes more or less universally accepted. E=mc2 was only a consensus for a while. There were plenty of theoretical physicists who didn't think it was the way the world worked at first. But the evidence piled up, and they eventually had to accept it. Einstein himself was against quantum physics when it was just a consensus viewpoint. He eventually came around, but not before spending a good while as a naysayer and discovering weird quirks about the theory in an attempt to disprove it.

In the same vein, to all those global warming naysayers, I say bravo! Good work spotting errors in data, calculation, modeling, etc. You help to improve the science.

Of course, the ether model of physics was a consensus model for a good while, too. Until eventually the evidence was sufficient to refute it. Only time will tell which type of theory GW, and especially AGW, is.

As for consensus being the business of politics, you're absolutely right. But in the world of advanced science, there's only so much money to be had to advance human knowledge. At some point, decisions have to be made, and those decisions are about what the most fruitful uses of research moneys are. They are, at their heart, political decisions based on pragmatics and values.

On a total tangent, don't the consensus of scientists agree that many dinosaurs had feathers, and especially the compy's in Jurassic Park? I can't remember in the book if the dinosaurs were feathered. They certainly weren't in the movie.

By foolsgambit11 on 11/11/2008 5:41:53 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I should have previewed that - noticed the missed closing element

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By MattCoz on 11/11/2008 11:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
Feathered dinosaurs is a more recently accepted idea, which is why proto-feathers were added to the design of the raptors in JPIII. This was Jack Horner's influence though, not Michael's, so I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, heh.

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By mmntech on 11/11/2008 10:51:32 PM , Rating: 5
The man was a genius. Basic scientific method clearly states that consensus can never exist in the scientific community. That's what they teach you in first year university science courses. It's a scam. Say the sky is falling and governments become more than willing to hand out fat research grants.

It also appears that the IPCC is loosing the propaganda battle. The Register had a thing on global warming a couple of weeks ago. They cited an Ipsos poll that said that 60% of Britons don't think global warming is man made. A number which has been increasing. I think the UK has been hit the hardest economically by AGW hysteria. Parliament (not just Labour) has been carbon taxing them to death. With the most recent climate bill, which would severely hurt British shipping and global trade, there were only five dissenters. They're certainly not reflecting public opinion. The only consensus that exists on AGW is a consensus of elitists. (I define elitists as people with a paternalistic, "holier than thou" attitude. In other words, "only I know what's best for you".)

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By FITCamaro on 11/12/2008 8:23:38 AM , Rating: 4
"only I know what's best for you, but what I say doesn't apply to me".

Fixed it.

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By The0ne on 11/12/2008 11:05:07 AM , Rating: 2
ahuh. I really hate it when government funds a company. It just wreaks of deception.

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By dever on 11/12/2008 4:47:18 PM , Rating: 3 schools?

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By BBeltrami on 11/12/2008 6:43:48 PM , Rating: 4
...or the entire banking industry?

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By Ringold on 11/11/2008 5:20:53 PM , Rating: 5
Some intellectually challenged people claim that adherence to the scientific method is a sort of religion.

Who attacked the scientific method? I'd say it was GISS themselves who have failed to do their job as scientists. They pulled in outrageous data and instead of verifying it, they pushed it out the door until someone called them on their shoddy work. Peer review by blogs ftw, though.

The attacks are more directed at the arrogance that would allow GISS to publish crazy data and the self-assured way that they conduct themselves; they're so certain that they are right about their theory and predictions that they are beyond reproach, and everyone who apparently calls them on it is "intellectually challenged?"

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By lucasb on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By porkpie on 11/11/2008 5:55:12 PM , Rating: 4
Curently, there's no better theory than AGW and there's no mounting evidence against it.
You mean, other than the fact that the earth has been cooling the past 10 years?

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By foolsgambit11 on 11/11/2008 6:12:20 PM , Rating: 4
That's a little disingenuous. The Earth is cooler than it was in 1998. But that doesn't mean the Earth has been getting cooler for the past 10 years. Temperatures cooled between 1998 and 2002. They plateaued in '02, and have been pretty much constant since then. What is more, some models predict that temperatures will stay cooler for the next decade or so due to natural cooling phenomena, and then bounce back up due to the combined effects of natural warming and human activities.

Still, I don't know what all the fuss is about. Global warming or no global warming, I think we should be taking the same steps to reduce our impact on the environment. To reasonable levels - I'm not suggesting we all run into the woods and wear ferns.

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By wookie1 on 11/11/08, Rating: 0
By foolsgambit11 on 11/12/2008 7:34:43 PM , Rating: 2
It's funny. I actually do have a windmill and a 65W solar panel, plus I eat bugs (lobster - they count right?). But none of it is to reduce my 'carbon footprint.' I live on a boat at anchor. It would cost too much to live at a dock where I could be hooked up to the grid, so I make do with alternative energy sources. But these are just my lifestyle choices, for my reasons. That doesn't necessarily invalidate your basic point.

But what about this argument: it's called democracy.

We put things to a vote, and the majority gets to set the agenda, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of the minority opinion. And the last time I checked, there wasn't anything in the Constitution about the basic human right of cheap electricity. Not even in the penumbras and emanations. So you may not have a choice but to spend more money to maintain the same carbon footprint you have.

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By Yawgm0th on 11/11/2008 10:32:36 PM , Rating: 5
Give this man a 6 for taking a reasonable standpoint -- rather than working toward the extreme of his preference.

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By ikkeman2 on 11/12/2008 2:26:44 AM , Rating: 5
just a small point - the origin of the predicted global heat-up in many models is the in-build assumption that hte earth will heat up.
Just like in this article, where errors in the october 2008 data has an effect back to 2005. global climate models are very much like the stock market. Based on assumptions that can't be proven, fed with data manipulated to fit the assumptions and financed by poeple with a vested interest in the outcome.

I do not say they are wrong - but their validity is very hard, if not impossible do verify.
Also, there is nothing wrong with taking resposibility for your impact on anything. There is something wrong with trying to force or fake others to your way of thinking.

By foolsgambit11 on 11/12/2008 7:43:22 PM , Rating: 2
I don't need to fake anybody into my way of thinking. I don't need to force them into my way of thinking. Eventually, the government will probably force them into certain actions. Actions with both environmental and economic impacts. Actions that I freely admit I don't currently practice.

As for the models, yes, there are lots of models out there that predict lots of different outcomes predicated on the same data but lots of different assumptions about the effects of different climatological phenomena. Which points out that there is no consensus among climatologists about the exact extent of global warming. The exact forcing that CO2 exerts isn't clear, even.

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By FITCamaro on 11/12/2008 8:28:40 AM , Rating: 5
If by "reducing your environmental impact" you mean driving a hybrid, not eating meat, switching to 100% solar and wind, buy carbon offset, etc. then no.

If you mean try to recycle, use more energy efficient appliances, try to carpool, buy a sedan instead of a Suburban, etc. then ok. But I should have the choice. And I shouldn't be punished for choosing the choice you don't agree with.

By jgvandemeer on 11/12/2008 11:43:17 AM , Rating: 3
The problem is that the false god of Global Warming distracts us from what's really important: reducing pollution. Now there are a lot of people driving diesels which a) reduce CO2, but b) increase particulate pollution. They've been told they're "saving the planet" but really they're just making it dirtier.

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By lucasb on 11/11/2008 6:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
You mean, other than the fact that the earth has been cooling the past 10 years?

Even supposing that this is completely right (it is partially accurate), where is the pile of evidence against AGW? Is there a new and improved theory which explains better the behaviour changes in climate and fits better in the body of evidence?

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By masher2 (blog) on 11/11/2008 6:52:44 PM , Rating: 4
> "where is the pile of evidence against AGW? "

A. Substantial research indicating our current warming trend began well before man began generating significant levels of CO2.
B. Research indicating the climate sensitivity of CO2 has been overstated by at least a factor of 3.
C. Zero statistically-significant warming of the Earth since 1995 (and a slight cooling trend since 2002).
D. Inability of models to explain any of the known past climate shifts, some of which were more rapid and severe than the warming we're experiencing today.
E. Basic AGW theory predicts a vertical structure to warming most prevalent in the troposphere (about 1.3X surface warming). Yet satellite data demonstrates the troposphere is actually warming slightly less than the surface.
F. The paleoclimatic record, which clearly demonstrates the Earth's climate system is governed by negative feedbacks. Were the positive feedbacks postulated by CAGW modelers truly in existence, the Earth would have long ago experienced runaway warming.
G. The inability of current models to properly account for clouds, the full hydrologic cycle, or other factors with forcing effects substantially greater than CO2's forcing.
H. The cooling of Antarctica, whereas original models predict polar amplification of warming. (and yes, while some *current* models do predict Antarctic cooling, that is due to adjustments made after the warming trend was already determined experimentally, i.e. it is essentially a fudge factor, not a prediction)

There are several other problems, but the above is a few of the more serious objections.

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By wookie1 on 11/11/2008 9:08:50 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget that solar activity is mostly ignored in the models. They focus on irradiance and that it doesn't change large amounts but don't want us to think about other solar activity that could affect cloud formation, ozone hole size, etc.

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By kbehrens on 11/11/2008 10:09:28 PM , Rating: 5
Nice list! I guess we understand now why Al Gore is still burning 100X as much energy as the rest of us. He didn't really believe his own stories either.

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By dever on 11/12/2008 4:57:04 PM , Rating: 2
Wow! Is the EPA actually admitting the heat island effect skews readings?

While I wouldn't believe anything on a government site, I'm surprised there's a wee bit of temperance to the usual fear mongering done by those who stand to profit the most.

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By foolsgambit11 on 11/11/2008 5:59:16 PM , Rating: 4
You said it.

Look at economics, a set of theories that doesn't get it right all of the time, and never has very accurate data. But they still do a pretty good job in normal conditions. They also have to go back and revise their initial numbers after they've been published. They do it every time, so it doesn't make news. But those jobs numbers for October, or the consumer spending numbers, or manufacturing, or imports/exports, or any set of numbers they've compiled will be adjusted in the coming couple of months. Because collecting huge amounts of data is a difficult and error-prone process in any field.

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By Ringold on 11/11/2008 9:18:48 PM , Rating: 2
Not quite what I was getting at, but you're close. Lets say you're working with an equation, and you plug in numbers. You should have a vague idea of what should pop out, right? For example, if you're trying to model household income, and out pops a value of a trillion dollars, or even 200k, you know something has been screwed up. For all of Russia, temperatures spiked huge versus what they should've been for October, a similar red flag.

Difference is, when I do my own work and get silly results, I painstakingly double check every step. GISS, apparently, says "Yay, it got warmer! PUBLISH!" As for economic data in general, do you ever see wildly incorrect data get published in the US only to later suffer massive revision? Not really. You cite the job numbers for October, but it was September that got a sizable revision in the Oct jobs report. The revision was still in the same ball park however, and not even entirely unexpected. Russia showing up as a giant fireball in that picture in the article? A little unexpected, I'd say.

Maybe they're not entirely to blame, but I'm a little surprised at their incompetence in not catching it immediately, unless they're so under staffed that they automatically kick out data and charts with very little human interaction beforehand.

By foolsgambit11 on 11/12/2008 8:01:28 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I was referring to the fact that when the November numbers come out, they'll also revise October. Because they revise the numbers every time.

But you're absolutely right, they should have been curious when they got such a striking anomaly.

UPDATE: They released the October data again. See

Notice, there's still a big heating area over Russia. I don't know what that's about, but the anomaly number has come down. It's at .65 instead of, what was it, .78? Something like that. It looks like parts of Russia are slightly cooler than the previous map displayed at the top of this article, but most of it is still pretty hot, versus the average for October.

By sigilscience on 11/11/2008 6:26:58 PM , Rating: 2
You can find pollution in almost any dataset.
I think the point is that THIS pollution was incredibly blatant and easy to find. Russia heating up 10C (that's almost 20 degrees Fahrenheit) in a single month? And these "experts" didn't catch it? What other problems are they missing?

You can bet if the data had suddenly showed a massive cooling, they would have caught it. But when you want to believe, you're willing to let a lot of things slide.

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/12/2008 12:39:05 PM , Rating: 2
The term is actually "rational constructionism," or arguing from one's conclusions. This is very common in religion and politics. A person embraces a conclusion for whatever reason, and then only finds evidence that supports their position, and shows why evidence that does not support their position is wrong. Even the best scientists engage in this logical fallacy sometimes. And the funny thing is, these people think they are engaging in scientific discussion.

However, since this was pointed out to the creationism crowd, they thus started accusing scientists of having an agenda, or reasoning from a conclusion as well. I think they hope that by engaging in this ad hominem fallacy, they hope to put themselves on equal footing with the scientists - its okay that we have an agenda now that we have accused you of having one as well. Ever heard of the atheist agenda? Ever hear of a global warming agenda? An anti-global warming agenda? Whenever someone accuses you of having an agenda, it is more than likely because they have one.

Well, the fact is, that if the science is peer-reviewed (and sometimes even that is wrong) we have to give the scientists the benefit of the doubt. Let that peer review process come to the correct scientific conclusions, not a bunch of flamers engaging in ad hominem and rational constructionist fallacies.

Science is done by gathering data, and then creating hypothoses that do two things: explain appearances, and make predictions about the future. If either of those two fail, then the anomoly has to be explained, which sometimes means creating a new hypothesis.

Science is not done anecdotally, as when a friend saw something flying around that he doesn't know what it it was, ergo it was beings from another planet. Likewise, we weren't capable of taking so many temperature readings at any time in the past, and when compared to ancient temperature readings, ours seem to be warmer, therefore the planet is frying.

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By Denigrate on 11/12/2008 2:15:23 PM , Rating: 1
Atheists are funny little people. They say they do not believe in any higher/lower power, but they go to great lengths to silence any public displays of other poeple's faith. Seems a bit desparate to me.

So, I don't believe in fairies, but I know people who do. Do I tell them they are crazy and that there is no way fairies exist? No, I chuckle to myself and move on. Shouldn't this be the approach of the atheist? Fairie believers insist that fairies exist, and try to convert/convince others that fairies exist, same a those who believe a higher power exists.

No, the atheist would rather trample on everyone else's rights to make themselves feel better.

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By Surak on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By sigilscience on 11/11/2008 6:24:43 PM , Rating: 5
releasing 27 BILLION TONS of CO2 into the atmosphere every year might change the atmosphere
That sounds impressive until you find out nature releases 40 times as much as we do, and has been doing it for millions of years.

And before you say something about a "delicate balance", there isn't any. Some times Mama Nature releases a lot more, sometimes a lot less. CO2 levels are constantly going up and down. They've been 20 times higher than they are now before, and the planet didn't suffer any bad effects from it.

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By Surak on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By masher2 (blog) on 11/11/2008 9:14:17 PM , Rating: 3
> "The atmosphere contains plenty of carbon 14 due to natural nuclear reactions caused by cosmic rays. Plants, soil, etc, and the oceans contain carbon 14 "

Oops-- dissolved CO2 in the ocean does not contain carbon 14, except for small amounts in the epipelagic layer. C14 analysis tells us one thing only, that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is abiotic: a release of stored carbon of some sort, rather than due to biological processes.

But of course, the paleoclimatic record implies that already. When temperatures rise, CO2 levels do as well, as a result of the higher temperature favoring processes which release stored CO2.

> "If CO2 was ever that high, it wasn't last week, it was before multicellular life evolved. "

Eh? CO2 levels in the Devonian were well over 3,000 ppm. That's closer to 10X than the 20X the OP claimed...but it was also the most fertile period the planet has ever known.

The notion that our current, abnormally low level of atmospheric CO2 is somehow "ideal" for life is devoid of all factual basis. In fact, a great deal of recent research indicates the post-industrial increase in CO2 has led to large increases in plant growth, and a corresponding increase in total biomass of the planet.

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By Surak on 11/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By ikkeman2 on 11/12/2008 3:05:49 AM , Rating: 5
Surak, take a chill pill, suck some O2 and relax!!
You sound like the kind of person that'll burn books and scientists alike if they don't support your point of view. I hope your not...

from wikipedia (go change that if it's wrong)
"Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4-5 times during the Jurassic period and then maintained a slow decline until the industrial revolution, with a particularly swift reduction occurring 49 million years ago.[20][21]"

from the same article - atmospheric CO2 is approx 3E15 tonnes, US production is about 2.2E9 tonnes - let the global human production be 10 times that, it is still only 0.000067% of the free carbon in the atmo.

explain to me if you will how our influence increased co2 levels from 320ppm in 1960 to 380ppm now. that's an 8.5% increase as a result of 50 years of 0.000067%. My math may be wron, but doesn't the human contribution to the carbon icrease amount to 50*0.000067%=0.0033%?
global co2 increase is a natural phenomanon to which humans add, maybe to our detriment - but that cannot be proven in any statistical way!

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By masher2 (blog) on 11/12/2008 7:45:28 AM , Rating: 4
> "Dissolved CO2 in the ocean absolutely contains 14C throughout. It isn't isolated from the atmosphere long enough for it all to decay."

Sorry, but you couldn't be further from the truth. The ocean contains many orders of mangnitude more CO2 than the atmosphere; much of it stored for hundreds of thousands of years.

Here's a study that proves this conclusively, based on CO2 "burps" at the end of the last ice age:
They found the carbon 14 "age" of the upper ocean water was basically constant over the past 40,000 years, except during the interval following the most recent ice age, when atmospheric CO2 increased dramatically. The study shows the carbon added to the upper ocean and atmosphere at the end of the last ice age was "very old," suggesting it had been stored in the deep ocean and isolated from the atmosphere for thousands of years , said Marchitto

The researchers found massive, natural increases in atmospheric CO2 -- CO2 that had very little C14...due to it being stored in the deep sea for so long. In other words, a situation identical to what we see today.


> "So go ahead, pick 4 or 5 BILLION of your closest friends to sacrifice in the geopolitical anarchy "

Stuff and nonsense. Even the IPCC is only predicting a few centimeters of sea level rise, and no serious hurricanologist predicts an increase in storm intensity (Emannauel Kerry, the only such researcher to ever do so, switched his opinion just this year).

A moderate level of warming, if it continues at all, is more likely to be beneficial for mankind and society than harmful. The average temperature of the globe is roughly 54F. Man-- and the species we depend upon-- prefer a temperature closer to 70F. A small increase means longer growing seasons, more abundant crops, fewer crop-killing frosts, and generally a more mild climate. In short, an identical situation to that of the Medieval Climate Optimum, a period in which civilization flourished. (That's why they called it a climate "optimum", afer all).

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By paydirt on 11/12/2008 8:53:05 AM , Rating: 3
Interesting stuff folks. I would like to add that even if you accept that the Earth had only 10X CO2 "back in the day," there wasn't a case of a "runaway" greenhouse situation. For those truly frightened about "runaway" greenhouse and GW, I want you to really, really think on that.

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By MonkeyPaw on 11/11/2008 7:21:15 PM , Rating: 3

By the way Michael, I think there is an error in your story.

A few locations in Ireland were also found to be using October data.

Shouldn't that be September data? Anyway, great post.

It's too late, I already published this article to the world as proof that Ireland has 2 Octobers and no Septembers. It's a scientific fact, I tell you!

By otispunkmeyer on 11/12/2008 5:50:36 PM , Rating: 2

they really shouldnt have people like this in charge of such things. like wise we shouldnt have some one who believes climate change isnt happeneing. we need impartial people

"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs

Related Articles

Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki