I found this very amusing and factual at the same time...enjoy, from Glumbert.com.

http://www.glumbert.com/media/globalwarming1958

How interesting that just several years later, scientists would be banding together to give alarm to the impending "Global Cooling" crisis (which lasted into the early 70's).

Someone screwed up on the cartoon about the possible new coastline. It looks like all of Texas will be under water but a lot of texas is over 2000 feet above sea level, but they predict that Miami will be 150 feet under water.

It would be interesting to know where the coastline was in the 10th-13th centuries, when the world was a lot warmer than it is today. Somehow I doubt if half of Texas and all of Florida were underwater.

Not to worry, though -- another big cold wave next winter and the same eco-Nazis screaming "Global warming" at the top of their lungs will revert back to 1970s mode and start screaming "Ice age!" with equal volume. And they'll deny having ever made the switch. Just like Orwell's 1984 -- first Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia, then a week later Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

Can we please have civil discussions about global warming (and other topics) that do not involve the use of any form of the word Nazi? Thank you.

Funny you mentioned Orwell's 1984, I was looking at the latest NOAA temperature data to be released at it seems that they are adjusting all the temperature records on their top 25 hottest year list. Looks like 2006 is no longer the hottest and 1998 remains the champ.

Pagedown a few time to see the previous and new Hot 25.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...s-summary.html

I didn't see an explanation of why they now conclude that all the years in the first half of last century were lowered and most of the more resent years were raised.

In a few more years 1934 and 1931 and 1921 could be off the list as the numbers are massaged to follow the party line.

Exactly! I find it so frustrating that both sides of the GW issue can't just sit down and listen to each other. The "pro" side won't acknowledge that greenhouse gases only make up one of five significant contributing factors (the other four are external to our system), and the "con" side refuses to acknowledge any human intervention.

Allow me to say that I have NO doubt that humans are contributing to GW. Our most significant contributions started 5K years ago, with the deforestation of Europe and Asia, and the proliferation of rice bogs (talk about greenhouse gases!). It is quite likely that the "Little Ice Age" was subverted by human invervention.

However, we have been in a repeating 100k year cycle for millions of years. References to 20, or 50, or 100 year trends are meaningless when related to this larger picture. Approximately 85K years of these cycles are spent under 5-10k FEET of ice. The other 15K years are very warm. It's now been warm for 18,000 years. Those other four external factors are lining up again. Want to guess what comes next?

Wow, it is unusual to find someone I agree with 100% on any subject, but I have to agree with Kraken!

I remember back in the late 70's there was talk of the next great Ice Age being at our doorstep. I can't recall what magazine had on its cover an artists impression of a glacier slowly laying waste to a major city, but it left a lasting image in my mind!

IMO whether the world is heating up or cooling, there is not a lot we can do about it, no more than we can prevent earthquakes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, etc. Mother Nature runs her course, no matter how big mankind's ego gets. However, that being said, I prefer my air and water as clean as possible, so I like the approach of not seeing how messy we can make things!

Seems this article is relevent to the topic.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CENT...RATURE_TWO.doc

Easy enough, adjust the recorded temp down by 6 degrees from 1955-1995 but adjust it down by only 2 degrees or less from 1995 on. What do you know, the park is getting warmer.

Who can I trust?

More interesting but unreported changes in the US temperature history from the NASA GISS weather site.

Due to calculation errors starting after y2k, NASA as of 8-7-07 quietly revised temperatures since 1880. 1998 is no longer the hottest, the prize goes to 1934. There were minor adjustments of + or - .01-.02C to years before 2000, but every year from 2000 forward is now .13-.15C or .23-.27F cooler than previously reported.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/




The 1st graph is the corrected data, and the 2nd graph is before the error was found, but shows temperatures directly. Those peaks in the 30s and 00s look a lot closer in the 1st graph.



This is GISS's wording to explain the error.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

"The NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) provides a measure of the changing global surface temperature with monthly resolution for the period since 1880, when a reasonably global distribution of meteorological stations was established. Input data for the analysis, collected by many national meteorological services around the world, is the unadjusted data of the Global Historical Climatology Network (Peterson and Vose, 1997 and 1998) except that the USHCN station records up to 1999 were replaced by a version of USHCN data with further corrections after an adjustment computed by comparing the common 1990-1999 period of the two data sets. (We wish to thank Stephen McIntyre for bringing to our attention that such an adjustment is necessary to prevent creating an artificial jump in year 2000.)

Very odd and troubling that someone from outside GISS found this significant error.

I imagine that if the last 7 years were just discovered to be .27F hotter than previously believed, we'd have a major press release and a word from Al Gore.