Watts Up With That? - Ten Years of the World's Most Viewed Climate Site

Congratulations to Anthony Watts for creating and running the World's Most Viewed Climate website! At this TEN YEAR point, WUWT has achieved over 291 Million page views, and nearly 2 Million comments.

I've been a Guest Contributor to WUWT for six years and my 36 postings have garnered over 360 Thousand page views, and over 8 Thousand comments. I'm very proud to be included in the following list of distinguished people Anthony has thanked personally:

You may view my WUWT postings here.

Please have a look at my VISUAL IRA Blog for "Visualizing Science and Technology with Ira" in the following areas:

• Climate Science
• Einstein's Relativity
• Aritificial Intelligence Advisors
• Hierarchy Theory (my PhD)

Ira Glickstein

Blog MILESTONE - Over a Quarter Million Page Views!

The Virtual Philosophy Club, my main Blog, has just passed the 200,000 page view mark! Including my three other Blogs (Curb Your Enthusiasm (2,034 views), Life, Liberty, and Technology (10,402 views),  and The Hawking Plan (my free online novel) 42,289 views) the total sum stands at nearly 255,000 page views.

Add to that my postings as a Guest Contributor to Watts Up With That, the world's most viewed Climate Blog,  that earned 290,629 page views, and my online writings have garnered over a half-million page views. (In addition, an unknown number of my Watts Up With That postings have been republished on other Blogs, most likely adding at least 100,000 additional page views.

The point of this is that I, an ordinary person, with a PC and web access, have reached hundreds of thousands of people with my views as a "Citizen Journalist", see: Guardians at the Gate are GONE - Freedom of the Press !!!,  and The Blogosphere - Millions of Citizen Journalists.

I've also posted videos on Vimeo and You Tube that have garnered thousands of views.

Other than the cost of Internet access, and electricity for my PC, all this activity has not cost me a single dime. (On the other hand, it has not earned me a penny either).

Ira Glickstein

"One Guy With a Marker..."

My granddaughter sent me a link to a video that claims:

“One Guy With A Marker Just Made The Global Warming Debate Completely Obsolete.”

I watched the video with interest. He says he has: “… An argument that leads to a conclusion even the most ardent skeptic and most panicked activist can agree on. No one I’ve shown it to so far has been able to poke a hole in it. …”

I found some logical errors in that video and posted This Topic to the world's most viewed climate website where it attracted some 17,000 page views and almost 200 comments, including this one:

[From John Coleman, Co-Founder of The Weather Channel]

Ira, please make a video that presents the counter argument so I can put the two videos together for a You Tube “gotcha”. This guy is getting lots of hits and needs to be answered on You Tube.

So, I made the suggested video, and here it is:


When John Coleman viewed my video he wrote:

Wow Ira. You did it and you did a great job of debunking the marker nut. I hope you get a lot of hits on You Tube. It is a huge job to debunk the bad science. We should all keep on trying every day. I am writing a daily blog, but maybe I need to make some new videos a well.

Indeed, within a couple days I had THOUSANDS of video views on You Tube! THANKS JOHN!
Click for John Coleman Weather Daily Blog

DECONSTRUCTION OF THE "ONE GUY WITH A MARKER ..." VIDEO




As the above frame grab from the One Guy With a Marker ... Video indicates, he divides the Global Warming debate into two extreme dichotomies:

• Global Climate Change (GCC) is “False” (Top Row) or “True” (Bottom Row), and
• We take Action “Yes” (Column A) or “No” (Column B)

Here are the results he gives for his four boxes:

1. GCC is False but we unnecessarily take Action. The result is a high “Cost” that results in a “Global Depression”.
2. GCC is False and we take No Action. The result is a happy face.
3. GCC is True and we take Action that stops GCC dead in its tracks. The result is a happy face.
4. GCC is True and we take No Action. The result is “CATASTROPHES [in the] ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, SOCIETAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, [and] and HEALTH” areas.

He ends with the inevitable: “The only choice is Column A” – we must take Action!


This is a great example of the well-known FALLACY OF THE EXCLUDED MIDDLE! Where EMOTION is used in place of REASON to give the viewer a false choice between two extremes.

“All or nothing”, “Camelot or Catastrophe” arguments have great emotional power in political discourse, where the (usually hidden) assumption is that some things are perfectly TRUE and others are perfectly FALSE. But the real world is mostly in shades of grey. He studiously avoids that complication, because, when shades of grey are considered, his argument, IMHO, falls apart.


Let us take a closer, more realistic look at his four boxes:

1. GLOBAL DEPRESSION: This box is included to make it appear he is being “fair” to Skeptics. He assumes that taking Action to stop GCC will be so costly that, if it turns out to have been unnecessary, the result will be a “Global Depression”. Certainly, maximum environmental spending will damage the world-wide economy, but I doubt that type of spending, alone, will trigger a “Global Depression”. When we get to box #3 we will see that he doesn’t really think so either!
2. HAPPY FACE: GCC is “False”, we take No Action, so all is well! But, is it? Does his “GCC” include NATURAL PROCESSES and CYCLES that have caused Global Warming (and Cooling), Floods (and Droughts), and Violent Storms (and Blessed Rain) prior to the advent of Humans on Earth, and before we Humans had the capability to affect the climate? Apparently not, else “GCC” could not be totally “False”. Therefore, by “GCC” he is referring ONLY to the HUMAN-CAUSED variety, totally ignoring the evidence from the geological, ice-core, and historical records of NATURAL Global Climate Change and some Catastrophes.
3. HAPPY FACE: This box is totally inconsistent with box #1! If Action to stop Human-Caused Global Warming is so costly as to cause a Global Depression in the first box, would it not also cause such a Global Depression in this box? So, why the Happy Face? Realistically, even if we in the US and other nations in the Developed World take maximum Action to reduce our CO2 emissions, it is totally unrealistic to expect those in the Developing World to do the same. Indeed, China, India, and other countries will continue to build power plants, nearly all of them coal-fired. CO2 levels are bound to continue their rapid increase for at least the coming several decades, no matter what we do.
4. TOTAL CATASTROPHE: This box is filled with terrible consequences and is intended to scare us into taking maximum Action. He assumes the worst-case Global Warming of several degrees predicted by Climate Models despite the failure of those Climate Models to predict the past 17 years of absolutely no net Global Warming. (The most realistic prediction is continued moderate change in Global Temperatures, mostly NATURAL but some small part HUMAN-CAUSED. As standards of living continue to improve world-wide, populations will stabilize which will allow reasonable action to be taken to moderate CO2 emissions, and Human Civilization will ADAPT to inevitable Natural and Human-Caused Climate Change as we have throughout history.)

Bottom Line: This “One Guy With A Marker” DID NOT MAKE “The Global Warming Debate Completely Obsolete.” His failures of logic:

• He assumes HUMAN-CAUSED Climate Change is the only kind we need to worry about, which flies in the face of the fact that most Global Climate Change has been and continues to be NATURAL, and not under Human control or influence.
• He assumes costly Action to prevent GCC will cause a GLOBAL DEPRESSION (box #1) if GCC is “False”, but the same costly Action will cause a HAPPY FACE (box #3) if GCC is “True”. Box #3 contradicts box #1.
• He ignores the fact that GCC models have way over-predicted Global Warming. For example, taking 1979 (when worldwide Satellite temperature data came available) as a starting point, the average of 102 Global Climate Models predicted warming of 0.9°C (1.5°F) by 2013. Actual warming from 1979 to 2013 has been less than a quarter of that, and there has been no net Global Warming since 1997. During this time period, CO2 levels have continued their rapid rise. (See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/12/global-warming-is-real-but-not-a-big-deal-2/)
• He assumes “All or Nothing at all” and “Camelot or Catastrophe” which is the characteristic of irresponsible EMOTIONAL argument. He ignores the shades of grey in-between. He brings POLITICAL rhetoric to what should be a rational SCIENTIFIC discussion.

Ira Glickstein

Related: See Craven Attention, where Steve Mosher reports on the "Guy With a Marker ..." making a buffoon of himself at the AGU (American Geophysical Union).

Forget CO2 - US Executions and US Debt "Cause" Global Warming

This is my latest Topic published four days ago on WUWT the world's most viewed Climate Website. It has received nearly 4,000 page views and dozens of Comments!

From the "correlation is not causation" department.
Guest Posting by Ira Glickstein Since the Death Penalty was restored in the US in 1975, the Number of Executions per Year correlates with UAH Global Temperature Anomaly better than CO2 levels! So, if we want to reduce warming, cut the rate of capital crimes! (See graphic below.)

In the above graphic, the black line indicates US Executions per Year from 1975 to 2013 (Source: http://www.statisticbrain.com/death-penalty-statistics/ NAACP LDF “Death Row, U.S.A., Gallup Poll, Bureau of Justice Statistics"), the blue jagged line indicates monthly UAH Satellite-Based Temperature of the Global Lower Atmosphere from 1979 through 2013 and the red line shows the running centered 13-month average (Source: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2014-0-29-deg-c/).

In an earlier WUWT posting I showed that Total US Debt (public and private) as a percentage of US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) correlates with NASA GISS US Annual Mean Temperature Anomaly better than CO2 levels! So, if we want to reduce warming, cut the debt! (See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/16/forget-co2-us-debt-causes-warming/)
Therefore, based on the (faulty) idea that Correlation Implies Causation, we can solve Global Warming by reducing US debt and US capital crimes :^)

Ira Glickstein

Climate Change Controversy - Global Warming is REAL but NOT a Big DEAL

The following was posted on 7 April 2014 at Watts Up With That the world's most viewed climate website. In the first two days, it received almost five thousand page views and almost a hundred comments.

Guest Post by Ira Glickstein

Some of the net Global Warming since 1880 is undoubtedly due to human actions, but how much?

[My PowerPoint Show that includes the following graphic is available for download: here: It was presented to the "Civil Discourse Club" in The Villages, FL on 7 April at the Colony Recreation Center and is scheduled for a second presentation on 14 April at the Savannah Recreation Center.]

The height of the bars on the graphic indicates the relative magnitude of Natural Processes and Cycles (in BLUE) versus Human-Caused Warming (in RED). The scale on the left is in °C with corresponding °F on the right.

Going from left to right:

The first BLUE bar represents the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect, responsible for about 59°F (33°C) warming. This is the Natural Process that makes life as we know it possible on Earth. The mean temperature on the surface of the Earth is about 59°F (33°C) warmer due to Atmospheric absorption of long-wave radiation by water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and other so-called "Greenhouse" gases, and the subsequent "back-radiation" of some of this heat energy towards the Earth surface. (See my WUWT Visualizing series [Physical Analogy, Atmospheric Windows, Emission Spectra, and Molecules/Photons Light and Heat])

The second bar represents the major Natural “Ice Age” Cycles that have occurred about every 100,000 years according to the ice core records from the past 400,000 years. The climate is always changing, with up and down temperature jigs and jags at all time scales. The major Ice Age Cycles change temperatures over a range of about 13°F (7°C ).

The third bar represents the Human-Caused Warming that my wife and I experienced when we retired from full-time employment and moved from Upstate New York to Central Florida. The average temperature in Florida is about 20°F (11°C ) warmer than that in New York. I miss cross-country skiing a bit, but, overall, we are happy here and we enjoy water aerobics. While not exactly "Global" Warming, this warming was certainly caused by our Human-Caused decision to move and, of course, we enjoy the resulting moderately higher temperatures :^).

The fourth and fifth bars represent the YEARLY 43°F (24°C ) temperature range (July mean minus January mean), and the DAILY 19°F (11°C ) temperature range we experience here in Central Florida. Please notice that these ranges are much larger than the Ice Age Cycles, and they recur on a daily or yearly basis.

The sixth bar represents the mean Global Warming since 1880 based on the official NASA GISS accounting. It is 1.4°F (0.8°C). According to the IPCC, the majority of this Global Warming is due to human activities (mainly unprecedented burning of fossil fuels and land use that has reduced the albedo of the Earth). I have interpreted "majority" to mean about 70% and have therefore allocated 1°F (0.6°C) to Human-Causation and the remaining 0.4°F (0.2°C) to Natural Cycles.

The seventh bar represents my personal opinion as to the actual Global Warming since 1880, discounting the “adjustments” made by the official Climate “Team” that I believe have inflated the temperature record. We know that the US thermometer record is so unreliable that it has had to be "adjusted" several times by the official US Climate "Team" at GISS, see The Past is Not What it Used to Be, and Skeptic Strategy. [caption id="attachment_40829" align="aligncenter" width="640"] 2007 email from Sato to Hansen details seven analyses of 1934 vs 1998. 1934 starts off with a 0.5ºC lead and ends up in a dead heat.[/caption]

The above GISS email from Makiko Sato to James Hansen details seven adjustments to the US thermometer record, made from 1999 to 2007. According to GISS, the very warm year 1998 was originally thought to be 0.541°C (0.97°F) COOLER than 1934, which, in a warming world, would be, let us say Inconvenient. It took multiple "adjustments" to bring them to a dead heat. Further adjustments to the thermometer records subsequent to the 2007 Sato email have brought 1998 up to a significant lead over 1934 :^).

When this email came to light due to a Freedom of Information request, it was explained away by Warmists as follows:

1) The adjustments correct for differing Times of OBServation (TOBS). OK, that could be true, but why did it take so many analyses to come to the correct result? It seems one or two would be sufficient. Also, the 1998 data has been warmed more by the TOBS adjustments than the 1934 data has been cooled. Are we to believe that TOBS was less standardized in 1998 than it was in 1934?

2) The US is only 2% of the Globe. Therefore, any adjustment to US data would have only a minor effect of Global data. True enough, but, if US data is so unreliable that it has had to be adjusted so much, are we to believe that world data is any better? Does anyone really think that years-old data from Asia, Africa, South America is more reliable than US data? That ocean data based on some seaman dropping a bucket overboard, hauling it back, and sticking a thermometer into it, is any better than US thermometer data?

So, unless we believe that the world temperature record is more reliable than the US record, it is likely the world record has also been similarly "adjusted". Therefore, I have discounted the GISS estimate of Global Warming by about 30%, so actual warming is about 1.0°F (0.6°C). As for allocation of this actual warming to Human- vs Natural-Causes, I believe the IPCC has over-estimated Climate Sensitivity by a factor of two or three, so I have allocated the majority of the warming 0.8°F (0.5°C) to Natural Cycles, and the remaining 0.2°F (0.1°C) to Human-Causation.

I'd appreciate comments on my estimates and conclusions. advTHANKSance

Ira

Global Warming Predictions FAR Too High

The animated graphic above is based on a figure from the most recent draft Assessment Report (AR5), currently under review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The AR5 draft has been leaked by a reviewer, see  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/ 

The graphic is based on Figure 1-4 from the AR5 draft document and it clearly indicates something is and has been seriously wrong with the analysis methodology and computer models utilized by the IPCC researchers. It turns out that ALL FOUR IPCC reports, from 1990 to 2007 have seriously over-stated likely Global Warming, by factors of  TWO to FIVE. When actual observations made over a period of up to 22 years substantially contradict predictions based on a given climate theory, that theory must be modified or discarded completely.

The animation shows the central estimates of Global Warming from 1990 to 2012, from the First Assessment Report (FAR), the Second (SAR), the Third (TAR), and the Fourth (AR4). They are all high by a factor of two to three.

Actual Global Warming, from 1990 to 2012 (indicated by black bars in the base graphic) amounts to between 0.12 to 0.16˚C (indicated by the black arrow in the animation),  yet the central predictions from the four reports (indicated by the colored arrows in the animation) range from 0.3˚C to 0.5˚C.

The colored bands in the base IPCC graphic indicate the range of uncertainty above and below the central predictions claimed by the IPCC when they issued the assessment reports. Please note that the colored bands, wide as they are, do not go low enough to contain the actual observations for Global Temperature reported by the IPCC for 2012.

The colored bands indicating IPCC 2012 predictions extend above the 1990 Global Temperature by as much as 1.04˚C. Even the minimum range of uncertainty bands for 2012 are above 1990 by 0.51˚C, which is nearly five times the actual measured 2012 warming of 0.12 to 0.16˚C.

Thus, the IPCC predictions have errors that are multiples of what they thought they were predicting!

The final AR5 has not yet been issued, and it is uncertain if the above base graphic will make it through the final cut due to its honesty. We shall see.

Ira Glickstein

Clean Coal - Sustainable Power/Food Concept

I presented a forward-looking Sustainable Power/Food Concept based on Clean Coal technology at the Science/Technology Club, The Villages, FL, on 10 November 2011 and at the Bridgeport Men's Club on 15 November. You may download my PowerPoint Show HERE. This presentation is based on my postings at Watts Up WIth That?, the world's most popular climate Blog, HERE and HERE. The basic idea is to utililize the Clean Coal concept of Coal to Gas (CTG) and/or Coal to Liquid (CTL), extracting coal energy toally underground without mining. The CTG (or CTL) is piped underground to a Clean Coal powerplant where the CO2 effluent is captured. Instead of the (IMHO insane) concept of sequestering the CO2 underground in old oil wells, my concept pipes the CO2 to enhanced-CO2 greenhouses, where it is used to grow food crops far more quickly and efficiently than ordinary free-air farming. The cellulose waste products from the food crop are processed into methane (CH4) and recycled as fuel into the Clean Coal Powerplant. In addition, food and industrial waste (biomass) from nearby towns and cities is also recycled into methane, providing further power. Ira Glickstein

Global Warming Debate

I participated in a Joint Presentation on Global Warming at the Science-Technology Club, The Villages, FL, on 08 September 2011. My friend Bob Miller was on the AFFIRMATIVE side, which maintains that Global Warming due to unprecedented use of fossil fuels DOES constitute a substantial, near-term danger to human civilization on Earth. I took the NEGATIVE side that it DOES NOT.




Our combined PowerPoint chart set is available for anyone to download at https://sites.google.com/site/bigira/climate-related-ppt/SciTechGWDebateUpload.pptx?attredirects=0&d=1. Please use SLIDE SHOW mode to view the presentation because some of the charts are animated.

As indicated in the second graphic above, the debate follows the traditional 1858 Lincoln and Douglas debate format. (The photos show Bob in his younger days and me before I grew my beard :^).

The main difference in the format is that an Audience Participation Question and Comment period has been added between the initial presentations by each side and the rebuttal presentations.

To keep this debate on track, and prevent it from degenerating into a pointless argument about whether the so-called "Greenhouse effect" is real (it is), whether the Earth has been warming over the past century (it has) and, whether humans have any role in that warming (we do), both participants have agreed to the stipulations listed in the third graphic.

In short, we both agree that the "Greenhouse Effect" is real and rising CO2 levels do contribute to that effect, that it has indeed warmed, and that humans actions have some responsibility for the warming.

That leaves the much more important questions for debate:

• How much has the Earth actually warmed over the past century?

• How much of that is due to human activities, primarily rising CO2 levels?

• Does the temperature rise pose any substantial, near-term danger to human civilization?

• What, if any, drastic action is required to ameliorate human-caused Global Warming?

Ira Glickstein

Climate Change (aka Global Warming)

This posting is based on a talk to the Technology, Engineering, Science Plus Club, The Villages, FL, 26 May 2011. This group is a well-educated audience familiar with science and technology, but not necessarily fully cognizant regarding the current controversy.

Powerpoint charts available for download here

Skeptic Strategy for Talking About Global Warming

This Powerpoint chart set may be used as the basis for a skeptic-oriented talk or debate about Climate Change (aka Global Warming). Talking points are provided in the Notes section of each chart to help understand the main points made.

My “credentials” for preparing this slide set include:

• Guest Contributor to the most popular climate website in the world, http://wattsupwiththat.com/author/iraglickstein/


• Associate Professor of System Engineering at University of Maryland


• System Engineer (Advanced Avionics and Visionics, Route Planning, Decision Aiding, Five Patents ... at IBM, Lockheed-Martin)


• PhD in System Science (Binghamton University, 1996); MS in System Science (Binghamton); Bachelors in Electrical Engineering (CCNY)

If you saw the highly-rated 2006 movie An “Inconvenient” Truth you probably remember the scene depicted in the photo above.

Former VP Al Gore shows the ice core record of carbon dioxide (CO2 – in red) and temperature (in blue) over the past 600,000 years and he points out the obvious correlation between the two curves. When one goes up, so does the other. When one goes down, so does the other.

He then mounts a platform and is lifted high on the stage, showing how high CO2 levels are getting. He is then raised even higher to indicate where CO2 levels will be 30 years hence at the rate we are going if nothing is done about them.

The implication is that, if CO2 reaches that level, temperatures, which are clearly well-correlated, will rise as well. OMG ! At those high temperatures, the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps will melt, exposing the bare Earth beneath, reducing the albedo of the Surface and causing still more short-wave Solar energy to be absorbed. That could lead to still more warming and a “tipping point” catastrophe of major proportions. As the ice melts, low-lying islands and coastal areas will be submerged, killing and displacing billions of people.

Clearly, something needs to be done on a worldwide basis to stop further burning of fossil fuels and land use activities that reduce the albedo.

The message was so powerful that it earned Al Gore and his movie an Oscar and a Nobel prize in 2007. It came to be known as Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming (CAGW).

But wait, there is more to the story! If we examine the ice core data carefully, we discover that the temperatures rise about 800 years or more before the CO2 goes up. Temperature also falls 800 or more years before CO2 goes down. This lag of temperature behind CO2 is true for the entire 600,000 year ice core record. OOPS, is this another “inconvenient” truth?

Yes, there is correlation and possibly causation. But, in which direction?

HMMM .. If A “causes “ B, then A has to happen before B. Right? If, as Gore implies, CO2 “causes” temperatures to rise, then one would expect CO2 to rise before temperatures. Right?

Thus, all the ice core data proves is that temperature “causes” CO2 –or– that something else causes both temperature and CO2.

Those who believe that higher CO2 will cause temperatures to rise, due to the Atmospheric “greenhouse effect” point to the unprecedented levels of burning of fossil fuels and the undoubted rise of CO2. But, if it is unprecedented, and due to human activities, what does the ice core record have to tell us about the current situation? Humans could have had absolutely no role in the Global Warming and Global Cooling cycles of the ice ages. So, why did Gore bring it up?

Ira Glickstein

Nuke Tsunami Makes Clean Coal Look Better

I've just published this over at Watts Up With That?

The recent Japanese earthquake and tsunami, which shut down several reactors at the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex in northeastern Japan, followed by a failure of the backup cooling systems that resulted in hydrogen gas explosions and fires, has me re-evaluating my support for nuclear power.

Don’t get me wrong, I still favor nuclear power as part of what Sen. John McCain called an “all of the above” energy policy. We need all the energy we can get to power a vibrant, growing world economy. Our energy future should include nuclear along with clean coal, gas, oil, and renewables, as well as improved energy efficiency and usage. I welcomed the recent resurgence in interest in building more nuclear power plants in the US, a policy supported by both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Obama re-iterated that support a day ago.

Read the rest HERE and please comment here or go over there to join what will soon be many dozens of commenters and hundreds of page viewers. (Click here to see all my Watts Up Topics).

Ira Glickstein

Climate Change (AKA Global Warming)

I've been blogging as a Guest Contributor over at Watts Up With That? the world's most viewed climate blog. Here are some graphics I created that may be of interest.

This one is from The PAST is Not What It Used to Be where I discuss the Data Bias that I think has exaggerated Global Warming since 1880 by about 0.3ºC.
The blink graphic switches between two different sets of US Annual Mean Temperature data covering the same years published by NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies). My annotations remain fixed to show the changes.

Notice how the 1999 version has the years before 1960 warmer, by about 0.1ºC as compared to the same data published this year! Note also how the 2011 version has the data for 1980 and afterwards warmer, by up to 0.2ºC as compared to the same years on the 1999 version! Why would data that has been in hand for decades have to be adjusted in this "see-saw" way, if not to exaggerate the amount of warming in recent years? (That is Dr. James Hansen, head of NASA GISS, juggling the Earth and his impact on our economy.)


The second graphic is from Do We Care if 2010 is the Warmist Year In History?. It reproduces a NASA GISS email from Dr. Makiko Sato to Hansen, released in an FOIA request, in which she recounts the seven versions of US Annual Mean Temperature published for 1934 and 1998.
I've annotated that email with a graph showing how 1934 was warmer than 1998 by more than 0.5ºC when the first version was published in 1999. When the exact same raw data was reanalyzed and republished in 2001, 1934 temperatures (which were by then old enough to collect Social Security :^) were somehow reduced by almost 0.2ºC and 1998 data got boosted by nearly 0.1ºC, to reduce 1934's lead.

The graphic shows how 1934 continued to get cooler and 1998 got warmer (though 1998 had a surprising setback in the 2006 version :^) until, in the last analysis, they were in a virtual tie. Note that all this data is from an official NASA GISS email.

Sadly, after the date of the email, further reanalysis was done to make 1934 about an eighth of a degree cooler than 1998. Sad loss for the old guy. This clearly demonstrates the NASA GISS desire to make the more recent year warmer to prove Global Warming. It was embarassing to have the older data beat the more recent in the race to be warmer. Kind of like losing a footrace to your grandfather! So they did a Photoshop on the photo finish image to correct their earlier error.

Question: If the final version (1934 cooler than 1998) is correct, then the initial seven versions must all be in error?

Ira Glickstein

My Guest Postings on Watts Up With That?

Well, I've hit the "big time" as a Guest Contributor at the most popular climate science blog in the world, Watts Up With That? (WUWT)

[Update 06 Jan 2011: I now have more postings on WUWT than I care to list. Click Here for links to ALL of Ira's WUWT Postings.]

[Update, 31 Dec 2010: As a result of my posts on WUWT, picked up by other sites, this month (Dec 2010) we hit an all-time record of nearly 14,000 page views here at The Virtual Philosophy Club, as readers follow links back here. That means your comments and topics here have a better chance of being read than ever before.]

Have a look at my maiden posting at Do We Care if 2010 is the Warmist Year in History featuring the adjacent graphic [click it for a larger version].

Its only been up since around 4PM this afternoon and has already garnered over 50 Comments and over 2000 page views so far.







[UPDATE 28 DEC 2010]

I've posted a second topic, NASA's Sunspot Prediction Roller Coaster to WUWT late last evening, and, as of 10:30AM today, there have been over 2000 page views and over 75 comments. See the adjacent graphic [click it for a larger version].

[UPDATE 28 DEC 2010]

As of today, my two topics on WUWT have garnered over 16,000 page views!

[UPDATE 31 DEC 2010]

I've posted yet another big one at WUWT based on my earlier posting here at TVPC. If that topic interested you, head over to WUWT Clean Coal (Say WATT?) Our Energy Future and read some of the 150 Comments, most intelligent, and of all shades of opinion, and my sparkling replies (at least IMHO :^).

Ira Glickstein