However there are so many factors with land temperatures (changing environment etc) that none of them are reliable, they had to put so many fudge factors in to try and get a true representation, whether this was done correctly or whether some bias was added is up for argument.
The fact is the only reliable data is the Hadcrut satellite temperatures.
All of it is only quibbling which year was hottest is not important, is the earth warming as predicted or not is all that matters.
Clearly then your reading skills need some work as it states in the very first line that
"Globally, 1934 is the 49th hottest year on record."
1998 remains one of the warmest years on record globally, although it has since been surpassed by 2005 and 2010.
There was an error that was readily agreed by scientists and that small error was corrected, McIntyre has been dinning out on that find ever since but of course deniers ignore all the silly errors and statements he has made since, many on the Watts blog.
The source of the skepticalscience story is this
http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y...
It has several interesting points the small error relates to a Y2K issue back in 2000 data and the story dates back to 2007 so well before 2010, now of course many of the denier brethren also claim Y2K never happened either. So they aren't going to like that reason much.
But huff and puff as much as you want, it's wont change the fact 1998 is a global average and 1934 relates to just the U.S.
Most normal people understand that even scientists can make a mistake, but most normal people don't try and twist that small mistake into some sad global conspiracy theory and honestly if you don't grasp the difference between a regional high and a global high you don't seem to be demonstration much "intelligence" personally I think you do get the difference but are just playing the usual denier game.
1934 on a global scale was 0.1c above the mean, at the time quite warm although 1932 was a little warmer at 0.11c but now we are having warm years in the 0.6c range even cooler La Nina years like 2008 (0.49c) are far warmer then 1934.
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#g...
forgetting individual years, the decadal averages are a far better guide as they allow for the odd cool or warm anomaly like 1998 or 2008, look at it that way and you see the 1970s was warmest then beaten by the 1980's then beaten by the 1990's then beaten by the 2000's and still deniers try to play this fiction, we are cooling. We are just 3 years into the next decade and already 2 of those 3 years (2010 & 2012) are in the top 10 warmest years) I wonder if by the end of this decade deniers will still be able to claim cooling when 1998 is near the bottom of the ten warmest years, as warmer years now have made up the difference caused by the 0.2c boost the 1997/8 El Nino gave to 1998's global average. As, at the IPCC average of 0.2c per decade, at that rate a decade from now even cooler years will start to rival 1998 but by then I think, denier's will have gone the way of the Dodo.
The climate scientists here can speak for themselves, and answer your "questions" with real science (even if you have little interest in trying to understanding them). Non-scientists can trust the world's top scientists, not the fossil fuel industry hacks you've been duped by, including geezer engineers pretending to be scientists.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research.”
Edit: I have no interest in your Rothschild-Illuminati conspiracy mumbo jumbo crap fake question about 1000ppm CO2. Can you tell me how many more global terrorist incidents there will be if Al Qaeda takes over Syria, Sudan and Mali? Does any uncertainty about the answer mean that every piece of information about Al Qaeda is "manipulated"?
1934 was the hottest year on record in the UNITED STATES until that record was broken in recent years. this was because of what was known as the Dust Bowl. Which was caused by a more southerly route of the jet stream.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news...
Why do you believe what you read on blogs? why don't you understand why things changed as they did? Surprisingly, it was due to one of the 'denier scientists' you read as to why they were scaled down.
Kano: Wow. I didn't know they had satellites back in the 1800's
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl
I guess you learn something new every day. Or you could have meant the UAH data
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah
or the RSS data
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss
however, as we know, satellites measure the entire lower troposphere not just the surface temperatures as other measurements and data do.
A NORMAL person would not think that the vast majority of the world's scientists are involved in some conspiracy to convince them that the Earth was warming--they would just accept that most scientists are honest, hard-working people.
A very skeptical but industrious person would get the data themselves (it's not that hard to do), and do their own calculations.
A paranoid denier would look for any scrap of information, no matter how poor it obviously is, to support their denial. They would see themselves as the defender of truth against those legions of conspiratorial climate scientists.
I don't think you fall into either of the first two categories.
EDIT: You've asked about your link before, and as I said in your other question and in email, the guy makes such a fundamental mistake in his assumptions that it's not worth anyone's time looking through the rest of the stuff to see if he manages to get something right.
And Kano, do you really think remote measurements are more accurate than in situ measurements? Get real.
Another EDIT: I don't know what "limitations" you want. There is enough potential left in the CO2 IR absorption bands to cause the world great hardship--clearly many trillions of dollars worth and potentially millions of lives.
If you want to know how much warming is associated with how much CO2, I'm not going to be able to give you a better answer than those that went into the IPCC scenarios. Deniers like yourself seem to want simple-minded answers to complex questions--I'm sorry, the world doesn't work that way. The best estimates of warming and uncertainties come from running climate models many times and looking at the spread in the results, anybody that thinks they can answer off the top of their head is a fool.
I am glad to hear that you are so easily amused by the "bantering" that ensues when science meets the psuedo-science.
A "normal" person, as you put it, has no problems with making sense of the science behind AGW/CC.
One simply does not relinquish their intelligence to those that cannot comprehend the science and tries to create chaos out of the science. One may try to share their knowledge with those that have yet to comprehend, but that is the best that can be offered. When one casts their intellect to the side in order to embrace their flawed ideologies, then there is not much left for those that do comprehend the science to work with, is there? I could buy you books, but to what gains for either of us?
Before announcing your lack of knowledge to the world, next time read what you are presenting.
1934 was claimed to be the hottets year, but it is not It is actually the 49th warmest'
The only manipulated data i see comes from you DA deniers along with the rest of the da BS
The "bantering" is facts vs lies. And you've chosen lies. Such an idiot
http://www.skepticalscience.com/1934-hottest-year-on-record.htm
I got a kick out of reading the bantering back and forth about which temperature was the hottest on record (1934 or 1998) on the BLOG Skeptical Science. In reading into the bantering I found how the 1934 temperature records were scaled down by 1.6 degrees by NCDC-NOAA.
