Yet again, wow r u dense, I even posted the entire page this time so u don't have the excuse that you can't cut and paste the link and see for yourself that on the very page I gave NASA talks about the error u r so hung up about - that is within the margin of error.
For the fifth time - the lower 48 is not the world! How many people have to tell u this. Try and understand this - there is this place called the United States, it is part of a thing called the earth - the earth is larger then the US, many other land masses and water masses make up the world then the US. U r not even talking about the entire US, a land mass 1/3 the size of the US is not included in the contigious US. NASA acknowledges this in the page I gave u. To repeat it yet again (is this the fourth or fifth time)
Finally, we note that a minor data processing error found in the GISS temperature analysis in early 2007 does not affect the present analysis. The data processing flaw was failure to apply NOAA adjustments to United States Historical Climatology Network stations in 2000-2006, as the records for those years were taken from a different data base (Global Historical Climatology Network). This flaw affected only 1.6% of the Earth's surface (contiguous 48 states) and only the several years in the 21st century. As shown in Figure 4 and discussed elsewhere, the effect of this flaw was immeasurable globally (~0.003°C) and small even in its limited area. Contrary to reports in certain portions of the media, the data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on record. Obviously the global ranks were unaffected. In the contiguous 48 states the statistical tie among 1934, 1998 and 2005 as the warmest year(s) was unchanged. In the current analysis, in the flawed analysis, and in the published GISS analysis (Hansen et al. 2001), 1934 is the warmest year in the contiguous states (not globally) but by an amount (magnitude of the order of 0.01°C) that is an order of magnitude smaller than the uncertainty.
Figure 4, above. Global and U.S. temperature anomalies with and without the data processing flaw. (Figure also available as large GIF or PDF)
Notice the words - obviously the global temp was unaffected (after all we are talking about an area that is 1.6 percent of the world),
1934 is the warmest year in the US by less then the margin of error.
You will also notice that the blog (yes blog) you post is dated 8/7/07, the NASA site I posted is dated 1/28/08 - again since simple concepts like the difference between the world and the lower 48 appear beyond your comprehension I will inform u that the year 08 is closer in time to today then the year 07.
How many times do you have to do the same ridiculous thing?
I guess can't expect much from a person who thinks that dictionaries are written by Stalin.
How many people have to tell u (Mr Kaminski showed u also)the same exact thing - show it to u in actual print - give you the actual url before you stop such ridiculous nonsense?
On May 21 you provided the below link
Yes that is the error NASA has acknowledged - now open that link - see up at the top there is a bit of blue writing - it says "2007 temperature summation " if u click on that link u find the page I keep showing you over and over and over. How about if we read the page you put up as a source
"Several minor updates to the analysis have been made since its last published description by Hansen et al. (2001). After a testing period they were incorporated at the time of the next routine update. The only change having a detectable influence on analyzed temperature was the 7 August 2007 change to correct a discontinuity in 2000 at many stations in the United States. This flaw affected temperatures in 2000 and later years by ~0.15°C averaged over the United States and ~0.003°C on global average. Contrary to reports in the media, this minor flaw did not alter the years of record temperature, as shown by comparison here of results with the data flaw ('old analysis') and with the correction ('new analysis'). "
Everyone is saying the same exact thing to u (including NASA, including the page I keep giving you date 08 over and over and over) VRWC but yet you keep saying the opposite - doesn't that even make you stop and think?
Recent discussions in the Climate Change forum (11 discussions)
|What should we do to mitigate climate change?||439||Jan 26, 2011|
|Worldwide Collaborative Book||0||Nov 28, 2010|
|Climate Change Research: More Statisticians, Fewer Scientists Needed||80||Oct 15, 2010|
|Imagine what animals would say about global warming.||0||Sep 17, 2010|
|The Dimming Sun||2||May 12, 2010|
|Climate change is a red herring||41||May 7, 2010|
|Reality Speaks!!!||0||Feb 15, 2010|
|Evolution Going Backwards on Energy Policy||1||Dec 20, 2009|
|What's the worst that could happen? A book to save our necks?||3||Oct 7, 2009|
|Virtual Graduation Speech to College Classes of 2099 A.D.||6||Mar 17, 2009|
|Bali --- Louis J Sheehan||1||Mar 11, 2008|