@luke Are you that naive to believe that what happens in the cities doesn't influence other regions? The atmosphere is a continuum along with the ocean.

Scott , Winston-Salem, NC

Sure global warming went big when the Soviet Union fell and a few thousand temperature monitoring stations in Siberia went offline. But that does not mean it is happening. So we are in a trend, 30 years ago as a kid I remember being scared to death the next ice age was upon us. Didn't happen, neither will this so called end of life global warming, it is just a trend.

Finally, greenhouse gases (CO2) FOLLOW temperature changes, they do not cause the temperature changes. And in case anyone wonders, CO2 is food for plants. If we cut our CO2 output we could kill plants, which is a dumb idea as plants produce Oxygen, and I happen to like oxygen, you should too!

Bob Collins, Palm Beach Gardens, FL

You guys are missing the point. It doesn't matter that these were small differences. What DOES matter, is that it illuminated the fact that 1934 was the hottest year on record - which was BEFORE air conditioning, huge increase in automobiles, and all the other stuff that's being blamed for Global Warming.
That means GLOBAL WARMING IS NATURAL, not manmade.
The other thing it means is, GW scientists can, and do make mistakes, so we shouldn't be changing the way we do everything when these guys are wrong so much of the time, and deny it unless absolutely cornered.

Matt, Sacramento, California, USA

Yes, but the fact that the hottest year ON RECORD, was in 1934, not 1998 is pretty significant. 5 out of the 10 hottest years were before or during World War 2. Thats significant.

Derek , Seattle, WA USA,

ladies and gentlemen ...you need to stop this obsession with the phrase global warming ...if the globe did not periodically warm ...we in the north ..like michigan and some parts of south dakota would still be under one mile of ice ...ice ages come and go and so do warming trends ...if it warms faster or cools faster than other historic periods ..then it can be a product of some external force ...the problem is that there have been periods in the earths history that far over shadow this past 4 to 5 hundred years in the massive swings of climate change ..in the last ice age ..the rise and fall of sea levels changed over 200 feet in less than 2000 years ...at that scale we have had very little change in the past 200 years ...history is a good indicator ..but the alarm of humans was not so much a daily life and death issue ...for a world population of 10 to 20 million people ...it is now as we climb past 6 billion and humans do not like change they can not have a mastery over ...

bob, sumner , michigan

Really, global warming is CAUSED by human activity? Then why is Mars warming and why is there early data showing the most of the solar system's planets are warming? How arrogant we are to beleive we are gods.

Rick, Martinsburg, WV

Has anyone else here watched the Channel 4 documentary 'The great global warming swindle' shown in the UK earlier this year?

They used Al Gore's own historical data to show that increases in CO2 levels FOLLOWED temperature increases by between 400 and 800 years on average. So historically there is a link between warming and CO2 levels - they tend to increase AFTER the warming has taken place.

Clive, Brussels,

Oh please let me go kill myself so the third world polluters can have more room......Glaciers retreat and expand in cycles. The permafrost is so thick the Russians had trouble getting through it to steal a part of the Artic in order to drill for oil. If it's too wet someplace it's too dry someplace else. If it's too cold somewhere it's too hot somewhere else. How arrogant to think something so insignificant as a human (in the scheme of things) can affect universal cycles based on thousands of years and universal cycles. NASA has simply joined the game in order to keep it's funding. NASA knows more than anyone, how unstable the climate models are. Let's get off the Mid East dependance, let's do what we can to live clean, we don't need junk science to force the move, just common sense. While the USA is distracted with "global warming" the Russians, Chinese and Islamo-Faciasts are running away with our resources in the Artic and the Gulf of Mexico.

Carmen Flynn, Jacksonville, Florida

RON IN VALENCIA...

YES, let's remember DDT. Lets remember the millions of deaths it prevented and the areas of the world that were made livable by its use. Let us also remember the pseudo-science (if not downright lies professed by Rachael Carlson and her chronies about the use of DDT). It is important to recall that DDT, like any substance must be used judiciously, but the contention that greater evil was caused by DDT that good is thoughtless, liberal emotion-speak. If you watched your children die of malaria, you might temper your opinion of DDT.

Dr. Mark, Omaha, Nebraska

The "science" of global warming is young and continues to evolve. The "debate" over whether man is the driver, will ALWAYS continue if it is to remain "science". And the issue must rage, if the media is to get viewers.

Meanwhile, the greens don't want coal or nuclear for baseload generation. Naively, they expect "renewable energy" coupled with energy conservation to carry the world forward. For that they get an "F" in math.

But wait...while the greens like renewables, they don't want hydroelectric dams and we can't build windmills near shorelines due to asthetic pollution. And that damn sun...it only shines half the time. And still others are suggesting that burning food (corn) for fuel is immoral when people are starving in the world.

But here's the $64 question for the greens...just what is the optimum world temperature? What then, if somebody in Bangladesh doesn't agree, and want's themselves cooler?
H-m-m-m? Shall the U.N. adjudicate such things?

Ken Keylor, Westerville, ohio, USA

A problem Global Warming advocates have is allowing their cause to become political. I frankly am suspect of all things political. The truth usually gets lost in the retoric and attemps to influence. Partial truths usually lead to bad outcomes.

Keep the cause pure and out of the hands of those who would use it for personal gain.

Wade Rogers, Franklin, PA

Hollywood east or west is still the same, blame everything on humans radically altering the environment and is proof they (people) shouldn't be here. Give me a break, build a bridge. cry me a river, and GET OVER IT!. This planet has done more in it's history to create and recover from the changes we see. Data sets are not lenghty enough to know whether the planet is still in a warming cycle from the last ice age or not and clearly the methane from termite mounds and large herds of animal (dung) contribute significantly to the impacts from volcanism (gas spewing) events. We need to use the radical environmentalists to plug the holes in the ozone, feed the starving animals, fuel hearth and homes (instead of wood), and compost them with their wholly unscientific ideaology of mother earth and lack of commercialism on public lands. Their sense of aesthetic mind sets that view the world as a garden doesn't mesh with growing trees for harvest. GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!!!!

CjKaty, Missoula, MT

Just lets stop and remember DDT, by the time the miracle product had been dragged off the shelves, there are still those who bemoan its demise, the damage had been done. It is still filtering through the food chain and we have little or no idea of where it will end.
Beliving in God or NASA wont save anyone and perhaps more sadly wont save this planet ( the beautiful green and blue orb that floats through space with its cargo of plants an animals, who's reason "to be" is still t be discoverd ) which is not ours to do with as we like, it owes the human race nothing whereas we owe it everything.......
Lets start reducing our impact now,
........make love not babies!

Rod, Valencia, Spain

You must remember that scientists have to respond to the instructions from their funders: find me some data that proves what I want the truth to be.

Antoine, Keswick/Ontario, Canada

I wouldn't disagree that the earth is warming up. After all it has done it many times before (if it didn't we would be surounded with ice right now). The odd part is that there were no cars or jets or any man made pollution devices at those times. So the blame of mankind making the earth heat up at this time is just bunk. I am real happy though that we are trying to clean up the air though, I would never want to live in L.A.. I hate all the mess's we leave because politicians make it legal to do so. By the way, here in Oregon this summer it has ben cool with new record low high temperatures.

Jimbo, Portland, Oregon

I really hope that the missing chunk of the space shuttle was calculated more accurately than the weather report.

Jeff in Miami, Miami Beach, USA/FL

Did anyone make such a fuss about this at the end of the last ice age? Were our ancestors standing about wringing their hands with worry while others pushed up the price of wood that would burn in a greener way? I think not. Climate change has been going on for millions of years and human's CO2 output is meaningless in the scheme of things - we are supremely arrogant to think it will make any difference to the Earth in the long run.

Neil, Edinburgh,

The statistics were off by ONE THOUSANDTH of a degree. That's pretty negligible.

Tim McCormack, Charlottesville, VA

"urban sprawl" is responsible for the retreating glaciers, the fact that songbirds arrive 2 weeks earlier than used to be the case and the pine beatle's refusal to die in winters here in BC?

And what about the melting permafrost? I didn't knfow they have large cities in the Canadian arctic.

Luke, Vancouver, BC

Have the naysayers ever noted that periods of climate change in Earth's history have often been affected, if not primarily driven, by the influence of living organisms on their environment; or that periods of global warming and cooling are practically always tied to the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (which themselves are heavily influenced by the processes of living organisms)? How ignorant that segments of the human race think that they (the species that has unquestionably done by far the most to change their own environment, and done so much faster and on a much larger scale than any other) think that their actions DON'T drastically affect something as fragile as the climate of an entire planet.

Robert Cox, Hollywood, Florida

I would agree that man has done his best to incur global warming, but it is not from the fudging of data. Every year we send many icebreakers into the arctic to study the ice pack, pure intelligence would suggest that if you keep chipping the edges away from the main cap you are going to reduce the size of this ice mass, after all a block of ice is harder to melt than crushed ice. With the ice cap now disappearing from the arctic we have an average warming of the planet. Pure marketing geniuses have seen this and attempted to correlate these values to increases in greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are very inert to temperature; the 'gas' which affects temperature the most is water vapor. Water vapor is the most reactive it creates an unstable atmosphere leading to unpredictable weather events. It makes drought, rainfall and storms more sever and less predictable. I would like environmental scientists to actualy do their work rather than create it!

Kevin, Atlanta, US. Georgia

Your environmental reporter has 'buried the bad news'.

Recently we were told by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration that, in the 'gas-guzzling' United States, 2006 had overtaken 1998 as the warmest year since records began 125 years ago in 1880 {1}.
Now instead we learn from NASA that the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which also maintains a records of US temperatures, has corrected its previous table of figures, and put out a corrected table that shows that, in fact, 1934 was the warmest year {2}.
It is contended that marked changes have taken place in the atmosphere of the USA since the 1930s -- So the reminder that, nevertheless, 1934 remains the warmest year must give us plenty to think about.


{1} http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2772.htm

{2} http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

Temperatures expressed as figure in degrees centigrade above or below baseline

Stephen Prower, Stevenage, UK

I find that in all discussions that raise difficult, and sometimes ugly, questions it can be helpful, when looking for the truth of a standpoint, to "follow the money". The question of global warming is no different. I wonder what all those young, idealistic demonstrators, moms and dads on action committees and well meaning politicians (there really are some!) from all over our planet will think when the good people that want to build us new atomic reactors are finally coupled with the discussion and found to be guiding the financial support of the GW lobby?

Mark, Pboro, UK

Its dirty to much money is involved. What we need is a open transparent study of...the science of global warming. Thats not stacked with leftist green party members or scientists that feel its their moral duty to lie to the public for the greater good. But I don't see this happening why would the government shine a light on the massive fraud that they would be responsible for.
Not gonna happen.

jon, Toronto, Canada

Has anyone ever noted the recent discovery that a rainforest once existed in the area that is now Chicago? More to the point, glaciers once covered much of the United States. Perhaps global warming and cooling are indeed cyclical and entirely out of our hands. Since we have been coming out of an ice age for millinia, I would hope that the climate IS warming. How arrogant that the human race thinks they can control something as immense as the climate of the entire planet!

Tashia Berman, Cottontown, USA / TN

Dear Editor,
Why don't you recognise the service of the blogger by telling us the name of the blogger and the address of the blog?

Francois, Washington D.C., USA

Surely the point of this piece of news is not that NASA has made an admittedly small mistake in their calculations but how many scientists and reserachers have made mistakes or exaggerated their findings. It's the irresponsible scientists, or science, that creates this polarization in opinions. We need proper research and honest findings so that people can decide not TOLD how things are. People take the simplistic view of "Scientists are right" and believe that we have the hottest global temperature in the last 2000 years (apparently Jesus et al did the first study in global temperature! so we have their findings to compare!)
Give us ALL the facts and some pointers but do not teat the whole world like idiots. Otherwise the well known story of "the boy who cried wolf" will apply to every scientific finding in the next 20 years and nobody will care about any warnings.

Alex, Manchester, UK

Google this: Polar Volcanic Activity Global Warming
and this: Greenland Russian Antartic Ice core data CO2
2nd one: what happened to the "anomolies" that were thrown out to make a nice smooth curve?.

ken, Whiting, USA

I believe everyone can see that there is a warming trend, it's just a matter of clearly identifying the cause. Even *if* there were no indication that our burning of fossil fuels has brought this on, saving energy still makes sense as the resources are not endless. Can we agree on that, at least?

Guido, La Linea,

And what do you want to bet they are also lying to us on whats on Mars!!!!

Tom, laporte, Indiana

This underscores the vast uncertainty surrounding our undrstanding of climate. They say the debate is over and anthropogenic GW is a proven fact. We don't really even know what the temperature in the past was, and model estimates of the global average temperature vary within a five degree celsius range, while the claimed warming is an order of magnitude smaller than the error range I don't know about England, but most of the United States has had a cooling trend, or no trend, since about 1930. The southern hemisphere hasn't warmed in 30 years, any warming in the north apparently ended almost ten years ago. Solar cycle 25 promises to be the weakest in nearly a century. I am more concerned with the possibility of a return of the Little Ice Age.

Mark Whitney, Sandy, USA/Utah

Without taking sides, I should point out that the U.S. covers 6% of the world's land area, not 2%. In terms of record coverage, the proportions are even bigger, as America's network of weather stations is both very extensive and long-established, which means American data is disproportionately important. The U.S. has good records back into the 19th century - compare this to the coverage over time for Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and South America. Even now, only Europe can match it for depth of coverage, so to downplay American data by a facile and incorrect dismissal of its importance is an unworthy response.

These temperature records aren't the only evidence for global warming by any means, but newspaper reports of record temperatures play a major part in shaping popular opinion. If we're going to spend large amounts of money countering global warming, then we should make sure we're acting on accurate data.

Anton, Rome, Italy

Sorry anecdotal stories are not evidence, I'm sure if you looked you would find a month this year in the top 10 coolest as well.

Fact is, there is plenty to be skeptical about global warming aside. Perhaps it's not obvious, but we can't even predict the weather 7 days in advance. Why then do we trust more complicated computer models? I note that you fail to mention that the 0.12C error is 25% of the 0.5C rise in temperature across the US blamed on Global Warming? But you do your best to push a claim of insignificance. Somehow I think your boss would not be too happy if 25% of your work was flawed.

An open honest discussion is needed and analysis and data need to be shared. For example, NASA routinely adjusts temperature data to compensate for urban buildup around their weather stations. Yet they refuse to share the specific algorithm used.

And we just discovered that plants emit methane. Hum, guess all that methane hanging over forests isn't all due to rotting leaves...

Dave, Dallas, Tx

"Other scientists hit back at global warming sceptics by pointing out that the error applied to only 48 states of the US"

I'm sorry am I the only one who finds this defence ludicrous?

'only ' 48 out of the 50 states have been compromised by their 'scientific' study. Well lets just discount those and concentrate on Hawaii and Alaska, the two extremes, instead - this is bound to give us an accurate indicator of climate in America.

With scientists bringing 'proof' like this it is no wonder many refuse to believe what they are being told is self-evident fact.

Benjamin, Manchester,

It's amazing - all the time they can put hysterical headlines about natural cycles on the front pages, people can be conveniently distracted from such issues as economic meltdown and thousands dying in the Middle East. What's that? Cash for honours? Quick - everyone - some footballer's girlfriend has a new haircut. Must be caused by global warming.

Jo, Cambridgeshire, UK

"Reto Ruedy, of the Goddard Institute, said that the differences between 1934 and 1998 were so slight that it was likely that they would swap positions again as information is analysed anew."

... and I am prepared to bet money that Mr Ruedy, and his minions, are already fudging statistics to achieve this aim !

Come on Mr Ruedy, in the last two months, respected scientists (contributors to the last IPCC paper) disproved two major parts of the global warming model. In July, Danish scientists proved, through core samples, that the Greenland icecap is at least 800,000 years old (bye-bye the melting of the Greenland Icecap) In August, Indian scientists actually measured the impact of the Asian brown cloud and found that (in direct contradiction of the IPCC paper) rather than being a cooling factor, it was a warming factor. Since the models can't change to total energy in the equation, some other element must be having less effect. CO2 perhaps?

Test, not hypothesize!

Cynosarges, London, UK

These downgrades are significant for several reasons, protestations notwithstanding.
First, these adjustments are in fact approx. 0.15 C down. The warming of the Earth generally agreed upon since 1850 is 0.6 C, so this represents 25% of that fluctuation [and not just since 2000]..
Secondly, the argument that the USA is 2% of the Earth's land mass and therefore, these downgrades are inconsequential, is a red herring. Fact is, that for the past century, the USA and Canada have been the largest emitters of CO2 in the world: that's how to look at it. That temperatures have not followed CO2 in this key area in the world is extremely important: it invalidates the core premise of man-made CO2 as the direct cause of rising temperatures. CO2 has gone up, temperatures have not. It's that simple. 2006 aside [ probaly an anomaly to be downgraded], none of the post- 1998 years made the to the top 10. The earth may well be warming, but Homo Sapiens' role is very much open to debate.

tetris, Vancouver, Canada

Excellent point, Jay. And might I add that what the public yearns to hear are simple cause-and-effect arguments for what they 'see' happening in the environment. Environmentalism has latched onto this golden opportunity, by offering an explanation which will not only satisfy that craving for the simplistic, but also contribute to an alarmism which has garnered $Billions in reallocated funds, directly into their own hands.
Al Gore is lately accusing 'global warming deniers' of running a $10 million 'misinformation campaign'. The public cries foul. But talk about the coffee calling the kettle black !

Randall, Vancouver, Canada

No, the problem is NASA didn't discover a Y2K error for seven years! It could have been discovered much earlier, but NASA does not fully disclose the methods by which it makes adjustments or corrections to its temperature data.

Do British and European climate agencies fully disclose their data and methods, including the software used to make their respective "adjustments"? It is pretty much all paid for with taxpayer money. Nothing should be hidden.

Barclay E. MacDonald, Maui, USA

If its that easy for years jump up places in the heat league then surely the differences over the century can't be that much - sounds from this article like global warming is simply inaccurate statistical adjustment for urban sprawl. Sounds like another "Millenium Bug".

Benjamin , Gloucester,

"Nasa officials have admitted that for the past seven years they have used the wrong temperature statistics to assess global warming trends."
So what ? May be they were having their drinks straight while performing twisted calculations ...
Can't wait for the release of "The right stuff - 2"

Ronnie, PARIS, FRANCE

Its been reported that temperatures on other planets in our Solar System are also rising.

NASA would be better directing its resources to investigate this and formulating hypothesises for the possible causes (surely not man made!)

Michael Lewis, St Albans, UK

everything is cyclical, and change is the only constant

marc, langley, bc canada

Jay: hmmm. 90 % of the people can be WRONG (and in many cases they are).

Tobias, Stockholm, Sweden

In the UK we had record floods in July and August has been one of the coldest on record, Trees in the midlands are already losing their leaves and going now instead of October. I wonder what sort of cold winter this Global warming is going to give us. Macintyre is a hero who has debunked Mann and now NASA. It appears that both NASA and theUK Met Office ignore Urban heat Islands when reading from terrestrial staions, this one NASA temperature sensor is now in a vast open Car park in a Southern State when once it was in the country, Similarly Kew until the 1970's was in the country and now in an overcrowded suburb.

John Prendergast, Stafford UK,

Let's be honest about this - it's NOT science, It's Politics.
Don't vote - it only encourages the buggers.

Mikey, Motherwell, Scotland

Funny hottest year on record 1934. Thats pre WW2 and.... Lots and lots of less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere back then ..

Btw do notice the DECLINE in temperature over 1950-1970 ... That coincided with the largest increases of CO2 emissions in history ...

Mike , Gothenburg, Sweden

I think that these scientists who are alarming the world with there bad science used to be evolutionists. Evolutionary studies don't pay anymore so one must find some other kind of employment.

Bert, Tichborne, Canada

Look, they've had one of their "stick" knocked out of their hands...why can't us thinking types pick it up and beat them over the head with it for once?

With or without God, Global warming is going the way of the Next Ice Age of the 1970s, Acid Rain, Ozone Holes and Y2K.

Daniel, Ventura, California

Y'know, you almost had me there Jay..until you started blathering on about God. 90% of the planet believes in which God exactly. There's quite a few to choose from and no matter which way you slice it 90% of people who believe in any God must be praying to the wrong one!

Mikey, Bromley, UK

Every Quarter I receive, as a Member of the British Antarctic Survey Journal. There is always alarmist writings about Antarctica and ice melting. That the Ice mass and ice shelf is shrinking. Halley Bay where I served in the sixties was at 76 Deg south. It is now 75 deg south. The whole Ice shelf has moved north about 69 miles. At 700 feet thick,,that's some shrinking. Conclusion, as scientists paid by the British taxpayer, where there's no Crisis, there's no funding,,,it's human nature. All one needs to do is Google Halley Bay and one can see for ones self.
Caveat: I would prefer if poss to remain anonymous.
Thank You

Robert Granville Lee, Bloomfield hills,, Michigan, USA

Steve McIntyre by forcing NASA’s to re-adjust its temperature has high-lighting the arrogance of many climate sciences. The Met office not immune to fraudulent claims, they should only hope Steve doesn’t turn his gaze on them.
The adjustment for urban heat needed to be public, else it’ll be attribute greenhouse gasses; but will out full disclosure by the Met-office this will never happen. America may covers only 2% of the earth but has half of the temperature stations, which are more reliable; but with problems http://www.surfacestations.org/.

If the global temperature properly adjusted we would see a significant drop global warming throwing into doubt the alarmist views. Plus since 2000 global temperatures have stagnated with southern hemisphere temperatures dropping; see Met-Office Stats.

Steve has also Demolished the ‘Hockey stick graph’, which is still use by the BBC, of which is documented on his site http://www.climateaudit.org.

Paul Graham, Greenwich, London

But the numbers now show no warming trend in America and I would guess Canada too. How can this not have a impact on global warming? isnt north america part of the globe? We need a full fair transparent look at the (science of global warming) 90% of the planet believes in god...I dont see the front page of the news papers...GOD IS REAL Looks like we are getting a taste of how the NAZI's got into power.

Jay, Toronto, Canada

Oh, just the 4th hottest and not the 3rd hottest year on record. What a relief.
Guess all those global warming deniers
are right after all. NOT!

rkerg, oakland, CA USA

The Global Warming industry is too big for people to give up on the idea.

MM, Andover, UK

My, my, isn't this interesting. The global warming figures are wrong!

Over the past couple of years (2000 onward) people have been more and more alarmed at how the past decade has been the warmest on record. Is it a result of increased industrial activity? Wasteful gasoline consumption? They've played a very small part, but most of it is just a fried computer chip in a satellite!

We have manufactured a "doomsday" environmental problem, instead of focusing on the real and very serious ones- smog, soot, extensive deforestation and acid rain.

Alex, Orangeville, Ontario, Canada

Steve McIntyre by forcing NASA’s to re-adjust its temperature has high-lighting the arrogance of many climate sciences. The Met office not immune to fraudulent claims, they should only hope Steve doesn’t turn his gaze on them.

The adjustment for urban heat needed to be public, else it’ll be attribute greenhouse gasses; but will out full disclosure by the Met-office this will never happen. America may covers only 2% of the earth but has half of the temperature stations, which are more reliable; but with problems http://www.surfacestations.org/.

If the global temperature properly adjusted we would see a significant drop global warming throwing into doubt the alarmist views. Plus since 2000 global temperatures have stagnated with southern hemisphere temperatures dropping; see Met-office stats.

Steve has also Demolished the ‘Hockey stick graph’, which is still use by the BBC, of which is documented on his site http://www.climateaudit.org.

Paul Graham, Greenwich, London