Revised Temp Data Reduces Global Warming Fever

American Thinker ^ | August 09, 2007 | Marc Sheppard

[neverdem]

1998 was not the hottest US year ever.  Nor was 2006 the runner up.

Sure, had you checked NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) website just days ago, you would have thought so, but not today.  You see, thanks to the efforts of Steve McIntyre over at http://www.climateaudit.org/, the Surface Air Temperature Anomaly charts for those and many other years have been revised - predominately down.

Why?

It's a wild and technical story of compromised weather stations and hack computer algorithms (including, get this - a latent Y2K bug) and those wishing to read the fascinating details should follow ALL of the links I've provided.  But, simply stated, McIntyre not only proved the error of the calculations used to interpret the data from the 1000 plus US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) weather stations feeding GISS, but also the cascading effect of that error on past data.

You see, as Warren Meyer over at Coyoteblog.com (whose recent email expressed a delight we share in the irony of this correction taking place the week of the Gore / Newsweek story) points out:

"One of the interesting aspects of these temperature data bases is that they do not just use the raw temperature measurements from each station.  Both the NOAA (which maintains the USHCN stations) and the GISS apply many layers of adjustments."

It was the gross folly of these "fudge factors" McIntyre challenged NASA on.  And won. 

Today, not only have the charts and graphs been modified, but the GISS website includes this acknowledgement 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.)"

But, as only the Gorebots actually believe the hype that recent year to year temperature shifts are somehow proof of anthropogenic global warming, why is this significant?
 

As explained by Noel Sheppard over at Newsbusters:

"One of the key tenets of the global warming myth being advanced by [GISS head James] Hansen and soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore is that nine of the ten warmest years in history have occurred since 1995."

Additionally, as broken by Rush Limbaugh on his radio show this afternoon, Reuters is now reporting in a piece entitled Scientists predict surge in global warming after 2009 that:

"A study forecasts that global warming will set in with a vengeance after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998, which was the warmest year on record."

As so deftly observed by El Rushbo, who wonders how long NASA has been aware of the errors, many greenies have spread their nonsense using 1998's bogus distinction to generate angst amongst the weak-minded.

Yet - thanks to a Blogging Scientist -- that's all changed now - check the newly revised GISS table.

1934 is now the hottest, and 3 others from the 1930's are in the top 10.  Furthermore, only 3 (not 9) took place since 1995 (1998, 1999, and 2006).  The years 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 are now below the year 1900 and no longer even in the top 20.

So, we're not really on a roller-coaster to hell, then?

Of course, eco-maniacs will argue that it's the global readings that count, not those of the USA alone.  Nuts to that.  It's nearly impossible to believe that when put to similar close scrutiny, global mechanisms will stand the heat any better than ours.

Besides, as GISS hosts the reference database of choice for all manner of enviro-mental-cases, one would think such a significant content correction itself would spark huge news and greenie-card reevaluation, right?

Well -- as Noel asked and answered his readers:

"Think this will be Newsweek's next cover-story?  No, I don't either."

Perfect.

Posted at 09:34 PM | Email | Permalink

[neverdem]

I should have posted this in a more timely manner.

[WOSG]

Similar article posted here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1878920/posts?page=81

“From RealClimate - “2001-2006 (at 0.66 ºC) is still warmer than 1930-1934 (0.63 ºC - the largest value in the early part of the century)”
So recent 5 year temps in the US have been a mere 0.03C greater than in the 1930s. Hmmmm.

[SuziQ]

Well, whadda ya know!

[Texas_Jarhead]

very interesting BUMP

[Liberty Valance]

Now wait just a minute ...
this wasn't in the press packet we handed out...

[Daaave]

"1934 is now the hottest, and 3 others from the 1930's are in the top 10."

I was curious about an event I believed happened about this time. The dates coincide.

Surviving The Dust Bowl

"The drought hit first in the eastern part of the country in 1930. In 1931, it moved toward the west. By 1934 it had turned the Great Plains into a desert."

pbs.org

[Allegra]

I can hardly wait to see what BS the Global Warming Weinies come out with in their attempt to refute this.

Ought to be entertaining.

In the meantime, I'll have another manatee steak. Medium rare, please.

[FreePoster]

So recent 5 year temps in the US have been a mere 0.03C greater than in the 1930s. Hmmmm.

Yeah. Considering how this data is collected, does any serious person truly believe that these distinctions are beyond the margin of error? I mean, they have to be well within the margin of error. I just don't believe we have such well-controlled data that we can know whether it was a degree hotter or colder a hundred years ago. I don't even have that much faith in the recording of yesterday's tempurature. Imagine if the weatherman came on the TV tonight and said, "Sorry folks. Yesterday I said Thursday's high was 75, but actually it was closer to 74." You would ask, "Is he being serious?"

[eyedigress]

I gave it to Phil Valentine early today. 8/11 (Talk radio in Nashville) I don’t know if he discussed it though.

[sauropod]

review

[flat]

I would not be just a nuffin’
My head all full of stuffin’
My heart all full of pain
I would dance and i’d be merry
Life would be a ding-a-derry
If I only had a brain

a. g.

[freekitty]

The Scam Artist.

[Perchant]

including, get this - a latent Y2K bug

They use their dry run hoax to adjust their GW hoax. Nice!

They already scored their political points by the fear they were able to generate with the old numbers. By now reducing those numbers, they create a cooler base point for which to generate temperature fear in the future.

They fudged the number upwards so much that they hit a ceiling and they could no longer keep falsifying the data to show increasingly higher temps and they need to show increasing temperatures or the hoax fails. This convenient readjustment gives them a little wiggle room.

[Shanty Shaker]

Ground temperature readings are a very inaccurate method of predicting global warming. To really show a baseline you have to have readings of the entire atmosphere at multiple intervals, say.. every 100 ft or so. Currently it is not possible to achieve such a reading so it is fair enough to say we CANNOT posit any valid theories on the the future weather patterns. For example, I can change the temperature locally by laying a thermometer on a painted board. This shows man can affect the temperature but is quite dishonest to base further conclusions on this knowledge.

[LibLieSlayer]

Rush stated a study yesterday, that said 5 out of the 6 hottest years on record were prior to WWII.

LLS

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off

Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown

New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH

Ping me if you find one I've missed.

---

[lepton]

Rush stated a study yesterday, that said 5 out of the 6 hottest years on record were prior to WWII.

I read Rush's transcript. He was very sloppy with a lot of things, but I don't think he said 5 out of 6. It was 5 out of 10.

Anthony Watts put together the following:

Top 10 GISS U.S. Temperature deviation (deg C) in New Order 8/7/2007

Year Old New
1934 1.23 1.25
1998 1.24 1.23
1921 1.12 1.15
2006 1.23 1.13
1931 1.08 1.08
1999 0.94 0.93
1953 0.91 0.90
1990 0.88 0.87
1938 0.85 0.86
1939 0.84 0.85

Here’s the old order of top 10 yearly temperatures.

Year Old New
1998 1.24 1.23
1934 1.23 1.25
2006 1.23 1.13
1921 1.12 1.15
1931 1.08 1.08
1999 0.94 0.93
1953 0.91 0.90
2001 0.90 0.76
1990 0.88 0.87
1938 0.85 0.86

[LibLieSlayer]

You are correct. The conclusion is the same though!

LLS

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From the archives:

A 1240-Year Record of Arctic Temperatures