Your 1st graph is BS, it's showing 2002 was as warm as 1998 and 2004 was nearly a whole .1 higher than 1998, which is news to me, someone is playing with the numbers there. Not to mention they always clip the end off the 5 year moving average at 2003 so you don't see the leveling off at the end.
MY SHORT SUMMARY: The warm temperatures of the 1930s were extremely unusual in the United States. This has been known for quite awhile.
Translation: Anything that embarrassingly contradicts global warming we will just dismiss and chalk it up to being unusual or an anomaly, this way we can still keep our religion and continue to push for world socialism
The adjustments to the United States temperature record do not significantly change the current climate understanding
The hell it doesn't. Back in that time period the United States was pretty much the only country keeping accurate temperature records on a consistent basis(i.e. How many weather stations were there in China, Africa, South America, Antarctica, etc. consistently taking accurate temperature readings in the 1930's). If they can't get the United States right, why should we believe the rest of the world is without error?
I don't really want to be attacked for my political motivations for posting this, because I don't have any.
You post from and believe every word without question from Realclimate.org, which is hosted by Al Gore's very own campaign manager and you have no political agenda, suuurrre.
According to the GISS global analysis, 2005 (not 2004) was warmer than 1998. You missed the point (2003) that's mostly covered by the red moving average line. For more on that:
Global Temperature Trends: 2005 Summation
"The highest global surface temperature in more than a century of instrumental data was recorded in the 2005 calendar year in the GISS annual analysis. However, the error bar on the data implies that 2005 is practically in a dead heat with 1998, the warmest previous year."
There is indeed a discrepancy between the 2005 temperature anomaly shown at the link above and the one shown on the graph to which your posting refers (the one in my original composition). Both of these are directly linked from GISS. The temperature anomaly in 2005 is above 0.6 C in the graph posted here, and below 0.6 C in the GISS 2005 temperature summation. I have no idea if this is a plotting error or due to a revision to the data. I have always based my understanding on the 2005 summation, which indicated that 2005 was very slightly warmer than 1998 in the GISS analysis (NOAA had 2005 just below 1998). [Note that the 2005 summation probably hasn't been revised since January 12, 2006. The graph at the top of the article was revised on January 8, 2007. I find that interesting, because it may imply that in the current GISS analysis, 2005 is now warmer than originally reported in the 2005 summation!]
As for 2002: Global Temperature Trends: 2002 Summation
Translation: Anything that embarrassingly contradicts global warming we will just dismiss and chalk it up to being unusual or an anomaly,
I still have yet to see anything that embarrasingly contradicts global warming. Your misconceptions certainly don't.
Back in that time period the United States was pretty much the only country keeping accurate temperature records on a consistent basis(i.e. How many weather stations were there in China, Africa, South America, Antarctica, etc. consistently taking accurate temperature readings in the 1930's)?
I refer you to the Global Historical Climatology Network and this PDF document: Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) quality control of monthly temperature data. Judge for yourself. From the latter document: "Despite the problems encountered with various source data sets and individual time series, evidence was repeatedly seen, in both the digital archive and in old documents such as the 1894 Deutsche Ueberseeische Meteorologische Beobachtungen in Deutsch-Ost-Afrika (Peterson and Griffiths, 1997), that weather observations were generally made very meticulously. There are 4.7 million station months of temperature data in GHCN starting in 1701 and continuing to the present. This embodies the systematic observations of our environment by tens of thousands of individuals over centuries of human history."
Speaking of RealClimate, the discussion in "6 Easy Steps" is actually quite illuminating. Did you know that there are two reasons that the GHCN temperature record is substantially unaffected by the revisions to the GISS data? See the responses to #110 and #112 to see why.