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

[Rush4U]

Excellent post.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

fyi

[VOA]

bump

[az_gila]

“To really show a baseline you have to have readings of the entire atmosphere at multiple intervals, say.. every 100 ft or so.”

---

Haven’t we been taken radiosonde (balloon) readings for a long time (from the 40’s?) twice a day from very specific locations. Since most of these are Air Force bases, they have remained pretty consistent.

http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/naconf.html

Anyone have any more details?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Related thread:

A little perspective on the U.S. and global temperature records

[Shanty Shaker]

It would be interesting to see that data modeled. Even more enlightening would to see the temperature data over the ocean be factored in.

Needless to say, it is very arrogant to presume that the current data set is complete and correct.

[mamelukesabre]

This data doesn’t jive with what my memories tell me. I remember a drought in the late eighties that gave us temps so high in the midwest, that things virtually shut down for the weekends in summertime. I remember temps of 108 to 110 in areas that normally rarely see 100. I remember fairly large metropolitan areas were like ghost towns. No one was moving around, no cars on the streets, no animals in sight, no kids playing.

I distinctly remember having to pick up a friend and drive him across town about 3pm on a saturday because the heat killed his car. I think the official temp that day was 109 WITHOUT a heat index. My car started having trouble and we made it by shutting down the A/C and turning on the heater, rolling down the windows, and not stopping for any red lights or stop signs. It was miserable. We were young and couldn't afford good cars.

We never saw another car moving around in the entire city. Good thing too since we ran every light we saw. I even remember saying something like “I bet I could drive the wrong way all the way down such and such a street”. Then I did it.

[blam]

Rush did a good job of explaining the lie of the 1998 story. My neighbor who normally does not know or follow such things gave me a good 'run-down' on the story because he heard it on Rush.

I didn't bother to tell him that I'd heard it too a couple hours earlier.

[From The Deer Stand]

WHAT??? No global warming??? How could Algore be wrong?

[lepton]

The conclusion is the same though!

Some conclusions are the same. Others are different.

BTW, keep in mind that this isn't the only poke at the GISS data. Much of the GISS "raw" data is data from the USHCN that has already been adjusted. Exactly how much is from that source we can't tell because they don't say.

This revelation of the GISS error came about from examination (still ongoing) of how frequently the USHCN networks sites differed from NOAA standards - especially given that this was a specially selected network advertised as "high quality", and which is used as a "control" for many studies.

For example, it appears that some of the sites sitting next to asphalt have been used as rural sites to demonstrate that urban sites aren't warming much faster than rural ones.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I caught some of the last hour...think Rush mentioned an article in a UK paper that was even claiming that Global Warming was going to have an effect on increased volcanic activity....guess I should see if that got posted....

[driftless2]

I can’t get past the fact that just less than one thousand years ago the earth experienced a very warm period when parts of Greenland were actually green. The little global warming optimum or some name like that. The temperatures were decidedly warmer then they are now. So if warmer temperatures are supposed to kill us and the earth, then why aren’t we and every other living thing all dead from that previous warm period? No one in Big Media will ask much less answer that question.

[Marine_Uncle]

Interesting to say the least.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Ben digging on this story...see this:

New Scandal Erupts over NOAA Climate Data

There needs to be some public hangings.....