1998 was not the hottest year in US history. It was 1934.

[David S]

August 09, 2007
Revised Temp Data Reduces Global Warming Fever
Marc Sheppard

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.


Full story at:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/revised_temp_data_reduces_glob.html

[WalterMitty]

that was followed by one of the coldest winters on record...1935-36.

[David S]

Walter from the latest graph 1935-36 is certainly not  anywhere near a record for cold temps.
Looking at the graph there isn't much difference between the early 1930s and the current time.
In my opinion the global data should also be carefully examined to see if it was created using the same techniques that created the erroneous US Data.



This isn't the first time that we were presented with erroneous graphs which purport to demonstrate the anthropogenic warming argument. The famous Hockey Stick is another example. Whether these are errors or deliberate falsifications we don't know. But the proposals made by Gore and others will be very costly and will probably affect the way we live (although perhaps not the way Gore lives). So they better be damn sure they know what they're talking about.

[CultureKing]

wow, some people just cant accept scientific consensus and the facts.

[David S]

wow, some people just cant accept scientific consensus and the facts.

The graph I showed comes not from me but from NASA. I assume you accept them as a reliable source. Bear in mind that they recently changed the graph to correct errors which were pointed out to them.

The claim is made by the global warming crowd that only the increase in CO2 could account for the current warm weather. OK then what caused the warm weather in the early 30s? The temperatures then were comparable to today's but the CO2 level was much lower.
CO2 did not cause it, so it had to be something else. Is it possible that the "something else is also causing the current warm weather?

Understand that the data in that graph was behind much of the scientific consensus you speak of. Now if the data changes, does it not follow that the conclusions might change?

[WalterMitty]

Walter from the latest graph 1935-36 is certainly not  anywhere near a record for cold temps.
Looking at the graph there isn't much difference between the early 1930s and the current time.
In my opinion the global data should also be carefully examined to see if it was created using the same techniques that created the erroneous US Data.



This isn't the first time that we were presented with erroneous graphs which purport to demonstrate the anthropogenic warming argument. The famous Hockey Stick is another example. Whether these are errors or deliberate falsifications we don't know. But the proposals made by Gore and others will be very costly and will probably affect the way we live (although perhaps not the way Gore lives). So they better be damn sure they know what they're talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_cold_wave

[CultureKing]

wow, some people just cant accept scientific consensus and the facts.

The graph I showed comes not from me but from NASA. I assume you accept them as a reliable source. Bear in mind that they recently changed the graph to correct errors which were pointed out to them.

The claim is made by the global warming crowd that only the increase in CO2 could account for the current warm weather. OK then what caused the warm weather in the early 30s? The temperatures then were comparable to today's but the CO2 level was much lower.
CO2 did not cause it, so it had to be something else. Is it possible that the "something else is also causing the current warm weather?

Understand that the data in that graph was behind much of the scientific consensus you speak of. Now if the data changes, does it not follow that the conclusions might change?

You need to understand one thing, it is called GLOBAL warming, not US warming. While specific years in certain regions may buck the trend, overall the temperature of the planet have gone up.
Go here to see how NASA (your source), proves that fact:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Look at the picture as a whole, the US isn't the only country in the world and the weather here isn't representative of the planet.

[Person Man]

Its really pulling on straws where specific years have to be cited. I mean, one year on one continent does not a counterargument make.

[MasterJedi]

Ever since the Little Ice Age (around the 1700's) it has continuously gotten warmer worldwide.

[Person Man]

Ever since the Little Ice Age (around the 1700's) it has continuously gotten warmer worldwide.

Just because its naturally getting warmer on its own doesn't mean that we are not contributing to it. Shouldn't the conjunction of these problems make this something a more concerning problem instead of a less concerning problem?

[2952-0-0]

Those big insurance companies who urge for less emissions are part of a communist conspiracy. They "claim" that more global warming will mean they will raise premiums and go broke in 50 years, BUT 1T'S JUST 4 PL0T T0 M4K3 US 4LL P4Y H1GH3R R4T3S!!!111 4ND D4MN 4LL TH31R SC13NT1F1C 3V1D3NC3!! 1 0NLY TRUST T3H RUSH L1MB4UGH R4D10 SH0W 4 4LL MY SC13NC3!!111!

[??????????]

Global warming? Whether it exists or not, I don't really care much about it.

[ilikeverin]

Are we extending America First to global warming now?

I mean, all things considered, global warming will probably be a good thing to the countries that have, in large part, caused it, or at least most of them (coastal areas have a bit more to be worried about, but farmers will love it).  It's the equatorial regions we should all be worried about.

[2952-0-0]

I don't think farmers will appreciate long droughts that cause the soil to crack. What's for sure is that disasters are becoming more and more severe as a result of humans (either settling in danger zones or altering the environment). In China, deforestation has caused annual floods to become more severe, so that every year the flood is deemed as the worst in a century. Thus arises a saying that "once a century disasters occur every year".

[David S]

The issue I raise is what I said in my second post:

"In my opinion the global data should also be carefully examined to see if it was created using the same techniques that created the erroneous US Data."

Was the same methodology used to generate the global data as the US Data? If so it could end up looking the same as the US data once it is corrected. I see that the global data says it was updated today but it does not say if any such corrections were applied. They don't just use the raw data. They "massage it" to account for heat island effect, missing data and some other factors. It was the massaging part that was in error in the US data. So the question is; was the global data developed the same way?

[CultureKing]

The issue I raise is what I said in my second post:

"In my opinion the global data should also be carefully examined to see if it was created using the same techniques that created the erroneous US Data."

Was the same methodology used to generate the global data as the US Data? If so it could end up looking the same as the US data once it is corrected. I see that the global data says it was updated today but it does not say if any such corrections were applied. They don't just use the raw data. They "massage it" to account for heat island effect, missing data and some other factors. It was the massaging part that was in error in the US data. So the question is; was the global data developed the same way?

The fact that hundreds of different models have been done (in addition to the NASA world model) and all point towards a rising temperature should be enough for you. These are the facts and they are the best that we have to go off of, also even if one year in particular may be hotter than the next few years it could just be an anomily in a trend of gradually warming temperatures. The key is to look at the overall picture.

[© tweed]

great news! now we can emit all the co2, methane, nitrous oxide and whatever else we want into the environment since it clearly has no effect on anything in the short or long term.

[Sam Spade]

The issue I raise is what I said in my second post:

"In my opinion the global data should also be carefully examined to see if it was created using the same techniques that created the erroneous US Data."

Was the same methodology used to generate the global data as the US Data? If so it could end up looking the same as the US data once it is corrected. I see that the global data says it was updated today but it does not say if any such corrections were applied. They don't just use the raw data. They "massage it" to account for heat island effect, missing data and some other factors. It was the massaging part that was in error in the US data. So the question is; was the global data developed the same way?

Hard to tell without knowledge of the factors used in the analysis from the weather stations.  Or quite frankly data from the weather stations themselves.

Still, it is quite apparent that this is not a subject that anyone at this site seems well qualified to discuss, as shown by the comments above.

[ilikeverin]

I don't think farmers will appreciate long droughts that cause the soil to crack.

No, but they will appreciate the longer growing seasons; because we have the technology and the money, we will probably be able to weather that weather quite easily, when compared to African farmers (who have much bigger issues to deal with).  Look, I completely agree that humans affect the environment strongly (you gave good examples); I'd just like to see more nuance in the liberal positions.  This is also partly because I would expect some change on the parts of liberals, while those who do not believe global warming exists are usually intransigents who desperately wish to believe the problem doesn't exist (yes, {person who replies to this post complaining}, this includes you).  If we insist, wrongly, that global warming will be a terrible calamity in the personal lives of all people, then we will rightly be called alarmist.  There will be some, perhaps even many, especially in this country, who will see mostly positive effects on a day-to-day basis, and that's something we can't just dismiss.

[12th Doctor]

Ever since the Little Ice Age (around the 1700's) it has continuously gotten warmer worldwide.

Just because its naturally getting warmer on its own doesn't mean that we are not contributing to it. Shouldn't the conjunction of these problems make this something a more concerning problem instead of a less concerning problem?

No, because if human activity only affects the situation a little bit, then all the hysteria over it is meaningless.  All real evidence suggests that human activity has little to do with overall global temperatures.

Look, I agree that we should conserve fuel, go to renewable energy, rely on public transit more, but for different reasons.  Hystria doesn't help reasonable people who want to do things the, it hurts, because, first off, once people become convinced that a problem is over-hyped, thy lose interest, and second because ideological enemies use that hysteria as a weapon against a cause.  In the long course of human events, very little was ever really accomplished by "taking to the streets".

That's not to mention how much money is caught up in all this global warming BS, both in intellectual circles and corperate America.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Far more relevant is which year is the hottest year on record for THE EARTH AS A WHOLE, as opposed to a select 1% of the area of the Earth. From the same page as your graph, we see these similar 2 graphs.  2005 and then 1998 are the two warmest years on record. The smaller the region of the Earth you are comparing, the less statistically significant it is.

[Person Man]

Far more relevant is which year is the hottest year on record for THE EARTH AS A WHOLE, as opposed to a select 1% of the area of the Earth. From the same page as your graph, we see these similar 2 graphs.  2005 and then 1998 are the two warmest years on record. The smaller the region of the Earth you are comparing, the less statistically significant it is.

Yes. Global Warming is Global Warming, not America Warming. I don't know why people are always trying to cover it up, its not like reacting to it will actually hurt the economy in the long run. Maybe those who aren't really patriotic are trying to stay on the oil dole and not pay taxes, but taxes will stay stay as they are...its just that the gravy train will go from those who keep material culture stagnant to those that will provide material progress.

[memphis]

Whether an individual year was the hottest or not is completely irrelavant. Exceptional years will always exist. At issue is the average temperature over many consecutive years. This is what climate change is all about.

[MODU]

I saw the article today that NASA corrected their figures.  That was a good catch by an outsider.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So for less than 1% of the world's surface area, it turns out that 1934 was 0.02 degrees warmer than 1998, instead of 1998 being 0.01 degrees warmer than 1934. This changes everything!