Watts Up With That?

Congratulations to both you and Steve, Anthony. Of course the propagandists will poo-poo this as illegitimate research because they didn't do it. And of course no clear trend in 20th century surface temperature emerges as a result.

Where's the global warming??

Correct me if I am wrong. From this information it appears that the last twenty years of global warming -- which has been argued as not congruent with sunspot cycles -- is, indeed, completely anthropogenic. That is, the warming trend formerly reported was either false or overstated and was produced entirely by humans fidgeting and fudging numbers while playing statistical games with computer programs.

I do not wish to be unfair but it seems to me that global warming science as it is currently known is largely practiced by the seat of the pants in air conditioned rooms at computer terminals.

There are two basic branches of all science -- theoretical and empirical. Theoretical science is valuable and exciting but worthless without reliable, real world empirical data.

Since it appears that no one has ever tried to do any reasonable quality control or quality evaluation of surface stations, and considering the hostile tone of the detractors of your station survey, and considering the unpublished massaging methods used on USHCN temperature data, it appears that there are some real and significant problems in the global warming science community.

Not the least of which is credibility.

Anthony...congrats! Keep pushing the (thermal) envelope!

By the way, Don Kostuch is a surveying animal. Kudos to him as well for finding a site that pushed the debate over the edge.

Just wondering - how come NASA gets away with not posting their software & correction data? If their work is not reproducible or checkable, how is it called science?

Frank,

That my freind, is the 64,000 dollar question.

Yet, it is the reality of the situation.

Anthony

Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts vs. 95% of the scientific community.
I wish I would have put a $20 spot on that fight.

Are you planning on redrawing this nasty bit of propaganda?

Anthony, congratulations! Successes like these are super motivators for doing more surveys later this month. We will be reporting from the road in Nevada, Idaho and Utah. I am recruiting some folks to do surveys in Montana and Wyoming. I will keep you posted on my success.

Anthony,

You guys should be commended for a job well done so far...I completely agree that good science should be reproducible and subject to strong peer review...

However, I think that some of the comments being made (by others) are making way too much of this news ...Remember that this data is USA only, not global temps...A significant upward temperature trend is still present over the past twenty years, which was clearly stated on CA...

Let's take a look at all data (especially global) and ensure its reliability...But be careful of making too much of this..

Thank you

Matt

Let me be the 8th to congratualte you (and St, Mac and the Drs. P.)!

Now for all those nasty foreign sites! (Are you maybe going to 'rassle up some international volunteers?)

"Yet, it is the reality of the situation."

The reality of the situation is that anyone who refuses to divulge methods or data has lost the argument forthwith--by automatic forfeit.

That's even true in my own field (history). Cough up or get out. Period.

It goes without saying. So how in heck does one find oneself having to say it?

Not only that, but isn't that stuff paid for by taxpayer? Don't they have a legal obligation to cough up, quite apart from all the other (more pressing) scientific reasons?

Re: "Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts vs. 95% of the scientific community."

Now isn't this statement interesting, where does this dubious 95% figure come from and why does the anonymous author couch it in adversarial terms?

Didn't NASA just change their data and credit Mr. McIntyre?

It comes from a recent quote by California's Attorney General, Jerry Brown. (I believe he was referencing the recent Newsweek cover story but who can say?)

NASA admitting to a mistake to a private individual isn't exactly exculpicating them from their part in the greater crime of inventing a false crisis, which is currently being used to pummel the business community in my home state.

I'll be looking forward to the press release issued to the world at large by NASA regarding these new developments, then I will judge whether or not they are honorable seekers of truth.

By the way, isn't NASA GISS a government funded agency and therefore subject to FOIA? Wouldn't the formulae, corrections and source codes be recoverable under a proper FOIA request? If not, forgive my ignorance on this matter, me being foreign and so on. :)

Congratulations! I have been reporting some of your surveys on my EM News Blog and so I am delighted that errors and misrepresentation of climate data are being brought under closer scrutiny.

Global warming is a misnomer, instead our planet and all the other planets in our solar system are undergoing evolutionary change driven by solar, cosmic and galactic energy.

What we are seeing can be explained in terms of electromagnetic effects driving change NOT temperatures.

"Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts vs. 95% of the scientific community."

There's an old anecdote about Einstein. A hundred (or a thousand or ten thousand) Nazi scientists got together and signed a paper denouncing Relativity.

Einstein is said to have remarked, "if they had been right, they would have needed only one scientist!"

"Now isn't this statement interesting, where does this dubious 95% figure come from"

The "consensus"?

"and why does the anonymous author couch it in adversarial terms?"

Well . . . it IS a controversy!

"Didn't NASA just change their data and credit Mr. McIntyre?"

Yes they did and so they should have.

They should do more (such as cough up data and methods). They credit St.Mac.; now they should enlighten him.

The NOAA stats are still show a 0.06C increase per decade, for the US same as before, with 1998 and 2005 leaving i934 in the dust(bowl).

Anthony
What's up with the CA site? It's been down for a while now. Not a hit as with your site, I hope.

Good stuff. Let me make my prediction that there are more surprises to come.

Anthony thanks for your efforts and great research into the GW myth. It is amazing when the facts start coming together, the global warming myth is evaporating. The leftie greenies will still be blowing smoke and hot air, but the truth will prevail. Even though the UN is pushing the GW myth, just like the food for oil scandal, the politicos want to extract money out of the U.S. and other nations for something that really does not exist (or can be proved is cause by man or Co2). The scientist pushing GW are using dooms day scare tactics to get grant money.

I do not deny climate changes. We think we know it all and can out guess the good Lord, but the world and climate belongs to the God of this Universe.
God bless and keep up the great research. Check out my new blog: Green Chemicals are not always Green.
Steve

This proves the point that global warming since 1990 is totally man made! Man made because of errors.

Perhaps this explains the delay with the USHCN Version 2 dataset that was suppose to come out in July?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/

Great research. I am from England,has this data been released to the papers in America. I guess they won't be interested anyway eventually all this info will filter through.

Rush Limbaugh quoted you right off the bat in todays show.
But that is easy, Rush has been calling BS on AGW since forever.
I wonder where the global warming media juggernaught will crack first?

Those offsets are still pretty small.

Considering the number of detected microsite violations so far (plus the possible minimzation of UHIE), I'd be surprised if much greater offsets will not soon be due.

Let me also join in with a hearty congratulations! I've been following the proceedings at Climate Audit and I must say that it's been an eye-opener.

As Matt said above, though, the adjustments are for the US only. Of course, that didn't stop the media and others earlier this year from trumpeting the fact that 2006 (!)was the warmest year in the US:

http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2007/jan07/noaa07-001.html

Then, of course, 2006 fell when revised data were rolled out in May:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2006/ann/ann06.html

Are the media outlets now going to correct themselves again? I'm not holding my breath...

As for the rest of the world, I have always wondered about the state of the temperature data from remote areas of the earth - e.g. India, China, Africa, open oceans. I can only imagine how poor many of these sites are compared with the USHCN. How are the global temperatures corrected, especially for the previous century? There certainly must be severe UHI effects in places with large populations like China and India. Questions, questions...

Frank K.

I've been told that climateaudit.org has been disabled by a DDOS attack. It may be a week before it's back up.

McIntyre's Grenadier Guards and Watts' Light Horse have had rather a spectacular victory. Carry on, gentlemen.

In California, the warming rate is much increased by UHIs and land use measurements. In fact, it may be doubled according to a study by Patzert and LaDochy.

"The scientists found great variations in temperature patterns throughout the state. Average temperatures increased significantly in nearly 54 percent of the stations studied, with human-produced changes in land use seen as the most likely cause. The largest temperature increases were seen in the state's urban areas, led by Southern California and the San Francisco Bay area, particularly for minimum temperatures. Minimum temperatures at some agricultural sites showed increases comparable to some urban areas. Rural, non-agricultural regions warmed the least. The Central Valley warmed slowest, while coastal areas warmed faster, and the southeast desert warmed fastest.

The only area to cool was a narrow band of the state's mainly rural northeast interior. While few stations overall showed decreases in average and minimum temperatures, 13 percent of the stations for which sufficient maximum temperature data were available showed a significant drop in average maximum temperatures, including some urban sites."

From http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070330221144.htm

Until GISS corrects for these non-climatic effects in California and other states, the temperature increase in the US will continue to be overestimated.

The record temperatures of 1931 vs. 1998 don't tell the whole story. Please go to the Goddard Institute's numbers, copy and paste them into an Excel sheet and plot. I see a higher 5-year average-temperature in the last 20 years than in the timeframe before and around WW II. This may be due to the lower number of low-temperature-years. And the decline has not happened yet.

There is lots of room for statistical games but no room for jubilations on any side. Just continue your investigations - they are very valuable.

OK. I'll keep the green light bulbs, but I'm turning the air conditioner back on.

It appears that CA is down because of traffic overload. Mr. Limbaugh apparently mentioned the site and kaboom. I guess I will have to gettalife!

Steve's comment on the cause of CA being down was just posted. I should have been more paranoid. Troubling.

hi

how is the mean taken ?
can this data be made into a us temp graph that shows the actual average
us temp for each year ?

fascinating stuff

regards
nick

The record temperatures of 1931 vs. 1998 don't tell the whole story. Please go to the Goddard Institute's numbers, copy and paste them into an Excel sheet and plot. I see a higher 5-year average-temperature in the last 20 years than in the timeframe before and around WW II.

Compare to 10-year averages. I can't evaluate which is more meaningful, but changing the length of the float makes the curves a lot different.

The 1930s were (minutely) more consistently warm than the 1990s as a set or 2000s as a set.

Obviously this is playing around a bit, and to be discouraged without disclosure...but it's interesting.

Of course none of this means a damn thing unless you can tell us how this revision impacts the measurement of global temperatures, rather than just US temperature.

Anybody...?

Joe,

The US data is considered the best temp record in the world with the best stations.

It will be interesting to see if the rest of the world gets audited.

Actually, I suspect Australia has the best maintained climate network in the world:

The Australian Reference Climate Station network:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/reference.shtml

They have already documented their sites online - this documentation could be improved with additional direction views etc., but it is a step in the right direction.

It is a pity, but it seems to me that either GISS includes various stations not in this well documented network in their analysis, or they apply some of their weird 'adjustments', as they always seem to produce warmer anomoly maps than the BoM does.

A caller to Limbaugh's program yesterday made an interesting point. He said that, when the Soviet Union imploded, a couple hundred temperature recording sites were abandoned due to lack of money and resources to run them. I hadn't ever heard such a claim before, but that many stations closing in a short period of time could have had significant consequences on global surface temperature data, depending on where the stations were located. There's an awful lot of the former Societ Union that's extremely cold most of the time. Anyone know any more about this interesting claim?

To answer JoeBloe, I think the real significance here is two-fold:

(1) There must be complete transparency in the methods used to derive the temperature histories used for climatological analysis. That is, raw data, algorithms, source code, etc. Why did Steve M. have to "reverse engineer" the corrections to discover the anomaly? GISS should have provided him with the source code - if or course they were truly interested in understanding the problem. The fact that they still are holding out on the source code speaks volumes...

(2) When the media (via NOAA or GISS press releases) say something like "...this year's average temperature was the highest ever recorded...", we know now that this is not entirely true! The raw data undergoes extensive "corrections" for various effects such as time of observation, urbanization effects (to the exent that's known), data outliers (recorded temperatures are clearly in error), and missing data. Much of this is necessary, but even with the corrections, there will always be some level of uncertainty in the results, which typically is not mentioned in these press releases. And "highest recorded" certainly does not logically mean "highest ever" - tree ring and other proxies notwithstanding...

It is my own personal belief that a significant fraction of the "warming" detected in the last century can be attributed to progressive alteration of the microclimates surrounding the stations used to collect the climate data. Imagine for moment you have a camera at a typical US station which recorded a photo of the site (like those on sufacestations.org) every year since, say 1900. What would you see? In many cases, these sites were likely in the middle of nowhere for decades. Then development crept in and the sites became surrounded by roads, buildings, and people. Of course, the impact of urbanization is supposed to be accounted for in the temperature adjustments, but these effects can only be modeled imperfectly given the lack of information about the development histories of the individual sites.

Frank K.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is only applicable to the United States...the US accounting for somewhere around 8% of the Earth's total mass. Last I checked the issue was "global warming," not "United States warming."

In other words, you have a massive variable that will no doubt have a significant impact on your numbers once they're factored in.

Simply put, your Popperian attempt at providing a counterexample that calls into question prevailing the climatological paradigm falls on its face by simple logically fallacy: you cannot generalize or challenge an entire set by simply addressing very small, singular outlier; nor can you provide a factual counterexample via inductive logic.

As an aside, wasn't this around the time of the Dust Bowl?

"With all that Exxon money, would think Climate Audit could buy a better server."

It's not like they are getting the BILLIONS of funding from the US government. Exxon is only shelling out a few millions.

TCO,

My good friend. Suppose this: I kick you in the groin and you whine. After you catch your breath you protest that I have fought unfairly.

And I respond: you should have bought a better Groin protector

BLAMING THE VICTIM for any attack is a diversion that only sociopaths engage in.

Please TCO, you have other issues with steveMc. Valid or not, they are LOGICALLY disconnected from the issue of DDOS.

At times we agreeably disagree. But at times I want to put your comments here

http://forum.defcon.org/archive/index.php/f-37.html

Joe,
Remember that AGW crowd blames the US as the prime contributor to CO2. And they correlated global warming with the increase in CO2. If 40% of the top 10 years are now huddled in the 30's that certainly decouples that relationship. But don't worry... the AGW crowd will change the topic from AGW to Climate Change. That way all bases are covered - cooling and warming. Regardless we (the US) are responsible and need to be reigned in by the UN and Gore.

Grow up, the earth is flat too.

JOHN

The media has always referred to 1998 as the "warmest year on record" for the globe, not for the US. (at least, until 2005 when 2005 became statistically tied with 1998 for warmest year). This result (a change by 0.02 degrees for a small portion of the globe) will not impact the global conclusions in the slightest.

Sergei: Since CO2 is well-mixed globally, it doesn't matter where it is emitted, the warming effects are global not local. Nor is the science of global warming a science of correlating one trend with another: it is a science derived from basic physics and radiative forcing, which is why Arrhenius predicted possible global warming from increases in CO2 in 1898, long before CO2 started increasing...

Just one thing to keep in mind. This is just *one* data point and doesn't actually 'debunk' global warming. Part of the thing to keep in mind is that global temperatures are what is important - not US only temperatures. This correction is actually relatively minor only causing a change of around 1% to 2% in the data. As such, this doesn't, in and of itself, actually provide any falsifying evidence.

One last thing,

People have to make a decision. While climate change may or may not be real we still have to make a choice about what we are going to do. If we do nothing there are two outcomes: If climate change is real (regardless of the cause) then we're screwed. If its not real, then we save a lot of money and life is good. If we do something then there are two outcomes: Climate change isn't real and we slow down the world economy to some degree possibly resulting in a depression. Climate change is real and we mitigate the worst effects of climate change at the price of slowing down the world economy.

What you need to do is evaluate the various risks, the costs associated with mitigating those risks, and the costs associated with doing nothing. Personally, I look at it like I do my home owners insurance. My house is 120 years old and hasn't burned up, fallen down, or been flooded out yet. It doesn't mean it won't be but to be honest the risk is pretty low. However, if something does happen and I don't have insurance I'm completely screwed paying off 180k+ on a house I no longer can live in. While I'd rather do something else with the $1k or so I pay in insurance and even though I know the risk is small I still pay it - because the risk is still there.

If the insurance cost $20k a year I'd, without a doubt, risk the fire because I couldn't afford $20k a year for an admittedly low risk.

So you have to ask yourself, are you 100% sure completely and totally convinced without the slightest shadow of a doubt that there is no risk from climate change? If you believe that there is a chance you are wrong you have to ask yourself how much you are willing to spend to buy yourself some insurance - just in case you are wrong.

Since the only people I know who are right about everything are Jesus and my wife I'm willing to entertain the idea that I might be wrong about climate change. As such, I think it might actually be a good idea to take out a reasonably priced insurance policy.

i'm a triffle confused - what I've read (and perhaps misunderstood) thusfar suggests that this "y2k" problem affected data from 2000 and on. that being the case, how does that change 1998 vs 1934 or any other pre-2000 year?

After reading daily diary entries of a Norwegian-American who chronicled for 45 years from 1910 to 1954, his golf scores, money spent, temperature, inches of rain and velocity of wind, I would come to the same conclusion. According to S.A. Olsness, 1934 was by far the hottest year that drove many North Dakota farmers off the land. Thanks for this blog to confirm what I already knew!!! He didn't call it global warming back then, he called it an "eternal inferno."

Re: One last thing, one more one last thing. Where in your analytical frame work do you consider that warming might have have positive consequences?

Gentlemen,

I congratulate Mr. Steven McIntyre. This is how scientific progress is made; by replicating experiments and confirming them or contradicting them where required.

I concur that other data should be checked as well. I understand that the collapse of the Soviet Union led to an economic depression and the closing down of lots of weather recording stations. If true, I suspect merely removing the presumably cooler weather reports from these northern areas from the worldwide sets of data, would tend to bias continuing studies. Such studies based on the set of continuing to report more southern and warmer sites, might show warming that is a statistical chimera. I urge Mr. McIntyre, (or others), to see what the statistical effect really would be.

In conjunction, with the NASA, these changes Would change worldwide temperature history. Alternatively, it might confirm it. Either way, It is Science that needs be done.

Quoth TCO:

Of course none of this means a damn thing unless you can tell us how this revision impacts the measurement of global temperatures, rather than just US temperature.

Why can't climate scientists do proper error checking? The US GISS temp data has major errors and nobody in "the consensus" detected them. Considering the poor peer review the MBH hockey stick got from those same "scientists" though, that's par for the course.

So, thanks to McIntyre, the hockey stick became a total fiasco for the warmmongers (especially for Michael Mann's reputation). Now the despised skeptic who proved that the HS was scientific fabulism has debunked Hansen's treasured "1998 HOTTEST YEAR EVER" meme. And on the same day this story appeared too:

Global warming is forecast to set in with a vengeance after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998, the warmest year on record, scientists reported on Thursday.

Finally, if the US data is so dodgy, imagine how bad the rest of the world's temp record keeping has been. We need a Global Climate Audit ASAP!

> As such, this doesn't, in and of itself, actually provide any falsifying evidence.

Oh sure it does. At least the popular press, Al Gore, case for global warming. Let's not conflate that with the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming which is far from decided.

It's the people who came up with the phrase "global warming denier" to stifle dissent by implying the parallel to Holocaust deniers that take it on the chin and for that I am truly grateful.

I look at things in many a different way...for instance...
How do the temps compare in 5 year overlapping blocks?
1880-1885, 1882-1887, 1884-1889, etc.
How does the data compare in 10 year overlapping blocks?
1880-1890, 1885-1895, etc.
Take the top 10 highest temps and the top 10 lowest temps, plot them in regards to the data sets above (5 and 10 year blocks) and see what happens.
Run a historic line and plot in volcano eruptions, tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, and more, and see what that does to the data...
And if CO2 is being blamed, and the US is supposedly at fault by CO2 production, what about the reverse? Rainforests are being cut down at an alarming rate and plants reverse CO2 back into O2...so what kind of factor does that have (and this will run globally, but affect the US locally - so calculate that in and plot to the graphs created above...and add in population statistics...
What do we see when this is done? To me, it looks like, on the over-all scale of things, people have minimal impact on the climate...there is a slight change, but at the viewed rate, it will take hundreds of years for the climate to actually change enough for us to worry...

Chris,

You have mischaracterized the issues...

Climate change is real. It always has been and it always will be. The earth is not a steady-state climate machine.

The question at hand is whether or not the earth is getting hotter. If yes, how much hotter does our best scientific guestimates suggest it will get?

Right now we are not getting our best scientific guestimates. We're getting a bunch of crap based upon crap data - GIGO.

But let's just say the GIGO issue didn't exist. Let's say we had good data and quality science. Next we'd want to know how much hotter earth would get and for how long. Right now we have no idea.

Next we'd want to estimate the effects of a world made X deg hotter over time period Y for duration Z.

That way we could make a best guess at the ramifications and the scale of any potential effort to migigate the problem if, in fact, it is a problem. There are some who seem to claim that both man and other species (with specific exceptions, of course) thrive much better in warmth than cold. Maybe an earth warmed by X deg would be a BETTER place.

But let's assume it wouldn't be a better place. Let's assume that warming of X deg. would be BAD.

Then we'd want to know the cause of the increased heat. The less you know about the cause of a particular problem the less chance there is of fixing it or mitigating the BAD effects.

So, does GW have an "A" for "anthropogenic" in front of it or an "N" for "natural". Is warming caused by man-made CO2 or by urban heat islands or by lawn sprinklers or what? Or are the causes natural? Maybe solar activity, or cosmic rays, or whatever. Or is it some combination and, if so, in what measures.

After we knew all that we might be able to determine if there is any hope of altering anything and at what cost.

To just go off and decide that we need to undertake massive international programs (particularly ones that clobber the US while leaving out China and India) for the sake of "insurance" without any idea of the real nature of the problem (presuming there is a problem) is nothing short of stupid.

I don't live in a flood zone. Not only do I not live in a flood zone but I don't have any sizeable body of water particularly close to my home. Not only that, but my house is atop a small rise. I'd be a fool to buy flood insurance just because a bunch of hyperventilating salesmen are blathering about reports churned up under the GIGO principal.

That stuff about glaciers and the polar ice-caps and Mount Kilimanjaro, pure Photoshop!! Then Katrina was all made up, and now tornadoes in Brooklyn--get out of here!!

They're just trying to attack the business community, because they enjoy that.

I always knew that the only information that is true is the information that I want to be true.

Re: Evan Jones --
"Now isn't this statement interesting, where does this dubious 95% figure come from"

The "consensus"?

"and why does the anonymous author couch it in adversarial terms?"

Well . . . it IS a controversy!

1) Whose "consensus"?

2) Since when was making a surface station survey -- something that has never been done and has been asked to be done by many in the field -- controversial? Perhaps it is controversial to fearful minds with a special agenda.

3) Steve McIntyre's contributions are hardly controversial. If they were, NASA would not have changed the data and credited him.

OK, so there isn't any warming going on at all. Or maybe there is a little or maybe we're even cooling down a little - I don't care. Would you propose that we just stop looking for a replacement for our cars completely? Or crank up the heat or A/C? That's a great idea ... if you are of the false impression that we will be able to extract oil out of the ground AT THE SAME PRICE indefinitely ... and if you think that the Middle East will remain "stable" forever.

Yes, I know we don't get a lot of our oil from there but if a 1% drop in their production can send the crude market in a tail spin then what do you think will happen to our economy if the 5, 10, or 20% of our imports from the region are cut off?

And what do think think will happen to the energy markets when China's population begins entering the First World? Their population is some 3-4 times our population. Where are they going to get their energy imports? You people actually believe this won't impact the situation for the current First World countries?

NOT TO MENTION INDIA'S POPULATION which is some 3 times our population (in the U.S.).....

Whatever people.... You can have your day in the sun (and I do applaud the person's who uncovered this serious oversight), but we STILL have to find alternative solutions no matter how much you want to gloat.

Get over yourselves and start looking at the writing on the wall.....

I am confused. When did the scientific method change? Was it when politicians and marketeers got involved?

So, for those of you who have your head buried in a dark place, here it is:
1.Theorize something
2. "Prove" that it is true
3. Have a group of peers using exactly the same conditions come up with exactly the same results.
4. Have an independent (read "not paid for a conclusion") body review theory, proof, and results.
5. One cannot prove by example alone, but one can disprove by a single example of failure.

When did science and results become a matter of "interpretation"? Why did I study math, physics, and analysis techniques in college if I can cook up a rediculous theory, cook the tests and results, and ask for billions in grants? Oh yeah, and since I was "smart" enough to come up with the theory I now become the only authority, moral or scientifically, to determine what is "correct"?

Clarity is pleasurable. Question facts and motivations.

Retired Spook - A paper / article written by Vincent R. Gray updated in 2003 said "Examination of the data shows that almost all of the 1901-1996 temperature rise for Russia/Soviet Union took place in one year, 1987 to 1988." This was about 3 years before the collapse of the Soviet Union, but two years after Perestroika and Glasnost.

Gray says in another paper "Although some Russian stations have excellent records over a very long time, the service has deteriorated in recent years, together with the rest of the Russian economy. In 1988 there were 244 temperature stations, but in 1989 135 were closed; mainly the smaller ones, leaving only 109 stations. Most of the 91 5°x5° grids in Russia/Siberia in Figure 2 will be represented by single stations. Recent monthly records from Russian stations show many gaps and doubtful figures." In the same paper he notes "Monthly temperature records for the Russian stations show an extreme temperature range of around 60°C. Early measurements are likely to have been in primitive or deprived conditions. Stations would have been operated by political prisoners."

The papers (or articles) mentioned above can be found on www.john-daly.com. At one point on that same site I recall seeing an interesting hypothesis that temperature readings from Siberia pre-Soviet collapse should be suspect because officials had a strong economic incentive to report lower-than-actual temperatures: heating oil subsidies.

So here we have an interesting artifact in Russian / Soviet temperature data that presents itself as a discontinuity not unlike Steve McIntyre's "Y2K bug". In this case the discontinuity may have an economic driver behind it, not a mathematical error. Or the discontinuity may truly be due to climate change.

Re DCB's comments --

"Simply put, your attempt at providing a counterexample that calls into question prevailing the climatological paradigm falls on its face by simple logically fallacy: you cannot generalize or challenge an entire set by simply addressing very small, singular outlier; nor can you provide a factual counterexample via inductive logic."

In a word, sheesh!

Calm down a bit and quit fabricating straw men by which to justify your rants.

What is going on here is a legitimate complaint -- the obfuscation of methods by a preeminent scientific organization that makes public pronouncements of the results of those methods without allowing a thorough examination of them.

Simply put, methinks you doth protest too much.

What is it you are so afraid of? Do you fear the survey of temperature stations, a valid correction of the temperature data, or the storm of controversy and political theater -- of which you are a part -- that may swirl about it?

My guess is that you fear the folks you are attempting to marginalize and manufacture as fallacious contrarians.

Nasa should also get a call out for admitting their mistake and publishing corrected numbers in a timely fashion.

There is considerable discussion on Slashdot.org on this topic and some analysis you might light to see.

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=266463&op=Reply&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=20186073

RE Global warming insurance we have two opions. we can enable alternatives and reduce/utilize waste streams or we can crash the middle class to pump co2 into the ground. I personally don't think we need more Perrier.

"If climate change is real (regardless of the cause) then we're screwed."

Uhh, how exactly are we screwed, now, Chris? So, it's a little bit warmer out, crops grow farther north, some tropical climates get less livable, whatever.

That's really not my definition of "screwed" at all, and totally pales in comparison to gun control and/or an audit by the IRS. Those, may friend, are examples of getting "screwed". Let's keep it real.

I will only believe that you believe in this crap, Chris, if you tell me that you bought some land in Florida at 23 ft msl elevation, or whatever the AlGore prophesizes. It will be beach-front in a few years, right? Put your money where your mouth is, people!

Excellent work. However, I don't think I am being too punctilious by pointing out that your confusing "affects" and "effects" undermines the rigorous tone of the argument.

The unfortunate aspect of the US politcal situation is that it has obscured what the true objective of energy policy in the US should be. The global warming debate is unresolvable scientifically and politically. However, I argue that the true objective of US energy policy should be to grow the economy of the US, but not at the expense of the environment or the providing of wealth to those who endanger national security. Therefore, the number one task should be to develop an energy infrastructure which is not based on use of (or inefficient use) of fossil fuels, and has unlimited growth potential. We could argue about the best way to do this, but the time is right to emphasize nuclear energy, hydrogen production, and fuel cells. The technology to be able to pour water into your gas tank or fuel cell, and have a gallium/aluminum reaction release hydrogen, is here. The byproduct is alluminum oxide, which is then recyled back into alluminum. At 3 dollar a gallon gas, this technology is economic, without further refinement in processes which purify alluminum. Too many ideas to discuss here, but lets move on from the politics and wasteful scientific effort, and start using science to further the economy and environment of humanity.

The NASA GISS webpage is, as of 8-10-2007, still pushing the wrong temperatures at the top of their lungs.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20070208/

Can they please print the correction ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Regarding GW Insurance:

Please don't be giving that shameless huckster Al Gore any new ideas by which to fleece easily deceived suckers.

McIntyre did some work on the Hockey Stick, but he did not 'prove' that it was BS. He found a small error which acccording to three other papers, did njot really matter. Read about it on the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113027943843479277-5reMaU4_37mSf3Us8BhDeHITDyA_20061026.html?mod=blogs

"That stuff about glaciers and the polar ice-caps and Mount Kilimanjaro, pure Photoshop!!"

The shrinking ice pack on Kilimanjaro has nothing to do with global warming.

Evan and others are absolutely correct when they say "The reality of the situation is that anyone who refuses to divulge methods or data has lost the argument forthwith--by automatic forfeit." because all data supporting conclusions must be made available for scrutiny if those conclusions are to have any validity.

Now maybe some of the people posting here who are intellectually honest will similarly push for the release of the "tweaked" govt. computer models of the 9/11 WTC collapses which are still being kept secret.

Because after all the evidence is growing that 9/11 was an inside job, or else you have to explain how the terrorists got demolition materials into all 3 WTCs (including WTC 7 which was never struck by an airplane). MOLTEN STEEL AND/OR IRON IN THE BASEMENTS CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY THE FAITH-BASED OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY, see http://moltenmetalsmokinggun.blogspot.com/

Bruce:

Your link is a couple of years out of date. Here's the latest skinny on the hockey stick and McIntyre's part in busting it.

Highlights:

In 2003, Steven McIntyre, a former mining executive in Toronto, decided to test Mann's claim, made to a Senate committee, that the IPCC's assessment deserved respect because "[t]he IPCC carries out a process for developing its summarization of the understanding of science that leads to one of the most rigorously peer reviewed scientific documents in existence."

McIntyre contacted Mann to get the data for his graph, thinking that they would be appropriately archived and readily available for replication and review. It quickly became more complicated than that, and he ended up having to enlist the University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick in a three-year quest to get basic information. As McKitrick summarized their findings:

"Nature never verified that data were correctly listed: as it happens they weren't. Nature never verified that data archiving rules were followed: they weren't. Nature never verified that methods were accurately stated: they weren't. Nature never verified that stated methods yield the stated results: they don't. Nature undertook only minimal corrections to its publication record after notification of these things, and even allowed authors to falsely claim that their omissions on these things didn't affect their published results. The IPCC's use of the hockey stick was not incidental: it is prominent throughout the 2001 report. Yet they did not subject it to any independent checking. ... They allowed chapter authors to heavily promote their own work with little or no oversight. They published false claims about the hockey stick's statistical robustness and have never made any effort to retract them."

What McIntyre and McKitrick got for bringing this to light, as well as exposing numerous statistical and methodological flaws in the studies including that the studies, was mostly brickbats and scorn by the paleoclimatology community...

So the numbers are wrong, but what if you took it at a philosophic approach? Merely because the numbers are wrong and possibly prove that global warming doesn't exist, does it give us the right to say we should carry on doing what we do?

Clearly the planet is being damaged and you don't need numbers to show that. But clearly, as evidenced in the Dead Sea, if left alone the world can heal itself.

By saying that the numbers are wrong and we don't need to change is ludicrous. At least by raising issues, even if they are incorrect in substance, we can move on and change our ways and make things better.

The mere fact that the only people who stand to benefit from the knowledge that global warming is a shame are the very corporations who caused the problems in the first place should raise warning bells, but then sloppy science is used to support their side as well.

As far as I'm concerned I'd rather take the side of the sloppy science of global warming than the sloppy side of science that is eventually going to lead to more senseless destruction of this planet, all for what? A fistful of dollars.

If you plot NASA's updated data onto a graph, you still see a pretty interesting trend.

http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/08/10/new-nasa-data-still-proves-global-warming-is-real/

Seven of the ten hottest five-year periods have all occurred within the last decade.

Christ, some of you people are dense.

Amidst all your bitching about "propaganda," did anyone actually bother to plot up the old/new datasets and compare them to one-another?

Anyone?

Because it would have taken you all of 2 minutes to do so.

OLD CONUS DATA:
http://uploader.ws/upload/200708/OLD_CONUS.gif

NEW CONUS DATA:
http://uploader.ws/upload/200708/NEW_CONUS.gif

Holy crap, this changes everything!

I agree that all scientist should review their method constantly and should not be influenced by politics on either side.

Global Warming is not only supported by measurements of thermometers in continental US. Other measurement methods are much superior such as the volume in Glaciers or Ice Caps. Their variation is already taking into account the change in the average temperature over the years.

Is the ice melting or not?

I gotta love sites like this, with posters so totally self-unaware that they write "Congratulations to both you and Steve, Anthony. Of course the propagandists will poo-poo this as illegitimate research because they didn't do it."

Damn, I'm dyin'!

That said, McIntyre did do a useful service to NASA--bad data makes climate modeling impossible to do. From my view, this discovery will only improve the evidence for global warming, at least in the long run.

Meeow.
Good job and very interesting revelation.

So where do we go from here?
I'm not about to make a blogment here but there must be a concise and precise report/journal so as to educate the public and to eradicate unintelligent guesses that lead to fights even within my tiny circle of friends.

I will recommend this site for a "must read". Thank you very much.

Deltoid has posted the graphs of the old and the new, corrected dataset. The change is completely insignificant. It is amusing watching children play at scientist here. Kudos to McIntyre for finding this error.

I agree with Bruno's density comment.

According to the new data published by NASA, 1998 is no longer the hottest year ever. 1934 is.

True in the US. 1998 and 2005 are still the hottest years in the global temperature record.

What, pray tell, is the big deal about 1934 being .02 degrees warmer than 1998? This is not a significant difference. We knew the dustbowl years where hot and dry. Are the AGW naysayers now pointing at the temperature record and saying it is accurate to .01 C? You won't be able to deny the upward trend in the coming years.

For a somewhat different account of these events (and their significance) you might want to take a look at

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/

I can't get to Deltoid's gifs. I get a message saying 'unauthorized referer'

TCO,

Yes I know you are capable at the salt in the wound thing, me too I suppose. Probably why we like to joust and jest with each other. No fighting here on Anthony's site. He has a business to run and cannot waste time issuing a time out to us.
See you back on CA when it reopens..
Mosh-pit

Nice posting and comments, all.

The conclusion we can clearly draw is that NASA has been infiltrated by partisans who are no longer scientists.

Fortunately, the scientists who are at NASA are still willing to change their mistakes and publicly admit their error.

The partisans who refuse to divulge data and algorithms are marginalizing themselves.

I've posted an animated GIF comparing the old and new GISS curves here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/toptechwriter/1082052393/

The change is hardly "insignificant".

Here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/toptechwriter/1083024680

Is a curve highlighting the annual mean rather than the 5-year. By any measure, the 1920s and 30s had the wackiest weather ever.

So, now we only have 4 in the 90's and 00's instead of 5 by very slim statistical margins. Still seems like a high number for this guy born in 1964. Why is everyone so happy that 1934 beat 1998? They only switched places...can you say "Big Picture"?

I am surprised of some people commenting; some people seem to want to find some excuse or misinterpretation or mistake to be able to say that the global warming stuff is a lie and thus we should just keep going as usual and let businesses do their own.

Look, even if the global warming theory is wrong, that does not make it right to be polluting half of the world, to be over-using natural resources, destroying forests, etc. So stop trying to find an excuse to use your Hummer without feeling guilty.

The change is hardly "insignificant".

GISTEMP data have error bars, Chris. How would you characterize the change? Do an error analysis and present a numerical argument based on observed data. This is how science is done. I remain utterly unimpressed by this insignificant result.

We know the weather was bad in the 30s in North America. We know the earth is warming now. If you disagree with the scientific consensus on AGW, then tell us what it would take to convince you that AGW is real.

HR,

Thank you for defining what people should feel guilty about. What sexual practices do you recommend for me?

And is my weight in line with what you think is "right"? I'd hate to be eating too much for your tastes, since that too impacts my carbon footprint.

Here is my real world example of the Global Warming effects on Policy.
The State of California just passed legislation based on the Global Warming hysteria that has forced electric bills to be billed by customer usage of kwh in “usage tiers”. Any usage over a certain mystery amount, that the nuts in the state legislature determined would reduce Global Warming, results in a penalty rate being charged to the customer.
My bill this month was $400 higher than last month due to the fact I consumed electricity into the penalty range of the “usage tier” they call “energy hogs”.
My electric bill went from $200 to $600 even though most days were in excess of 100 F last month and I set my thermostat at 82 F. I live near Palm Springs, Kalifornia.
I want a refund!
This is the kind of crap the global warming nut jobs are using to say we are wasting energy and increasing the temperature of the planet with fraudulent research by NASA and others.
My local barber said his bill was in excess of $1000, a $600 increase because of bogus science. This is a real world example of consensus science run amok. My barber will have to pass the cost along as well as all the other businesses in this state.
This is Pure insanity. How do I as a homeowner pass the cost along?
We all are going to the City Council Meeting next Tuesday and are going to protest the new electric rates. I am going to bring in the new data from NASA to debunk their arguments about Global Warming.
You all should be outraged that public policy is based on junk science. You are going to be paying too. Like they say, California is usually the leader in liberal policies. If California passes something, so goes the nation.

Personally, I don't get all the swarm of controversy, supposition, and political theater going on here.

To me it is just so much hot air. Hot air I am also guilty of as I stand (self) corrected on my first post. The temp adjustment is not significant with regard to temperature increase versus the last sunspot cycle. Again, someone correct me if I am wrong or missing something.

What this blog entry was about, ostensibly, is a temperature correction initiated by Steve MacIntyre which NASA accepted and credited him with.

The only real side issue, imho, is that the discovery of the correction was done by reverse engineering by a person outside of the NASA scientific community because NASA has a ridiculous policy of making pronouncements on data and climate predictions while withholding details on methodology.

The actual temperature adjustment does not affect their current averaged trend for the US or globally. While many (including myself) may question the strength of the trend and the reliability of the data and data massaging that produces it, Mr. McIntyre's ingenious reverse engineering has a single and important result -- an error went undetected until reviewed by a person working outside of the cloistered community of NASA environmental science.

That, folks, is real, effective peer review that NASA, for some inexplicable reason, has a policy of impeding. As such I feel NASA has a credibility and policy problem that sorely needs correction.

I'm still curious for an answer from those who think that global warming (GW) has been completely debunked by this finding.

Those who think we should do something because of GW believe we need to reduce our CO2 impact; reducing our CO2 impact primarily means finding alternative/renewable sources of energy that reduce our CO2 impact. (That is just a part of a long list of what could be done.)

After reviewing the "before" and "after" charts, I still see an upward trend. HOWEVER, let's argue that CO2 is not part of the picture. Ok, then I'm guessing that, for you "debunkers", your main argument against GW is that it is not sufficiently proven to be something we have any impact on, therefore, we shouldn't waste money battling it. I think you don't believe businesses should be spending money to reduce CO2 emissions, because those costs are then passed on to us consumers. Or, that you believe businesses will go bankrupt. I believe that is your argument, if not, please enlighten me. (And please don't tell me that you don't want scientist getting "rich" off of this whole GW nonsense, because whether true or false, that is not the point and is not a relevant argument....)

So, going with the postulation that you debunkers don't want to have to pay more (as consumers or business owners) then tell me how ever increasing energy costs, ON AVERAGE, are going to be good for consumers and businesses? (I emphasize "on average" because I believe there will be times of lower costs for energy but on average, those costs will only go up as energy-carriers become more and more difficult to extract.)

In short, none of you "debunkers" have explained how our energy needs will be met by "business as usual" thinking. I need an answer here: if we and our leaders refuse to encourage the growth of a healthy and robust alternative/renewable energy industry, and we refuse to look at ways to improve efficiencies in both the transportation, commercial, and retail sectors and in the residential realm, how will our current fossil fuel infrastructure serve a growing economy in the First World while the developing world continues to grow and demand its own energy? And know that the developing economy of China alone (not to mention India) could easily match the size of the developed economy of Europe or the U.S. How are we going to meet our energy needs? If we don't do something just to improve our energy efficient for that reason, ALONE, I don't see how things could be anything but scary in the future.

If for no other reason, please explain how business as usual will be fine so that I, and a few others of us, can sleep as night. And so that I can be as enthusiastice of the future as you debunkers are with the knowledge that you, so far, haven't shared with the rest of the world. Because, frankly, I'd rather believe you debunkers since your sense of what is going on sounds much easier than the world I'm envisioning.

JohnP breaks me up with:

GISTEMP data have error bars, Chris. How would you characterize the change? Do an error analysis and present a numerical argument based on observed data. This is how science is done.

Sure John, that's how science is done by skeptics.

But the warmmongers do it with proprietary algorithms, dodgy data, and secret consensus handshakes. But that's not surprising, after all, how can climate scientists be expected to fritter around doing "error analysis" when the fate of Gaia is in the balance?!

Oh, I get it. So you're saying all those pictures that show glaciers and sea ice all over the world shrinking are shrinking because of the Y2K bug. Now it's all clear....

/sarcasm off