How Accurate are Global Temperatures?

[skookerasbil]

IanC.........and another thing not to be overlooked in terms of this global warming stuff...........

INVARIABLY.........all of these global warming crusaders are hyper-anticapitalist guys so the whole global warming crap is just a means to an end: destruction of the free market with the goals being government control of everything. These people are personally miserable and always look to blame somebody else for thier lousy lot in life.........so they blame the capitalist. They stay up nights trying to figure out ways to fcukk over successful people. Thats why they are 100% behind Cap and Trade legislation = a step towards government takeover of our energy, thus, their hyper-support of fake science has little to do with the environment. It is a political strategy.......originally a brilliant one at that........

Go check out the ONE NATION site..........the people behind this huge rally in Washington this weekend. Most of the notable people and organizations are Marxist.........100% certainty. Many contributers and attendee's are these green energy organizations. They want change..........indeed...........destruction of capitalism in America.


But dont take my word for it..............go check the site ( I think its "One Nation-Working together".) LOL.......even their flag representation is cryptic.

 

[IanC]

thanks skookerasbil. sometimes I don't think anyone read this stuff anyways

did anyone notice that edthecynic refused to acknowledge that the temperature anomalies were different pre-1999 on the GISS graphs from 1999 and 2007? or am I wasting my time pointing out these things?

 

[fyrenza]

Ed- you are making my point for me. Those buoys would not have got the same scrutiny if they were reading higher instead. Why isn't the same effort put into other areas? No one gives a shit if a land temp station is on an airport tarmac or under an airconditioning vent. No one (in climate science peer review) gives a shit if statistical methods are wrong or the data is used upside down, as long as the results are pleasing to them. And there is always the easy fix of making 'adjustments' to the raw data, because until lately skeptics were powerless to get their questions answered.

Wasn't it MORE a matter of comparison with other readings?

If MOST of the readings are going UP, wouldn't you be suspicious of any that were trending in the opposite direction? If the lower readings were happening in sporadic placements, or in a group, wouldn't you start wEndering?

Those readings, once investigated and found inaccurate, should have been DELETED from the database, not "accommodated" by recalibration of any equipment. REPLACEMENT of equipment, sure, but one presumes that it would be state-of-the-art, NOT just haphazardly monkeyed around with.

What was the question, again?

 

[edthecynic]

thanks skookerasbil. sometimes I don't think anyone read this stuff anyways

did anyone notice that edthecynic refused to acknowledge that the temperature anomalies were different pre-1999 on the GISS graphs from 1999 and 2007? or am I wasting my time pointing out these things?

I noticed you refused to acknowledge that the temperature anomalies you posted had NOTHING to do with the error found in 2000!!!

 

[edthecynic]

Ed- you are making my point for me. Those buoys would not have got the same scrutiny if they were reading higher instead. Why isn't the same effort put into other areas? No one gives a shit if a land temp station is on an airport tarmac or under an airconditioning vent. No one (in climate science peer review) gives a shit if statistical methods are wrong or the data is used upside down, as long as the results are pleasing to them. And there is always the easy fix of making 'adjustments' to the raw data, because until lately skeptics were powerless to get their questions answered.

Wasn't it MORE a matter of comparison with other readings?

If MOST of the readings are going UP, wouldn't you be suspicious of any that were trending in the opposite direction? If the lower readings were happening in sporadic placements, or in a group, wouldn't you start wEndering?

Those readings, once investigated and found inaccurate, should have been DELETED from the database, not "accommodated" by recalibration of any equipment. REPLACEMENT of equipment, sure, but one presumes that it would be state-of-the-art, NOT just haphazardly monkeyed around with.

What was the question, again?

That's exactly what they did with the data from the faulty ARGE floats, they tossed it out!!!!

 

[IanC]

thanks skookerasbil. sometimes I don't think anyone read this stuff anyways

did anyone notice that edthecynic refused to acknowledge that the temperature anomalies were different pre-1999 on the GISS graphs from 1999 and 2007? or am I wasting my time pointing out these things?

I noticed you refused to acknowledge that the temperature anomalies you posted had NOTHING to do with the error found in 2000!!!

hahaha, switching directions again?

I specifically showed that the pre-1999 temperature anomalies were changed after NASA GISS 'fixed' their code. Both in the US temps and the global temps. Also the error wasn't caught until 2006-2007, and it wasn't found by NASA but by an outsider.

I am still waiting for a reasonable explanation as to why fixing a Y2K bug entails going back and altering results from 1900 to 1999. Since edthecynic can't answer, maybe one of the other AGW alarmists can enlighten the rest of us.

 

[edthecynic]

Originally Posted by IanC

I have already posted quite a few examples of both urban heat effects and bizarre 'corrections' that should give any thinking person more than enough information to question whether the trend is even upward in many cases, and whether the size of the trend is from data readings or from the large manipulations the raw data go through before being presented to the public. Do you know that NASA GISS made an error at year 2000? And when it was found by a skeptic, NASA went back and changed all the pre-2000 figures instead of correcting the few post-2000 years. Why?

thanks skookerasbil. sometimes I don't think anyone read this stuff anyways

did anyone notice that edthecynic refused to acknowledge that the temperature anomalies were different pre-1999 on the GISS graphs from 1999 and 2007? or am I wasting my time pointing out these things?

I noticed you refused to acknowledge that the temperature anomalies you posted had NOTHING to do with the error found in 2000!!!

hahaha, switching directions again?

I specifically showed that the pre-1999 temperature anomalies were changed after NASA GISS 'fixed' their code. Both in the US temps and the global temps. Also the error wasn't caught until 2006-2007, and it wasn't found by NASA but by an outsider.

I am still waiting for a reasonable explanation as to why fixing a Y2K bug entails going back and altering results from 1900 to 1999. Since edthecynic can't answer, maybe one of the other AGW alarmists can enlighten the rest of us.

I have switched nothing! you have. See the first quote in my sig.

No matter how many times you repeat your lie it still remains a lie! Nothing before 1999 was changed in 2007 as these two 2007 charts of the error correction clearly show.

 

[skookerasbil]

Originally Posted by IanC

I have already posted quite a few examples of both urban heat effects and bizarre 'corrections' that should give any thinking person more than enough information to question whether the trend is even upward in many cases, and whether the size of the trend is from data readings or from the large manipulations the raw data go through before being presented to the public. Do you know that NASA GISS made an error at year 2000? And when it was found by a skeptic, NASA went back and changed all the pre-2000 figures instead of correcting the few post-2000 years. Why?

I noticed you refused to acknowledge that the temperature anomalies you posted had NOTHING to do with the error found in 2000!!!

hahaha, switching directions again?

I specifically showed that the pre-1999 temperature anomalies were changed after NASA GISS 'fixed' their code. Both in the US temps and the global temps. Also the error wasn't caught until 2006-2007, and it wasn't found by NASA but by an outsider.

I am still waiting for a reasonable explanation as to why fixing a Y2K bug entails going back and altering results from 1900 to 1999. Since edthecynic can't answer, maybe one of the other AGW alarmists can enlighten the rest of us.

I have switched nothing! you have. See the first quote in my sig.

No matter how many times you repeat your lie it still remains a lie! Nothing before 1999 was changed in 2007 as these two 2007 charts of the error correction clearly show.

lmao.......what did I tell you about these OCD k00ks..........post up the same crap for years!!!


Ian bro.........guys like this have started their own ark projects in their backyards............

Here is Ed's ptototype!!!....................

He's not taking ANY chances when the big flood hits..............

 

[skookerasbil]

Ian man...........heres the botom line poop..............

Cap and Trade is so fcukking dead in this land its not real..........nobody in congress is talking about it except the candidates in the very few hyper-left districts. So essentially..........these threads are nothing but a pissing contest or, as I prefer to call it, exercises in navel contemplation. In fact, the k00ks have gone back to the drawing board in an attempt to find a new name for "Cap and Trade" it has become so radioactive politically. They have to find another clever way to package a bill which will double our electric rates!!! Most of the middle class pays $200-$300 a month for electricity and are already getting their asses taxed to death. Only a k00k would think a photo of a polar bear is going to encourage voters to want to shell out $600/month in electric bills!!!

This green economy crap is just another special interest group thing..........keep an eye on GE's efforts in making contributions to perpetuate this global warming hoax..........they have lots and lots to lose..............as in tens of billions wihout a green economy. All of their money for these efforts is funneled through proxy entities............and the funniest thing about it is that these environmental k00ks are mostly motivated by wanting to screw over big oil. And its not about the environment.........its about fcukking over the capitalist. Meanwhile, their efforts are just helping make a different category of fat cats and they dont even realize it!!!

 

[IanC]

It was the POST 2000 US data that was corrected, as you well know, but keep your tinfoil conspiracy hat on, it suits you.

here you go Ed- a nice big helping of crow for you to eat. tell me again how the pre-1999 data wasn't changed.

I realize I am just driving my self insane by expecting edthecynic to respond rationally but I have to try once more.

This blink comparer of graphs of 1900-1999 US land temp anomalies from both 1999 and 2007 shows different values and (more importantly) different trend lines before and after the Y2K error was corrected in 2007.

My specific question to edthecynic is:
"Can you not see that the graphs show changes in pre-1999 values that affect the trend line?"

I don't want to see the GISS graph you posted where NASA 'says' there is no change. I want you to look at the two graphs and categorically state that there is no change, or explain why data from decades ago was 'adjusted', some points up and others down.

The ball is in your court but I don't expect much from you. My prediction is that you will call me a liar and ignore my question.

 

[westwall]

It was the POST 2000 US data that was corrected, as you well know, but keep your tinfoil conspiracy hat on, it suits you.

here you go Ed- a nice big helping of crow for you to eat. tell me again how the pre-1999 data wasn't changed.

I realize I am just driving my self insane by expecting edthecynic to respond rationally but I have to try once more.

This blink comparer of graphs of 1900-1999 US land temp anomalies from both 1999 and 2007 shows different values and (more importantly) different trend lines before and after the Y2K error was corrected in 2007.

My specific question to edthecynic is:
"Can you not see that the graphs show changes in pre-1999 values that affect the trend line?"

I don't want to see the GISS graph you posted where NASA 'says' there is no change. I want you to look at the two graphs and categorically state that there is no change, or explain why data from decades ago was 'adjusted', some points up and others down.

The ball is in your court but I don't expect much from you. My prediction is that you will call me a liar and ignore my question.

You are correct, ed is not capable of rational thought. He does love to call people liars however!

 

[edthecynic]

here you go Ed- a nice big helping of crow for you to eat. tell me again how the pre-1999 data wasn't changed.

I realize I am just driving my self insane by expecting edthecynic to respond rationally but I have to try once more.

This blink comparer of graphs of 1900-1999 US land temp anomalies from both 1999 and 2007 shows different values and (more importantly) different trend lines before and after the Y2K error was corrected in 2007.

My specific question to edthecynic is:
"Can you not see that the graphs show changes in pre-1999 values that affect the trend line?"

I don't want to see the GISS graph you posted where NASA 'says' there is no change. I want you to look at the two graphs and categorically state that there is no change, or explain why data from decades ago was 'adjusted', some points up and others down.

The ball is in your court but I don't expect much from you. My prediction is that you will call me a liar and ignore my question.

You are correct, ed is not capable of rational thought. He does love to call people liars however!

Again, no matter how many times you repeat the same lie it will never become the truth no matter how many other liars agree with you.

Your blink chart is not comparing the 2006 data with the data that was corrected in 2007, get that through your thick head!!!!

As the link I gave earlier showed, in 2001 the analysis method was updated improving accuracy, something deniers hate, but when the data was updated it was not carried forward from that point. Then that error was found and in 2007 the data from the last update was corrected. They did not go back and change the data before 1999 as you claim when they made the 2007 correction.

What you and your blink chart dishonestly did was take the data from BEFORE the 2001 update, and use that as the pre 2007 error correction data. Mind you McIntyre did not find an error in the 2001 update, only that the update was not applied to the future data. So your blink chart takes the pre 2001 update data and the post 2007 error corrected data and compares the two instead of comparing the 2006 chart to the 2007 chart as my charts do.

Got it now????

Data.GISS: Surface Temperature Analysis: August 2007 Update and Effects

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
August 2007 Update and Effects
Recently it was realized that the monthly more-or-less-automatic updates of our global temperature analysis had a flaw in the U.S. data. We wish to thank Stephen McIntyre for bringing to our attention that this flaw might be present.

In the 2001 update (described in Hansen et al. [2001]) of the analysis method (originally published in Hansen et al. [1981]), we included improvements that NOAA had made in station records in the U.S., their corrections being based mainly on station-by-station information about station movement, change of time-of-day at which max-min are recorded, etc.

Unfortunately, we didn't realize that these corrections would not continue to be readily available in the near-real-time data streams. The same stations are in the GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) data stream, however, and thus what our analysis picked up in subsequent years was station data without the NOAA correction.

 

[westwall]

I realize I am just driving my self insane by expecting edthecynic to respond rationally but I have to try once more.

This blink comparer of graphs of 1900-1999 US land temp anomalies from both 1999 and 2007 shows different values and (more importantly) different trend lines before and after the Y2K error was corrected in 2007.

My specific question to edthecynic is:
"Can you not see that the graphs show changes in pre-1999 values that affect the trend line?"

I don't want to see the GISS graph you posted where NASA 'says' there is no change. I want you to look at the two graphs and categorically state that there is no change, or explain why data from decades ago was 'adjusted', some points up and others down.

The ball is in your court but I don't expect much from you. My prediction is that you will call me a liar and ignore my question.

You are correct, ed is not capable of rational thought. He does love to call people liars however!

Again, no matter how many times you repeat the same lie it will never become the truth no matter how many other liars agree with you.

Your blink chart is not comparing the 2006 data with the data that was corrected in 2007, get that through your thick head!!!!

As the link I gave earlier showed, in 2001 the analysis method was updated improving accuracy, something deniers hate, but when the data was updated it was not carried forward from that point. Then that error was found and in 2007 the data from the last update was corrected. They did not go back and change the data before 1999 as you claim when they made the 2007 correction.

What you and your blink chart dishonestly did was take the data from BEFORE the 2001 update, and use that as the pre 2007 error correction data. Mind you McIntyre did not find an error in the 2001 update, only that the update was not applied to the future data. So your blink chart takes the pre 2001 update data and the post 2007 error corrected data and compares the two instead od comparing the 2006 chart to the 2007 chart as my charts do.

Got it now????

Data.GISS: Surface Temperature Analysis: August 2007 Update and Effects

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
August 2007 Update and Effects
Recently it was realized that the monthly more-or-less-automatic updates of our global temperature analysis had a flaw in the U.S. data. We wish to thank Stephen McIntyre for bringing to our attention that this flaw might be present.

In the 2001 update (described in Hansen et al. [2001]) of the analysis method (originally published in Hansen et al. [1981]), we included improvements that NOAA had made in station records in the U.S., their corrections being based mainly on station-by-station information about station movement, change of time-of-day at which max-min are recorded, etc.

Unfortunately, we didn't realize that these corrections would not continue to be readily available in the near-real-time data streams. The same stations are in the GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) data stream, however, and thus what our analysis picked up in subsequent years was station data without the NOAA correction.

I hate to tell you but the only folks provably lying are on your side. But go ahead and think whatever you wish because it no longer matters. Your side has lost and I say good riddance to them.

 

[IanC]

Your blink chart is not comparing the 2006 data with the data that was corrected in 2007, get that through your thick head!!!!

As the link I gave earlier showed, in 2001 the analysis method was updated improving accuracy, something deniers hate, but when the data was updated it was not carried forward from that point. Then that error was found and in 2007 the data from the last update was corrected. They did not go back and change the data before 1999 as you claim when they made the 2007 correction.

What you and your blink chart dishonestly did was take the data from BEFORE the 2001 update, and use that as the pre 2007 error correction data. Mind you McIntyre did not find an error in the 2001 update, only that the update was not applied to the future data. So your blink chart takes the pre 2001 update data and the post 2007 error corrected data and compares the two instead of comparing the 2006 chart to the 2007 chart as my charts do.

Got it now????

After giving it much thought I have come to the conclusion that you are partially correct. I was overstating my case. I apologize for lumping 2001 adjustments in with the 2007 adjustments. It is one type of the misdirections used by climate science that cause me to be distrustful of their results.

I would also like to apologize for the reason I made that error. I was pissed off because I was falsely called a liar, and I was more interested in being right than understanding all the areas of this issue. I would like to thank edthecynic for his role in bringing me to the self realization that the search for knowledge is more important than the petty pride of 'winning an argument' through biased restatement of the facts. I will try to do better in the future.

 

[IanC]

with my mea culpa out of the way...

The cause of the error, they say, was a switch to a new data-collection system in 2000 and a faulty assumption that the old and new methods matched, which last week led to a recalculation of the figures.

Now 1934 is the hottest year on record in the US at an average of 1.25C higher than normal; 1998 is second at 1.23C, and 1921 in third place at 1.15C. Under the old system, 1998 was the hottest at 1.24C above normal, with 1934 at 1.23C. 2006, newly relegated to fourth place, was also at 1.23C.

Blogger gets hot and bothered over Nasa's climate data error | Environment | The Guardian

Burnett challenged that assertion, saying the correction made it clear that NASA's conclusion -- that the majority of the 10 hottest years have occurred since 1990 -- is false.

"Time after time, Hansen and other global warming alarmists present their data as 'the facts,' and [say that] 'you can't argue with data,' " he said. "Well, it turns out their data is just wrong. And when it's wrong, they want to say it's not important."
...
"The net effect of the change was to reduce mean U.S. anomalies by about 0.15 degrees Celsius for the years 2000-2006," which resulted in a "very minor knock" on information from earlier years, Schmidt added.
...
Burnett also dismissed the idea that the change is "statistically insignificant" because the numbers concerned were so small.

"A few years back, an error in satellite data was found and corrected from 0.04 degrees of cooling per decade to 0.01 degrees, and that was front-page news," he said. "If a change of 0.03 degrees is significant, then what about this, which is five times more? If the one is important for making your case, then the other is important for undermining your case.

"What's really important is not that it shows whether it's warming or not -- because it doesn't," Burnett stated. "But we've supposedly got the best data in the world, and we're relying on data from a lot of places where they're not checking it nearly as closely as our guys."

As for NASA, Burnett charged that "they need mathematicians on their staff, not climatologists. What does it say when we had to have a blogger go in there and discover their error?"

Jeff Samano On Today's Issues: NASA: 1934 Hottest Year on Record

any reasonable person would admit that pre-1999 data have indeed been changed.

the emphasised portion above is for you edthecynic. it relates to your smear of Christie and Spencer

and for anyone who wants the actual data in numerical form-
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/US_USHCN.2005vs1999.txt 1999vs2005
http://www.john-daly.com/GISSUSAT.708after Y2K corrections

 

[edthecynic]

. It is one type of the misdirections used by climate science that cause me to be distrustful of their results.

with my mea culpa out of the way...

The cause of the error, they say, was a switch to a new data-collection system in 2000 and a faulty assumption that the old and new methods matched, which last week led to a recalculation of the figures.

Now 1934 is the hottest year on record in the US at an average of 1.25C higher than normal; 1998 is second at 1.23C, and 1921 in third place at 1.15C. Under the old system, 1998 was the hottest at 1.24C above normal, with 1934 at 1.23C. 2006, newly relegated to fourth place, was also at 1.23C.

Blogger gets hot and bothered over Nasa's climate data error | Environment | The Guardian

Burnett challenged that assertion, saying the correction made it clear that NASA's conclusion -- that the majority of the 10 hottest years have occurred since 1990 -- is false.

"Time after time, Hansen and other global warming alarmists present their data as 'the facts,' and [say that] 'you can't argue with data,' " he said. "Well, it turns out their data is just wrong. And when it's wrong, they want to say it's not important."
...
"The net effect of the change was to reduce mean U.S. anomalies by about 0.15 degrees Celsius for the years 2000-2006," which resulted in a "very minor knock" on information from earlier years, Schmidt added.
...
Burnett also dismissed the idea that the change is "statistically insignificant" because the numbers concerned were so small.

"A few years back, an error in satellite data was found and corrected from 0.04 degrees of cooling per decade to 0.01 degrees, and that was front-page news," he said. "If a change of 0.03 degrees is significant, then what about this, which is five times more? If the one is important for making your case, then the other is important for undermining your case.

"What's really important is not that it shows whether it's warming or not -- because it doesn't," Burnett stated. "But we've supposedly got the best data in the world, and we're relying on data from a lot of places where they're not checking it nearly as closely as our guys."

As for NASA, Burnett charged that "they need mathematicians on their staff, not climatologists. What does it say when we had to have a blogger go in there and discover their error?"

Jeff Samano On Today's Issues: NASA: 1934 Hottest Year on Record

any reasonable person would admit that pre-1999 data have indeed been changed.

the emphasised portion above is for you edthecynic. it relates to your smear of Christie and Spencer

and for anyone who wants the actual data in numerical form-
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/US_USHCN.2005vs1999.txt 1999vs2005
http://www.john-daly.com/GISSUSAT.708after Y2K corrections

You would think that after your sources burned you with the misdirection of their blink chart you would be at least as distrustful of them as you are of climate scientists, but no you swallow their BS whole in your defense of Christy and Spencer.

The error from using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift, an error that cannot be made by accident by an "expert" on satellite calculations as the pair bill themselves, was much greater than their error noted above. The numbers went from +.047 degrees C/decade to +.138 degrees C/decade.

 

[IanC]

. It is one type of the misdirections used by climate science that cause me to be distrustful of their results.

with my mea culpa out of the way...

Blogger gets hot and bothered over Nasa's climate data error | Environment | The Guardian

Burnett challenged that assertion, saying the correction made it clear that NASA's conclusion -- that the majority of the 10 hottest years have occurred since 1990 -- is false.

"Time after time, Hansen and other global warming alarmists present their data as 'the facts,' and [say that] 'you can't argue with data,' " he said. "Well, it turns out their data is just wrong. And when it's wrong, they want to say it's not important."
...
"The net effect of the change was to reduce mean U.S. anomalies by about 0.15 degrees Celsius for the years 2000-2006," which resulted in a "very minor knock" on information from earlier years, Schmidt added.
...
Burnett also dismissed the idea that the change is "statistically insignificant" because the numbers concerned were so small.

"A few years back, an error in satellite data was found and corrected from 0.04 degrees of cooling per decade to 0.01 degrees, and that was front-page news," he said. "If a change of 0.03 degrees is significant, then what about this, which is five times more? If the one is important for making your case, then the other is important for undermining your case.

"What's really important is not that it shows whether it's warming or not -- because it doesn't," Burnett stated. "But we've supposedly got the best data in the world, and we're relying on data from a lot of places where they're not checking it nearly as closely as our guys."

As for NASA, Burnett charged that "they need mathematicians on their staff, not climatologists. What does it say when we had to have a blogger go in there and discover their error?"

Jeff.Samano On Today's Issues: NASA: 1934 Hottest Year on Record

any reasonable person would admit that pre-1999 data have indeed been changed.

the emphasised portion above is for you edthecynic. it relates to your smear of Christie and Spencer

and for anyone who wants the actual data in numerical form-
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/US_USHCN.2005vs1999.txt 1999vs2005
http://www.john-daly.com/GISSUSAT.708after Y2K corrections

You would think that after your sources burned you with the misdirection of their blink chart you would be at least as. distrustful of them as you are of climate scientists, but no you swallow their BS whole in your defense of Christy and Spencer.

The error from using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift, an error that cannot be made by accident by an "expert" on satellite calculations as the pair bill themselves, was much greater than their error noted above. The numbers went from +.047 degrees C/decade to +.138 degrees C/decade.

I notice that you still haven't admitted that pre-1999 data were changed when the Y2K bug was fixed. Do you still deny that they were? I mean come on now. Even Gavin Schmidt says they were.

As to Spencer and Christie- start a thread, state your case, put up a few links and then we can debate it a while.

 

[IanC]

I wonder who gets to decide what adjustments get made, and why they always make the temperature trend higher. How much would you bet that the adjustments are 50% of the total trend? Actually better yet, how many of you think under/over 50%? A quick poll.

 

[edthecynic]

. It is one type of the misdirections used by climate science that cause me to be distrustful of their results.

with my mea culpa out of the way...

Blogger gets hot and bothered over Nasa's climate data error | Environment | The Guardian

Jeff.Samano On Today's Issues: NASA: 1934 Hottest Year on Record

any reasonable person would admit that pre-1999 data have indeed been changed.

the emphasised portion above is for you edthecynic. it relates to your smear of Christie and Spencer

and for anyone who wants the actual data in numerical form-
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/US_USHCN.2005vs1999.txt 1999vs2005
http://www.john-daly.com/GISSUSAT.708after Y2K corrections

You would think that after your sources burned you with the misdirection of their blink chart you would be at least as. distrustful of them as you are of climate scientists, but no you swallow their BS whole in your defense of Christy and Spencer.

The error from using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift, an error that cannot be made by accident by an "expert" on satellite calculations as the pair bill themselves, was much greater than their error noted above. The numbers went from +.047 degrees C/decade to +.138 degrees C/decade.

I notice that you still haven't admitted that pre-1999 data were changed when the Y2K bug was fixed. Do you still deny that they were? I mean come on now. Even Gavin Schmidt says they were.

As to Spencer and Christie- start a thread, state your case, put up a few links and then we can debate it a while.

Why should I admit to something YOU know is not true!

And Gavin Schmidt said no such thing!
The pre 1999 data was changed long before the year 2000 error was found in 2007.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)

Some improvements in the analysis were made several years ago (Hansen et al. 1999; Hansen et al. 2001), including use of satellite-observed night lights to determine which stations in the United States are located in urban and peri-urban areas, the long-term trends of those stations being adjusted to agree with long-term trends of nearby rural stations.

Current Analysis Method

The current analysis uses surface air temperatures measurements from the following data sets: the unadjusted data of the Global Historical Climatology Network (Peterson and Vose, 1997 and 1998), United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) data, and SCAR (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research) data from Antarctic stations. The basic analysis method is described by Hansen et al. (1999), with several modifications described by Hansen et al. (2001) also included. Modifications to the analysis since 2001 are described on the separate Updates to Analysis.

Graphs and tables are updated around the 10th of every month using the current GHCN and SCAR files. The new files incorporate reports for the previous month and late reports and corrections for earlier months. NOAA updates the USHCN data at a slower, less regular frequency; we switch to a later version as soon as a new complete year is available.

The GHCN/USHCN/SCAR data are modified in two steps to obtain station data from which our tables, graphs, and maps are constructed. In step 1, if there are multiple records at a given location, these are combined into one record; in step 2, the urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations. Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) -- Updates to Analysis

Several minor updates to the analysis have been made since its last published description by Hansen et al. (2001). After a testing period they were incorporated at the time of the next routine update. The only change having a detectable influence on analyzed temperature was the 7 August 2007 change to correct a discontinuity in 2000 at many stations in the United States. This flaw affected temperatures in 2000 and later years by ~0.15°C averaged over the United States and ~0.003°C on global average. Contrary to reports in the media, this minor flaw did not alter the years of record temperature, as shown by comparison here of results with the data flaw ('old analysis') and with the correction ('new analysis').

RealClimate: 1934 and all that

1934 and all that
Filed under: Climate Science Instrumental Record — gavin @ 10 August 2007

Another week, another ado over nothing.

Last Saturday, Steve McIntyre wrote an email to NASA GISS pointing out that for some North American stations in the GISTEMP analysis, there was an odd jump in going from 1999 to 2000. On Monday, the people who work on the temperature analysis (not me), looked into it and found that this coincided with the switch between two sources of US temperature data. There had been a faulty assumption that these two sources matched, but that turned out not to be the case. There were in fact a number of small offsets (of both sign) between the same stations in the two different data sets. The obvious fix was to make an adjustment based on a period of overlap so that these offsets disappear.

This was duly done by Tuesday, an email thanking McIntyre was sent and the data analysis (which had been due in any case for the processing of the July numbers) was updated accordingly along with an acknowledgment to McIntyre and update of the methodology.

The net effect of the change was to reduce mean US anomalies by about 0.15 ºC for the years 2000-2006. There were some very minor knock on effects in earlier years due to the GISTEMP adjustments for rural vs. urban trends. In the global or hemispheric mean, the differences were imperceptible (since the US is only a small fraction of the global area).


More importantly for climate purposes, the longer term US averages have not changed rank. 2002-2006 (at 0.66 ºC) is still warmer than 1930-1934 (0.63 ºC – the largest value in the early part of the century) (though both are below 1998-2002 at 0.79 ºC).

 

[IanC]

The cause of the error, they say, was a switch to a new data-collection system in 2000 and a faulty assumption that the old and new methods matched, which last week led to a recalculation of the figures.

Now 1934 is the hottest year on record in the US at an average of 1.25C higher than normal; 1998 is second at 1.23C, and 1921 in third place at 1.15C. Under the old system, 1998 was the hottest at 1.24C above normal, with 1934 at 1.23C. 2006, newly relegated to fourth place, was also at 1.23C.

Blogger gets hot and bothered over Nasa's climate data error | Environment | The Guardian

I hate to seem obstinant over this point edthecynic, but how did 1934 and 1998 change places as the hottest year in the US if there were no adjustments in pre-1999 data?

And for Schmidt, he said it right in your post.