Thanks to Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts, 1998 is no longer ranked as the warmest year on record in the USA, due to the correction of a significant error. That honour now goes to 1934.
More here at ICECAP
Roger Pielke Sr also has a post about this on his climate science weblog, where Steve McIntyre has posted this comment:
"I have made my 3rd request for access to GISS source code to try to decode what they do. They have refused prior requests. Lack of access to source code makes this sort of exercise far more time consuming than it ought to be.
Yesterday they completely overwrote their US data set, changing virtually every number prior to 2000, explaining this only with a cursory comment on their webpage. In addition, they have changed their UHI adjustments so that in many cases the changed UHI adjustments offset the error in their “raw” data.
Even before these change, I was unable to track their pre-2000 data to any archive. It was sort of like USHCN adjusted data in the 1990s but diverged in earlier periods. I’ve requested a copy of the original data set or information on its provenance.
I would welcome letters to GISS urging them to fully disclose their source code.
BTW the CRU situation is much worse as they have refused to even identify the stations that they use. In fairness to GISS, they provided enough information that you could leverage on it, but CRU has resolutely refused such information. "
Ian Mott - "Ender appears to be incapable of comprehending that remaining within the bounds of a range of variation does not demand the replication of an identical pattern within that range. Clutching at straws, sad really."
So you expect this to be a substitute for actual data? I take it then that there is no period that corresponds to recent warming so therefore the current temperature pattern is not within the bounds of past variation.
"This could not possibly be interpreted as any implication that he might actually be a slime mould himself......"
I accept your apology as veiled and obscure at it is.
Ender appears to be incapable of comprehending that remaining within the bounds of a range of variation does not demand the replication of an identical pattern within that range. Clutching at straws, sad really.
And a remarkable contrast to all the crowing that was associated with the apparent extension of that range under the old uncorrected data. Furthermore, if Ender had bothered to read my posts carefully he would note that my supposed insult consisted of nothing more than the imputation that he might feel comfortable in the company of slime moulds. This could not possibly be interpreted as any implication that he might actually be a slime mould himself. But therein we see that old comprehension deficiency being exhibited once again.