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 - "But all I have ever said was the simple fact that the corrected data makes it clear that all the recent US annual mean temperatures have been ENTIRELY WITHIN THE HISTORICAL RANGE OF VARIATION."
So show me the 8 year period where temperatures have stayed high and then swung back up again like 1998 - 2006. Assuming recent warming is entirely within the historical range it should be easy.
"Best you get back to that rock now. There must be some reassuring slime moulds under there to make you feel at ease again. Time for some quality time with Mr Thumb."
Not sure why you do not get banned from here Motty - you really think insults and intimidation will work and will make up for your total lack of knowledge on climate - sad really
The DrudgeReport has linked to a story on the Toronto Star's website. The Drudge's site has millions of hits a day so the word may finally get around despite NASA's lack of a press release.
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/246027
And another example of that old retention deficit, Ender. You said "To listen to Ian Mott you would think McIntyre had stormed NASA and purged the evil from the empire".
But all I have ever said was the simple fact that the corrected data makes it clear that all the recent US annual mean temperatures have been ENTIRELY WITHIN THE HISTORICAL RANGE OF VARIATION.
Now if that constitutes "storming NASA" then maybe NASA really does have a problem. But you, and apparently the body of climate creeps, have this article of faith that even the US portion of the global mean has already moved well beyond the norm.
The evidence is clear. You may not, in good faith, imply that this has already taken place when it has obviously not done so.
Best you get back to that rock now. There must be some reassuring slime moulds under there to make you feel at ease again. Time for some quality time with Mr Thumb.
Guys: some time back I picked up part of a recycled collection, about a thousand discs of vintage jazz. After dozens of hours listening, IMO some had been “Digitally Remastered” properly and some hadn’t so I reduced what I though we could do with out in the private library.
Eventually I got round to re examining the remainder regardless of quality. There are essentially two streams including the well known British and US Bands with their more famous leaders.
Good Jazz and its history is a complex business even for fans. Imagine leaving its art or heritage to engineers and scientists who can’t play a single instrument. The evolution of jazz depended on manual instruments in good hands and I contend we are no better off with the advance of electronics since however dubious the record. Jazz remains as much as ever a master apprenticeship relationship for both the players and the audience.
One of my mates tried to invent infinite tone control on our bench via a pair of “floating” coils and a ball. Gear stick driven jazz is hardly an option even with today’s programs. Digitising the records should also leave a shudder. I grew up listening to impromptu jam sessions as experienced players got to know each other. Brilliance and harmony depends greatly on mutual respect.
Digitising turbulence models from “digital” records likewise requires considerable observer skills. I expect the creative individuals to be enhanced by the band in both engineering and science. Climate scientists should be all toe tapping with their models now.
Jim - "" amongst the most reliable " isn't anything like "the US automatically has the best climate network ".
I think you certainly do need to rest. "
Really then why say it at all? If this is nothing then it does not matter if 1934 had 0.02° mean temperature anomoly than 1998. If you were not trying to cast doubt on the climate record then you should have said:
"Minor data error found in US temperature record - please download new data" - end of story. As it is the title of this post is
"And the winner is......1934"
I think it is you that needs the rest.
Ender,
" amongst the most reliable " isn't anything like "the US automatically has the best climate network ".
I think you certainly do need to rest.
Jim -"The US is on of the most technologically developed and wealthiest nations on earth - and it has quite a geographical spread. I think it's fair to assume that it has amongst the most relaible climate records.
And I haven't seen anything that suggests this result automatically brings other climate data into disrepute. I actually said that in this thread previously."
OK you say these things however the assumption is built into these two statements. When you say that you think that the US automatically has the best climate network you are implying that all the rest are worse. It is implicit in the statement that you think the US has the best system when in fact some third world countries have better systems. Australia's is actually one of the best a fact that we can be proud of.
"Incidentally , why the disparagement of the electoral system?"
Because like a lot of things in the US the electoral system they have is a ramshackle underfunded affair with no mandated way of running the voting. Americans do a lot of things really really well however they also do some things really badly. States and counties are responsible for the voting machines etc and there is no commission in overall control. We are lucky enough to have the AEC that sets the rules and ensures that elections here are run in a professional standard manner all over Australia. Also we have preferential voting which I think is the fairest method.
The climate measuring system is run a bit the same way with volunteers running most of the stations. As far as I know there is no central control over the whole system.
"McIntyre certainly doesn't seem to be going overboard about it."
No but his cronies are. To listen to Ian Mott you would think McIntyre had stormed NASA and purged the evil from the empire.
Perhaps you guys can step down the rhetoric a bit and I will certainly give it a rest. I am as sick of it as you.
Arnost - "If this is so well known, then why hasn't some of the billions channeled into AGW/Climate Change research been used to correct this?"
Right the so-called billions into AGW/Climate change research that otherwise goes under the name of basic research. Funnily enough most of this research supports the AGW case. Perhaps there might be something to this AGW after all.
Weather records are one of the 'boring' parts of meteorology that has to be done however no-one ever want to spend money on them and they are always the first to be cut when budgets are tight. Like most areas of basic research that politicians cannot milk votes out of these areas are left with dedicated and usually unpaid people making up for the lack of money.
And don't as me why money has not been spent on this vital part of the weather record ask your local member of parliament. Since this newly awakened interest in the surface temperature record this is the perfect time to lobby them to fund the network better.
"Look, we're all really on the same side - we're all just trying to figure out how best to manage the looming crisis. So I suggest you get over it - an error has been identified, fixed and science is better for it."
I totally agree.
No spin at all Ender.
The US is on of the most technologically developed and wealthiest nations on earth - and it has quite a geographical spread. I think it's fair to assume that it has amongst the most relaible climate records.
And I haven't seen anything that suggests this result automatically brings other climate data into disrepute. I actually said that in this thread previously.
"Do you expect all data that climate scientists use are perfect?"
Not at all - but I do expect that when an error is not discovered/corrected for years that it should receive some substantial coverage.
Incidentally , why the disparagement of the electoral system?
Because it elects the wrong people?
It's certainly superior to the system at work in Cuba for example.....
" (this) matter is certainly not the triviality that Gavin Schmidt would have you believe, but neither is it any magic bullet. I think that the point is significant for reasons that have mostly eluded commentators on both sides."
McIntyre certainly doesn't seem to be going overboard about it.
Ender
"It is a rather ramshackle UNDERFUNDED [my caps]system that has to have major corrections in the data to get any sort of data at all..." This is rather sad to see comming from an CO2 AGW apologist.
If this is so well known, then why hasn't some of the billions channeled into AGW/Climate Change research been used to correct this?
And no matter which way you spin it, the error "that almost made no difference" was in one of the world's better weather station networks and was 25% of the global warming trend since mid century and 33% of the global warming trend since '85 - when the sun's role is meant to have diminished !
You obviously have great perspectives to offer - but you seem to be taking this a tad too personally. I just don't see anybody here "crowing" as you constantly suggest. Look, we're all really on the same side - we're all just trying to figure out how best to manage the looming crisis. So I suggest you get over it - an error has been identified, fixed and science is better for it.
And SJT - it has everything to do with Hansen, he runs the shop.
cheers
Arnost