Revised Temp Data Reduces Global Warming Fever

1998 was not the hottest US year ever.  Nor was 2006 the runner up.

Sure, had you checked NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) website just days ago, you would have thought so, but not today.  You see, thanks to the efforts of Steve McIntyre over at, the Surface Air Temperature Anomaly charts for those and many other years have been revised - predominately down.


It's a wild and technical story of compromised weather stations and hack computer algorithms (including, get this - a latent Y2K bug) and those wishing to read the fascinating details should follow ALL of the links I've provided.  But, simply stated, McIntyre not only proved the error of the calculations used to interpret the data from the 1000 plus US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) weather stations feeding GISS, but also the cascading effect of that error on past data.

You see, as Warren Meyer over at (whose recent email expressed a delight we share in the irony of this correction taking place the week of the Gore / Newsweek story) points out:
"One of the interesting aspects of these temperature data bases is that they do not just use the raw temperature measurements from each station.  Both the NOAA (which maintains the USHCN stations) and the GISS apply many layers of adjustments."
It was the gross folly of these "fudge factors" McIntyre challenged NASA on.  And won. 

Today, not only have the charts and graphs been modified, but the GISS website includes this acknowledgement that:
"the USHCN station records up to 1999 were replaced by a version of USHCN data with further corrections after an adjustment computed by comparing the common 1990-1999 period of the two data sets. (We wish to thank Stephen McIntyre for bringing to our attention that such an adjustment is necessary to prevent creating an artificial jump in year 2000.)"
But, as only the Gorebots actually believe the hype that recent year to year temperature shifts are somehow proof of anthropogenic global warming, why is this significant?
As explained by Noel Sheppard over at Newsbusters:
"One of the key tenets of the global warming myth being advanced by [GISS head James] Hansen and soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore is that nine of the ten warmest years in history have occurred since 1995."
Additionally, as broken by Rush Limbaugh on his radio show this afternoon, Reuters is now reporting in a piece entitled Scientists predict surge in global warming after 2009 that:
"A study forecasts that global warming will set in with a vengeance after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998, which was the warmest year on record."
As so deftly observed by El Rushbo, who wonders how long NASA has been aware of the errors, many greenies have spread their nonsense using 1998's bogus distinction to generate angst amongst the weak-minded.

Yet - thanks to a Blogging Scientist -- that's all changed now - check the newly revised GISS table.
1934 is now the hottest, and 3 others from the 1930's are in the top 10.  Furthermore, only 3 (not 9) took place since 1995 (1998, 1999, and 2006).  The years 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 are now below the year 1900 and no longer even in the top 20.
So, we're not really on a roller-coaster to hell, then?

Of course, eco-maniacs will argue that it's the global readings that count, not those of the USA alone.  Nuts to that.  It's nearly impossible to believe that when put to similar close scrutiny, global mechanisms will stand the heat any better than ours.

Besides, as GISS hosts the reference database of choice for all manner of enviro-mental-cases, one would think such a significant content correction itself would spark huge news and greenie-card reevaluation, right?

Well -- as Noel asked and answered his readers:
"Think this will be Newsweek's next cover-story?  No, I don't either."
If you experience technical problems, please write to