Posted on 08/12/2007 10:38:32 AM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
I've done some digging into the recent scandal over how GISS has quietly changed its data to reflect the fact that 1998 is no longer the warmest year on American record.
However, thanks to the resources of the Wayback Machine of WebArchive, I've discovered that the 1998 data has not been quite so high for a while.
Let's recall that the newly reevaluted figures are as follows:
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C) ------------------------------------------------------ year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean --------------------------------- 1880 -.26 * 1881 .29 * 1882 .07 -.24 1883 -.68 -.30 1884 -.63 -.41 1885 -.54 -.46 1886 -.28 -.39 1887 -.17 -.21 1888 -.32 -.06 1889 .28 -.04 1890 .20 -.11 1891 -.20 -.19 1892 -.51 -.21 1893 -.72 -.38 1894 .17 -.30 1895 -.66 -.22 1896 .19 -.10 1897 -.08 -.22 1898 -.15 .03 1899 -.41 .00 1900 .57 -.01 1901 .05 -.11 1902 -.13 -.13 1903 -.65 -.34 1904 -.48 -.35 1905 -.47 -.37 1906 -.02 -.21 1907 -.24 -.17 1908 .14 -.02 1909 -.27 .02 1910 .28 -.11 1911 .17 -.15 1912 -.88 -.08 1913 -.03 -.16 1914 .09 -.29 1915 -.15 -.33 1916 -.50 -.31 1917 -1.06 -.35 1918 .06 -.40 1919 -.10 -.07 1920 -.41 .17 1921 1.15 .15 1922 .18 .02 1923 -.07 .17 1924 -.74 -.05 1925 .36 -.05 1926 .04 -.02 1927 .15 .01 1928 .07 -.03 1929 -.58 .18 1930 .16 .15 1931 1.08 .27 1932 .00 .63 1933 .68 .61 1934 1.25 .44 1935 .04 .41 1936 .21 .45 1937 -.13 .37 1938 .86 .36 1939 .85 .45 1940 .03 .49 1941 .61 .35 1942 .09 .21 1943 .17 .19 1944 .14 .22 1945 -.03 .22 1946 .72 .17 1947 .10 .18 1948 -.08 .13 1949 .20 -.10 1950 -.28 -.05 1951 -.42 .14 1952 .32 .27 1953 .90 .32 1954 .85 .47 1955 -.03 .43 1956 .29 .26 1957 .14 .13 1958 .06 .08 1959 .17 .02 1960 -.24 -.01 1961 -.02 .02 1962 -.02 -.03 1963 .19 -.01 1964 -.07 -.05 1965 -.11 -.07 1966 -.24 -.16 1967 -.10 -.19 1968 -.28 -.19 1969 -.23 -.16 1970 -.11 -.21 1971 -.10 -.11 1972 -.35 -.03 1973 .24 -.05 1974 .15 -.08 1975 -.20 .06 1976 -.25 -.09 1977 .37 -.24 1978 -.52 -.16 1979 -.60 .02 1980 .22 -.12 1981 .64 -.02 1982 -.36 .10 1983 -.01 -.03 1984 .00 -.01 1985 -.42 .22 1986 .73 .29 1987 .83 .25 1988 .32 .51 1989 -.19 .50 1990 .87 .40 1991 .69 .25 1992 .30 .38 1993 -.44 .27 1994 .46 .10 1995 .34 .05 1996 -.17 .38 1997 .03 .47 1998 1.23 .51 1999 .93 .69 2000 .52 .79 2001 .76 .65 2002 .53 .55 2003 .50 .58 2004 .44 .66 2005 .69 * 2006 1.13 * ---------------------------------
As you can see, 1998's temperature variation is smaller than 1934's, meaning the the temperature anamoly in 1934 was greater than 1998's: and since they're both compared to the same relative mean (1951-1980, according to the graphs page of GISTEMP of GISS.), then 1934's recorded temperature is greater than 1998's. With this in mind, you can see that 1921 is third at 1.15, with 2006 in 4th at 1.13, with 1931 at fifth at 1.08.
Now, we've been hearing that the data has shown that 1998 was previously higher. Most sources I've read, such as Global Warming Hoax have pointed out that the figures before the reevaluation pointed 1998 to be 1.24, with 1934 at 1.23.
But the data pulled from the Wayback Machine Web Archives paints a different picture. Recall that these are archived pages. They cannot reflect the reevaluated figures because they are separated from GISS. They cannot be altered; they are pictures, snapshots of a particular point in time. With that in mind, keep on reading.
Let's go back to September 01, 2006. Amidst the menagerie of broken images, you can click on the DATA & IMAGES toolbar up top. Then go to GISS Surface Air Temperature Analysis. Now Graphs. Scroll down Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States and click on tabular data. What do we get?
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C) ------------------------------------------------------ year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean --------------------------------- 1880 -.41 .13 1881 .15 -.14 1882 -.04 -.34 1883 -.70 -.36 1884 -.73 -.44 1885 -.50 -.48 1886 -.25 -.39 1887 -.21 -.19 1888 -.28 -.05 1889 .28 -.04 1890 .23 -.10 1891 -.24 -.17 1892 -.47 -.21 1893 -.66 -.39 1894 .11 -.31 1895 -.69 -.24 1896 .17 -.14 1897 -.12 -.25 1898 -.17 .00 1899 -.43 -.02 1900 .54 -.01 1901 .07 -.11 1902 -.09 -.11 1903 -.65 -.31 1904 -.41 -.34 1905 -.47 -.37 1906 -.06 -.21 1907 -.22 -.18 1908 .11 -.02 1909 -.25 .01 1910 .31 -.12 1911 .11 -.17 1912 -.89 -.11 1913 -.13 -.21 1914 .03 -.33 1915 -.16 -.36 1916 -.51 -.32 1917 -1.00 -.36 1918 .02 -.42 1919 -.15 -.10 1920 -.45 .12 1921 1.08 .10 1922 .11 -.01 1923 -.09 .15 1924 -.70 -.05 1925 .38 -.04 1926 .04 -.01 1927 .16 .02 1928 .05 -.03 1929 -.54 .16 1930 .11 .12 1931 1.00 .24 1932 -.01 .60 1933 .66 .58 1934 1.24 .42 1935 .05 .40 1936 .18 .43 1937 -.12 .34 1938 .78 .34 1939 .80 .41 1940 .04 .45 1941 .54 .32 1942 .07 .18 1943 .16 .17 1944 .09 .20 1945 -.01 .20 1946 .67 .15 1947 .09 .17 1948 -.08 .13 1949 .18 -.08 1950 -.23 -.04 1951 -.38 .15 1952 .30 .28 1953 .88 .31 1954 .82 .44 1955 -.05 .41 1956 .28 .25 1957 .14 .12 1958 .07 .09 1959 .16 .03 1960 -.22 .00 1961 .00 .02 1962 -.02 -.03 1963 .19 .00 1964 -.08 -.05 1965 -.12 -.07 1966 -.24 -.16 1967 -.10 -.19 1968 -.27 -.19 1969 -.23 -.16 1970 -.12 -.22 1971 -.10 -.11 1972 -.36 -.04 1973 .25 -.05 1974 .15 -.08 1975 -.20 .07 1976 -.23 -.09 1977 .36 -.23 1978 -.51 -.15 1979 -.58 .03 1980 .22 -.12 1981 .65 -.01 1982 -.36 .10 1983 .01 -.02 1984 .01 -.01 1985 -.41 .23 1986 .73 .30 1987 .84 .26 1988 .33 .52 1989 -.17 .51 1990 .88 .41 1991 .69 .26 1992 .31 .38 1993 -.43 .28 1994 .47 .10 1995 .35 .05 1996 -.18 .38 1997 .05 .48 1998 1.24 .54 1999 .94 .55 2000 .65 .88 2001 .89 .76 2002 .67 .68 2003 .65 .75 2004 .54 * 2005 .99 * ------------------------------------------------------
Now we see that 1998 and 1934 are tied at 1.24. Not reflective of the truth, but different than the spouted line that 1998 was hotter than 1934. 1921 and 1931 are much colder in this snapshot; 1.08 and 1.00 respectively. You'll notice that one big jump is 2005: at .99, its reevaluated figure of .69 is a tremendous fall.
Things get odder as we go further back in time, however. August 03, 2004. Follow the same path I described above to the data for U.S. temperature, up to 2003. Here's where things get REALLY interesting.
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C) ------------------------------------------------------ year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean --------------------------------- 1880 -.41 .13 1881 .15 -.14 1882 -.04 -.34 1883 -.70 -.36 1884 -.73 -.44 1885 -.50 -.48 1886 -.25 -.39 1887 -.21 -.19 1888 -.28 -.05 1889 .28 -.04 1890 .23 -.10 1891 -.24 -.17 1892 -.47 -.21 1893 -.66 -.39 1894 .11 -.31 1895 -.69 -.24 1896 .17 -.14 1897 -.12 -.25 1898 -.17 .00 1899 -.43 -.02 1900 .54 -.01 1901 .07 -.11 1902 -.09 -.11 1903 -.65 -.31 1904 -.41 -.34 1905 -.47 -.37 1906 -.06 -.21 1907 -.22 -.18 1908 .11 -.02 1909 -.25 .01 1910 .31 -.12 1911 .11 -.17 1912 -.89 -.11 1913 -.13 -.21 1914 .03 -.33 1915 -.16 -.36 1916 -.51 -.32 1917 -1.00 -.36 1918 .02 -.42 1919 -.15 -.10 1920 -.45 .12 1921 1.08 .10 1922 .11 -.01 1923 -.09 .15 1924 -.70 -.05 1925 .38 -.04 1926 .04 -.01 1927 .16 .02 1928 .05 -.03 1929 -.54 .16 1930 .11 .12 1931 1.00 .24 1932 -.01 .60 1933 .66 .58 1934 1.24 .42 1935 .05 .40 1936 .18 .43 1937 -.12 .34 1938 .78 .34 1939 .80 .41 1940 .04 .45 1941 .54 .32 1942 .07 .18 1943 .16 .17 1944 .09 .20 1945 -.01 .20 1946 .67 .15 1947 .09 .17 1948 -.08 .13 1949 .18 -.08 1950 -.23 -.04 1951 -.38 .15 1952 .30 .28 1953 .88 .31 1954 .82 .44 1955 -.05 .41 1956 .28 .25 1957 .14 .12 1958 .07 .09 1959 .16 .03 1960 -.22 .00 1961 .00 .03 1962 .00 -.03 1963 .19 -.01 1964 -.10 -.05 1965 -.13 -.07 1966 -.22 -.17 1967 -.08 -.19 1968 -.30 -.19 1969 -.21 -.17 1970 -.13 -.22 1971 -.11 -.11 1972 -.32 -.03 1973 .23 -.05 1974 .18 -.08 1975 -.22 .05 1976 -.26 -.09 1977 .35 -.24 1978 -.49 -.15 1979 -.58 .03 1980 .23 -.11 1981 .64 -.02 1982 -.35 .10 1983 -.03 -.03 1984 .02 -.01 1985 -.40 .21 1986 .71 .28 1987 .76 .25 1988 .32 .50 1989 -.15 .49 1990 .85 .40 1991 .65 .25 1992 .30 .38 1993 -.40 .28 1994 .48 .12 1995 .36 .07 1996 -.14 .39 1997 .05 .49 1998 1.20 .54 1999 .95 .75 2000 .65 .83 2001 .89 .68 2002 .45 * 2003 .48 * ---------------------------------
Hold up. 1998 is now at 1.20. This puts it BEHIND 1934 as the hottest year on record, which is still at 1.24. As a matter of fact, in this archived page, 2002 and 2003 (.45, and .48 respectively) are all COLDER than the reevaluated figures show (.53, and .59 respectively). As another oddity, 1999 and 2001 are both hotter in the archived figures than they are in reevaluated data(compare .95 to .93 for 1999, and .89 to .76 for 2001). More and more changes abound, hotter and colder all around. What gives?
The most glowing difference nonetheless remains the change in data for 1998. It is colder than 1934.
And as we go back to the GISS page as archived on October 16, 2002, we see that the tabular data for U.S. temperatures goes only as far as 1999. Let's compare again.
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C) ------------------------------------------------------ year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean --------------------------------- 1880 -.41 .13 1881 .15 -.14 1882 -.04 -.34 1883 -.70 -.36 1884 -.73 -.44 1885 -.50 -.48 1886 -.25 -.39 1887 -.21 -.19 1888 -.28 -.05 1889 .28 -.04 1890 .23 -.10 1891 -.24 -.17 1892 -.47 -.21 1893 -.66 -.39 1894 .11 -.31 1895 -.69 -.24 1896 .17 -.14 1897 -.12 -.25 1898 -.17 .00 1899 -.43 -.02 1900 .54 -.01 1901 .07 -.11 1902 -.09 -.11 1903 -.65 -.31 1904 -.41 -.34 1905 -.47 -.37 1906 -.06 -.21 1907 -.22 -.18 1908 .11 -.02 1909 -.25 .01 1910 .31 -.12 1911 .11 -.17 1912 -.89 -.11 1913 -.13 -.21 1914 .03 -.33 1915 -.16 -.36 1916 -.51 -.32 1917 -1.00 -.36 1918 .02 -.42 1919 -.15 -.10 1920 -.45 .12 1921 1.08 .10 1922 .11 -.01 1923 -.09 .15 1924 -.70 -.05 1925 .38 -.04 1926 .04 -.01 1927 .16 .02 1928 .05 -.03 1929 -.54 .16 1930 .11 .12 1931 1.00 .24 1932 -.01 .60 1933 .66 .58 1934 1.24 .42 1935 .05 .40 1936 .18 .43 1937 -.12 .34 1938 .78 .34 1939 .80 .41 1940 .04 .45 1941 .54 .32 1942 .07 .18 1943 .16 .17 1944 .09 .20 1945 -.01 .20 1946 .67 .15 1947 .09 .17 1948 -.08 .13 1949 .18 -.08 1950 -.23 -.04 1951 -.38 .15 1952 .30 .28 1953 .88 .31 1954 .82 .44 1955 -.05 .41 1956 .28 .25 1957 .14 .12 1958 .07 .09 1959 .16 .03 1960 -.22 .00 1961 .00 .03 1962 .00 -.03 1963 .19 -.01 1964 -.10 -.05 1965 -.13 -.07 1966 -.22 -.17 1967 -.08 -.19 1968 -.30 -.19 1969 -.21 -.17 1970 -.13 -.22 1971 -.11 -.11 1972 -.32 -.03 1973 .23 -.05 1974 .18 -.08 1975 -.22 .05 1976 -.26 -.09 1977 .35 -.24 1978 -.49 -.15 1979 -.58 .03 1980 .23 -.11 1981 .64 -.02 1982 -.35 .10 1983 -.03 -.03 1984 .02 -.01 1985 -.40 .21 1986 .71 .28 1987 .76 .25 1988 .32 .50 1989 -.15 .49 1990 .85 .40 1991 .65 .25 1992 .30 .38 1993 -.40 .28 1994 .48 .12 1995 .36 .07 1996 -.14 .39 1997 .05 .49 1998 1.20 * 1999 .95 * ---------------------------------
1998 remains at 1.20. 1934 is still the hottest year on record in America...and all before this latest hubbub over altered data.
So what does this say?
Considering James Hansen's refusal to reveal the algorithms used to originally calculate the faulty data, this speaks of not just an effort to hide NASA/GISS's screw up (especially considering the media silence on this), but of a blatant, outright falsehood that's been perpetrated over the last several years.
1998, until now, was claimed to be the hottest year on record. That claim was made using faulty data. And yet the faulty data that this claim was made on says something different altogether!
It says a lot about the character of the pushers of manmade global warming when both the truth (the reevaluated data) and the lie (the archived data) both say that they're wrong. Yikes.
Hope the mods don't mind that this is in Front Page, but this is big.
Global warming ping.
A new scandal?
Not just big, it's HUGH!
Am I logged on?
It’s not just hugh and series, it’s figantice! :O
HA....the glo warmers have been exposed...their agenda is NO more...it’s dying an ugly death...HA
Government lied? Noooo, really.
Lawrence Solomon's "The Deniers" (a series of articles on the view of scientists who have been labelled "Global Warming Deniers"):
Other References:
If the data showed the we are continually getting warmer, then we need to look at the cycle. If the data shows that we are getting colder then we look at the data from a different direction.
This is how the original discoveries of climate cycles were discovered, and why climatologists can look back over many years and do basic research.
When the data is falsified in any area then the conclusions are questioned. Look at human genetics for what happens to scientists that “push” data to prove a point.
There is no realistic peer review of global warming (or cooling) because the discipline has become a religion and the reviewers are all koolaid drinkers.
Keep up the good work and don’t stop publishing. One day the Wayback Machine may be mysteriously edited and these figures will not be there. Shades of Orwell.
Do you really trust temperature data from more that 50 years ago to two decimal places???
Then accounting for statistical error, I don’t put much faith in these data at all.
Tread lightly with this. I’m not sure what process they’re using since they won’t tell anyone, but this might be explainable.
It will be interesting to hear GISS’s explanation.
You have too much time on your hands.
Someone e-mail this to Al Gore
That’s precisely the point.
This data is used to determine public policy that affects EVERYONE: you, me, our fellow FReepers, and other American citizens.
If the data’s faulty, and it’s being used to perpetuate a contradictory policy anyway, it needs to be none.
Still, as BBB pointed out, it might be explainable; if so, then there we go.
I just got done with finals, and this whole recent scandal with GISS triggered my curiosity.
ping
Its HUGH and SERIES!!!
Really it is!
Al Gore and his cronies are out for MONEY, they have to HEAT those multi-million dollar mansions you know!!!
Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit beat you by a couple of days
Thanks. However, the argument will be made that the data has been recently subjected to more accurate statistical methodology.
I’m aware that McIntyre originally discovered this. That’s what I’m referencing by the reevaluated data.
What I find disconcerting is that, even WITH faulty data, public policy decisions were still made, and claims were made are contrary to both the newly-discovered truth AND the old lies.
It’s just disconcerting to me.
The big picture, in my personal opinon, is that 1988 was claimed to be the hottest year on record, even when the data that would justify that is contradictory. The faulty data AND the reevaluated data say this.
It offers the environuts more ammo if 1998 was the hottest year on effort. Not only is that not true, but the data they originally ran on contradicts them anyway.
>Government lied?<
And Bush bought it!
...and its supposed to be hot all this week, too.
No disagreement with your post and its conclusions. My point was that the discrepancies will be “explained!”
>You have too much time on your hands.<
You should only hope to be as brilliant as Ultra.
BTTT...Great find!!!!
Doesn't the 'get a life' accusation apply to all of us who are posting on a Global Warming thread on a Sunday morning?
Ping.
Ping.
Look how the official data has changed over time. They called this a Y2K bug when it was first pointed out. This is straight up Orwellian logic.
Isn’t there a financial fraud issue here somewhere?
After all we have falsified data now.
This is growing and growing in scandal and the MSM is only trying to promote and protect the lie.
This is more blatent than the Dan Rather fraud effort yet the MSM is still denying.
(Where is the much celebrated Drudge on this? Drudgereport is the MSM’s home page.)
Now we have a cover up scandal on top of the lie and we have TWO cover ups!
the DBM silence is deafening.
You will be shocked. One of them is at an airport in an area subject to JET BLAST!!! Others are next to AC units and the hot air they vent. Still others are next to barrels used to BURN trash.
I heard about that when it came to light about the stations.
I tell ya, the whole thing stinks.
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Excellent work!
This would normally be a huge RED FLAG. But the MSM wasn't interested.
“Al’s still sore’s” man on the inside - Hansen, needs to be fined, fired, and forgotten.
GISS and James Hansen have REWRITTEN the data 5 different times now.
The Hadley Centre in the UK (the other big organization tracking global temperatures) has adjusted the data 7 times already. Phil Jones (the main guy at the Hadley Centre who kicked off the 1st of these adjustments in 1990) claims to have lost the original data.
So, you can’t trust these two organizations or anything they have produced. They are warming alarmists through and through and the charts you see of global warming over the past century (0.8C of increase) is made up of 0.7C of “adjustments” and 0.1C of raw data increase.
L
....and good thinking, using the web archived data.
Do you have copies of those pages saved? I wouldn't be surprised if someone couldn't make them disappear.
I should do that.
For later...
For later...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
