Study: The 1998 Warmest Year Hoax?
NASA releases new data that their original projection that claims that 1998 was the hottest year on record was wrong… it is now 1934. A blogger, Steve McIntyre made this discovery… unfortunately his website (Climateaudit.org) is down. However, another website Watts Up With That has a run down of what Mr. McIntyre discovered about this new data.
Other reactions from across the blogosphere…
Climate Science ‘The hard work of of Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts has resulted in the identification of a significant error in the assessment of the rankings of what have been the warmest years in the United States as identified by GISS. The current warmest year is 1934′
Rush Limbaugh ‘The thing to remember is that 1998 is not the warmest year on record. It forms one of the central theses about the current global warming hoax’
Daily Tech ‘NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events’
Michelle Malkin ‘Some big environmental news that you haven’t heard much about: NASA has revised much-publicized US temperature data that have been used to claim 1998 as a record-breaking hottest year in the millenium’
Noel Sheppard ‘As global warming is such a key issue being debated all around this country and on Capitol Hill, wouldn’t such a change by the agency responsible for calculating such things be important to disseminate? When this correction was made by Hansen’s team at the GISS, shouldn’t it have been reported?
In fact, it is quite disgraceful that it wasn’t, as it suggests that a government agency is actually participating in a fraud against the American people by withholding information crucial to a major policy issue now facing the nation’
Hennessy’s View ‘In short, 1998 was NOT the hottest year of the 20th century. And half of the hottest years on record occured before WWII. Al Gore is an idiot, and now NASA scientists have proven it’
thought cops ‘I remain a persuadable agnostic on the whole business, but the urgency of the propaganda jihad here trips a contrarian wire in me, leaving me deeply suspicious. If I were a betting man, I’d bet that this thing falls apart big time, and sooner than later’
Ace Of Spades ‘Any correction like this which shows that two of the three highest temperatures in the US occurred so much earlier in the century (1934 and 1921 — Good lord, how many people in the world even had cars or oil heat then?) suggests not an ever-rising temperature but a cyclically rising, and falling, and rising, and falling pattern’
Possibly Related Posts:
Stumble It!
17 Responses to “Study: The 1998 Warmest Year Hoax?”
August 10th, 2007 at 9:12 am
[...] [More reaction here.] [...]
August 10th, 2007 at 11:06 am
[...] The 1998 Warmest Year Hoax? | Political Vindication [...]
August 10th, 2007 at 11:07 am
The corrected data was for the US surface air temperature, not for the global surface air temperature. See http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
The warmest year on record for the Earth was 2005. Then 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2004, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1990, 1991, 2000, 1999, 1988, 1996, 1987… you get the idea. R-squared for linear trend of
0.55 C/century is 0.73; in other words, a very strong trend.
The US record years are 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, etc. A *lot* more variation (R-squared = 0.14) but as the trendline indicates (0.48 C/century), the US trend is in line with the global trend.
August 10th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Cunctator,
I think the point everyone is trying to make is that nobody knows what the hell is going on. Yes, these numbers are limited to the United States… but how do we know that these same miscalculations were not made in global temperatures? Global warming projections are only as accurate as the people that calculate these numbers… Steve McIntyre just found a major error among those who’s duty it is to study this matter.
August 10th, 2007 at 11:54 am
McIntyre’s accomplishment was real, but we’re talking about something like three to five data points that were corrected. Climate scientists recognize and admit the degree of uncertainty in their data collection and analysis, and use many different methods to cross-check their conclusions.
Before McIntyre’s correction, assuming the Daily Tech story is accurate (since McIntyre’s site isn’t up, it’s hard to tell), the general understanding was that the lower 48 showed a warming trend in line with the global trend, but with a great variability that makes the trend on its own not statistically significant. The global trend was statistically significant.
After McIntyre’s correction, the lower 48 showed a warming trend in line with the global trend, but with a great variability that makes the trend on its own not statistically significant. The global trend was statistically significant.
In other words, it’s possible that some AP headlines should go back and be changed but the overall picture changed not one whit.
I would *love* for global warming to be a Y2K bug. Unfortunately, it’s not.
August 10th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
The point is still the same, McIntyre’s discovery is real and when those same scientists tell us that Armageddon is at hand and extortion tactics are proposed based on their studies… they better double and triple check everything. After all, it‘s not like governments, including those scientists that work for the government have not lied for our good before. .. Right? It was NASA that felt the need to change it’s erroneous data that everyone has been quoting, but it took McIntyre to discover this… and it did not come on their own accord. The fact that the warmest day in U.S. history went from 1998 to 1934 is not an insignificant fact.
August 10th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Not warmest day — highest annual mean. The real point is that there isn’t enough respect for error bars among the media, the general public, or even among enough scientists. It’s fun to say 1934 was the hottest! or 1998 was the hottest! or 2005 was the hottest!
But when you’re looking to find climate trends, you need to look over both long time periods (e.g. decades) and large areas (e.g. hemispheres). If a signal emerges at that scale from the noise of natural variability, incomplete knowledge of the system dynamics, and imprecise measurement, you can state something about the trends.
And the present global warming trend is startlingly clear. Three decades ago, the trend was there but not emerging sufficiently from the noise for scientific consensus. More than a decade ago that trend emerged.
August 10th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Cunctactor,
I stand corrected, I meant year not day.
We know that governments have lied to us in the past for our own good (Aids, poverty, global cooling). Considering such a diabolical history of government, should it not be a natural impulse to want to question what comes out of NASA when such a story breaks? If you want to except trends and models from those that have made countless mistakes (or as I believe continually lied through out it’s past history) that’s you choice, but I am not as forgiving. Considering that Californians should be swimming with the dolphins, and that gas masks are not yet a fashion trend in New York… many have lost their credibility on this issue.
August 10th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Since I probably disagree with you on whether the government has lied about AIDS, poverty, and global cooling, this is probably a good point to sign off.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Thanks for the comments, Cunc – but it seems that a large part of the opposition to global warming stems from a hubris on your side and an antipathy to the groping hand of government on ours. Global warming is a serious issue, but neither side treats the issue with much respect.
Those who believe in the calamity of human induced global warming gather facts that support their view and condemn anyone who disagrees as “deniers,” considered “treasonous” or shills for the oil company. When Heidi Cullen calls for censoring those who disagree with her, or Al Gore scoffs at the idea that anyone is still debating an issue that has been decided – it’s analogous to Galileo being forced to withdraw his challenges to conventional wisdom about the earth being the center of the universe – is there any scientist who opposes the “consensus” that the earth is doomed through global warming that the environmental left does not slander, libel and threaten to unveil to the environmental community as a “liar” and a tool of the oil companies? Is any dissension allowed?
You readily dismiss complications in US temperatures for faith in worldwide readings, but when we read about meteorological stations in China, and the validity of their readings with consideration paid to whether they have been moved (affecting their readings), we find that of the 84 meteorological stations in China, “49 of those stations, the DOE/CAS report says, “station histories are not currently available” and “details regarding instrumentation, collection methods, changes in station location or observing times … are not known.” Is that any way to conduct scientific analysis?
All research must be done without political consideration and as close to perfect as possible, if only because you are asking developed countries to slow down their economies, families to lower their standard of living, and each one of us to hand over personal freedoms to our governments for our own good. If you’re going to ask so much of us, we have every right to demand as much from you.
August 12th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
I’m a physicist who studied climate change at MIT as a grad student. It’s possible that there’s a massive conspiracy by scientists worldwide to trick everyone into believing in global warming, but the effort would be beyond comprehension. For the peer-reviewed science to be wrong, the physics, the satellites, the ground measurements, the ice cores, the chemistry, the modeling, would all have to be manipulated. It’s true that climate science involves massive levels of uncertainty — that is why it is all the more compelling how clear the anthropogenic global warming signal is. There simply is no model of our world’s climate that explains the data collected over the last few decades (and is consistent with all the measurements of the decades previous) other than that of effects induced by human-emitted greenhouse gases.
Maybe trusting in science is hubris. I’m not calling anyone treasonous or calling people liars — in fact, it was Uncle Seth who claimed that the government lied about poverty, AIDS, and global cooling.
I think it is a mistake to believe that dealing with global warming requires families to lower their standard of living or to hand over personal freedoms to our governments for our own good.
We do need to pay an honest price for the pollution we emit.
But I’m hoping we take the opportunity for us as individuals to take greater control over power production and use, to decentralize the energy grid, for example. Yes, we will have to take greater responsibility for the environmental costs of our actions, but we have the opportunity to have greater personal control over our choices as well.
I don’t trust the federal government or the coal industry or a multinational investment firm to have my best interests at heart.
And worrying about governmental action and ignoring what the corporations are doing to consolidate power is a foolhardy move, I think.
August 12th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Cunctator says:
Again – intimations that those you disagree with are simplistic or worse dilute your argument – as if I assume “the federal government or the coal industry or a multinational investment firm to have my best interests at heart.” The examples offered by Uncle Seth are right on – and in particular are problematic, in general offer ample reasons to distrust bright eyed bureaucrats ushering in sweeping governmental action that will have wide ranging affects on our lifestyles while promising very little in actual environmental effects (in the short term). Why is it that being wary of the government bully mean that we would ignore corporations that are consolidating power? Are they not as dangerous an encroachment on my freedom as rapacious government? Can we not distrust them both? Or is this actually a veiled attempt to attack capitalism? Why must it be? And you call me the fool?
Cunc – you have the education to offer insight to this complex issue – yet your strategy of dismissing opponents as simpletons and fools – as tools of the denial industry rob from you the respect your title affords. I am not closed to the idea that global warming may ravage the planet, but I won’t be bullied into handing you the broad power you demand. You and yours need to do more to gain trust – not gain power – gain trust, and convince us to fasten the manacles onto ourselves. Massive levels of uncertainty accompanied with curious lapses in credibility make the threats of environmental doomsday ring hollow.
And that’s our fear – that you see global warming as a stick to punish – that your motivation stems from a perspective that sees humans as the virus that destroys a pristine world. As an avid outdoorsman I make it a point to respect the world around me, and I teach that to the children around me because we are a part of this world – not a foreign species bent on its destruction. I’m looking for balance between man and nature, but I suspect, from the shrill calls that demean folks like me, your side is looking for payback. If you want more environmental responsibility, there are better ways to gain that – it need not be a framed as submission, and man need not be your enemy.
Again – thanks for the time spent on these comments – I don’t don’t doubt your love for the world around you – and an educated man as yourself deserves respect. Surely with all of the education at your disposal, someone on your side can find a better way to seduce mankind into passivity than tempting the jealous nature of the citizen who cherishes his freedom.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
[...] Waste of My Oxygen, Webloggin, Hyscience, Crush Liberalism, Babalu Blog, BizzyBlog, Jeremy Gilby, Political Vindication, The Strata-Sphere, and [...]
August 13th, 2007 at 6:31 am
I’m not calling anyone the fool. I’m not dismissing anyone as a simpleton. I’m not see global warming as a stick to punish. I’m not framing anything as submission. Man is not my enemy. I’m not threatening environmental doomsday. I’m not demanding broad power. I’m not calling anyone a tool of the denial industry.
It’s difficult to engage in a dialogue with someone who makes those accusations.
You are right to be skeptical of both government and corporations.
I’m not sure what “Someone on your side can find a better way to seduce mankind into passivity than tempting the jealous nature of the citizen who cherishes his freedom” means.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Ha…Ha…Ha…
August 15th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
[...] Welcome Climate Audit Readers – Here’s the article mentioned in the “Round Up” comment section! [...]
December 15th, 2007 at 8:31 am
[...] http://politicalvindication.com/?p=950 [...]
All comments are moderated, all trolls will be strapped to plywood boards and lobotomized. Proceed with caution!