Re: [asa] Global Warming 'Deniers' Article 'Highly Contrived' per Newsweek Editor

From: Rich Blinne <>
Date: Mon Aug 13 2007 - 15:06:37 EDT

 On 8/13/07, PvM <> wrote:

> Note how janice still seems confused about the difference between US
> and global data
> <quote>
> ...The five warmest years since the late 1880s, according to NASA
> scientists, are in descending order 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2006.
> Credit: NASA
> Other groups that study climate change also rank these years as among
> the warmest, though the exact rankings vary depending upon details of
> the analyses. Results differ especially in regions of sparse
> measurements, where scientists use alternative methods of estimating
> temperature change.
> </quote>
> To which she 'responds'
> Matchett: It's a report made that doesn't reflect current data. It
> should be taken down.

Here the corrected and uncorrected global data:

and the corrected and uncorrected U.S. data:

The statement above is still valid. When you look at the graph above the
reason why you cannot see any difference between the old and new analyses is
because they differ around .001 degrees C. So, no, Janice, it should not be
taken down.

The following is Dr. Hansen's comments that came with the graphs above:

> Sorry to send another e-mail so soon. No need to read further unless you
> are interested in temperature changes to a tenth of a degree over the U.S.
> and a thousandth of a degree over the world.
> Recently it was realized that the monthly more-or-less-automatic updates
> of our global temperature analysis (
> had a flaw in
> the U.S. data. In that (2001) update of the analysis method (originally
> published in our 1981 Science paper
> ) we included
> improvements that NOAA had made in station records in the U.S., their
> corrections being based mainly on station-by-station information about
> station movement, change of time-of-day at which max-min are recorded, etc.
> Unfortunately, we didn't realize that these corrections would not continue
> to be readily available in the near-real-time data streams. The same
> stations are in the GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) data
> stream, however, and thus what our analysis picked up in subsequent years
> was station data without the NOAA correction. Obviously, combining the
> uncorrected GHCN with the NOAA-corrected records for earlier years caused
> jumps in 2001 in the records at those stations, some up, some down (over
> U.S. only). This problem is easy to fix, by matching the 1990s
> decadal-mean temperatures for the NOAA-corrected and GHCN records, and we
> have made that correction.
> The flaw did have a noticeable effect on mean U.S. temperature anomalies,
> as much as 0.15C, as shown in Figure 1 below (for years 2001 and later,
> and 5 year mean for 1999 and later). The effect on global temperature
> (Figure 2) was of order one-thousandth of a degree, so the corrected and
> uncorrected curves are indistinguishable. [RDB Note: The two figures
> mentioned here are what I have on Picasa]
> *Contrary to some of the statements flying around the internet, there is
> no effect on the rankings of global temperature*. Also our prior analysis
> had 1934 as the warmest year in the U.S. (see the 2001 paper above), and
> it continues to be the warmest year, both before and after the correction to
> post 2000 temperatures. However, as we note in that paper, the 1934 and 1998
> temperature are practically the same, the difference being much smaller than
> the uncertainty. [Emphasis mine]


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Aug 13 15:07:07 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 13 2007 - 15:07:07 EDT