Deniers, in their predictable fashion, will jump all over this and say, "See, seeeee...there is no global warming!" However, it should be stressed that this issue is with United States' temperatures. Since the US only comprises about 2% of our planet, these adjustments will have very little affect on global temperatures and the fact that the 11 warmest years on record happened over the past 12 years.

"the 11 warmest years on record happened over the past 12 years"

McIntyre's point is that the old data, on which your statement is based, is incorrect. Given that Hansen's team have acknowledged the error, your comment seems a bit reactionary and silly.

"Predictable fashion"? If you are interested in predictable fashion I would suggest checking out the Armani fall collection. If you are interested in science and the question of whether or not the earth is warming due to the influence of human beings I would suggest using honest numbers. The fact that the AGW fashionistas seem to repeatedly rely on cooked figures would imply less than true belief in the cause that they are pushing. they want all debate to cease not because there is nothing to debate, rather, they fear the results of a honest debate.

Why did McIntyre have to reverse engineer the algorithms? Hanson didn't want his work "peer reviewed?" Nah, couldn't be. The science is settled anyway so why look at things like this.

The reordering of the record temps are not the important issue here. We all know it is getting warmer. (thankfully) The issue is why. This story is important because it clearly illustrates that the data being used by the AGW cult can not be trusted. How many other conclusions and accepted "Facts" will need to be reversed when the data is openly examined and all the errors are exposed and fixed. The good work being done at "surfacestations.org" will no doubt eventually rewrite the story. Real Science will eventually prevail over religious fervor. The debate is just getting started. The science is anything but settled. Only religious zealots ever claim otherwise.
BTW; latest reports on ClimateAudit.org indicate that it was taken down by a DOS attack. Seems like the kind of action I would expect from Zealots. "Silance the heretics!!!!!!"

So 1934 was a hotter year than 1998. I know that was part of the dust bowl era which saw temperatures in the Plains reach well into the 110 to 120 range, including Southern Alberta and Saskatchewan. But did you know that in February of that year, some of the coldest temperatures ever recorded in the Northeast occured on the morning of the 9th. Central Park reached -15, Boston -18, and Providence R.I. reached -17, these are to this day the coldest ever recorded at these locations for any date.

Reply: Nice find!

rbnyc,

I can't believe you used the term "cooked" figures. Speaking of cooked, here in Atlanta, it's August, the middle of summer, and the temperature is near 100. That can only mean one thing... Globull Warming!!! Because you know, if you have a few days of hot weather in the middle of summer (something that only happens rarely here in Atlanta), it can't possibly be natural. It has to be because I drove my F-350 today.

The humidity here is 24%, so it's a "dry" heat. So it's more of a baking instead of cooking. We also have a bit of wind to add a nice blast furnace effect. Now I get to go out and work in this stuff this evening. Lovely. Well, that does it. Time to reduce my carbon footprint. I'm convinced that because it's hot in August in Atlanta, AGW must be true.

/sarc off

The bottom line is the data is flawed. How much more of it is? We can't make policy decisions based on conjecture and assumptions. Of course the AGW crowd goes into the defensive mode, minimalizing anyone who dares to question. It seems NOAA is also on the defensive, denying public access to records for Anthony Watts' surfacestations.org project. Cover-up?

AGW fanatics becoming terrorists at UK airports-
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2146692,00.html

as with various other flavours of religious fervor.

The US is only about 2% of the Globe. It is easy to lose that perspective sometimes. So, this errors affect on Global average temperatures is minimal.

Also, did anybody notice that.

www.realclimate.org

also had an article on the recent state of Arctic Sea Ice? It does not matter what any thermometer said back in 1934, the fact is that ice is melting big time.

The extent of the melting is exceeding that predicted by most climate models. The minimum extent of sea ice is usually in early to mid September, but this year, conditions by Aug 9 had already beaten all previous record minima.

Let me repeat that. ALL PREVIOUS RECORDS have already been beaten for MINIMUM EXTENT of ARCTIC SEA ICE. The melting will continue for another month or so before reaching a new minimum and the previous record was only 2 years ago!

How might this affect predictions for future warming?

We are in the mist of a major climate change for the Northern Hemisphere.

Dear Mark, I deny GW. But lets talk about the stages of grieving, such as for a falling apart religion like GW.
Every piece of evidence that doesn't fit is well ...DENIED.
That's not science dude,
Man pollutes, no argument there.
The seas are more polluted now than ever...yep
Th UN can solve the problem....LOL.
Give up the robes dude and get real,
the evidence will still mount against you because the theory is flawed.
That's reality, and you just keep yelling DENIERS.
Think...
Think about it.

Andrew,

Accurate sea ice records only go back 30 years, because that is when the satellites went up. They didn't have satellites in 1934 or any other accurate way to measure sea ice extent - so your argument is completely specious.

Additionally, recent studies say that up to 97% of the loss is due to soot, so your usual irrational jump back to CO2 disaster is on pretty shaky ground.

Also, Antarctic sea ice is increasing - does that mean the southern hemisphere is not included in the "globe" part of global warming.

Your hysteria and use of capital letters aren't doing anything to impress.

No, Andrew, WE are not in a mist. YOU are in a fog. Are you absolutely certain melting sea ice is related to global temperature? Better check it out. You AGW folks are rapidly running out of evidence. I predict mental meltdown for many of you when you realize your gullibility has led you to buy into the biggest scam since, well, global cooling.

Andrew,

You still don't get it, do you? They're fudging and messing with the data, refusing to release algorithms and methodology, and this is just in the US which supposedly has one of the more sophisticted weather recording systems in the world. If the US is screwed up that bad, it's hard to trust temperature data from the rest of the world.

You do realize that the superior intellects over at realclimate.org are talking about sea ice extent since 1979, right? I'm not sure that it's really necessary to discuss the topic any further. In fact, I think I'll leave it right there. Think about it, Andrew. They're talking about 28 years of sea ice records. WOW!!!

Andrew, Andrew, Andrew.

Let me explain your problem. Every measurement or data collection taken as a gold standard that put ths "A" in AGW and has been subjected to real analysis has......proven incorrect. So, why should we trust anyone that has proven so wrong so far?

So, why don't you explain, in testable scientific terms, why this particular warming isn't going to be followed by a cooling period as can be seen in the historical and geological records?

Why is this warming, which has not yet reached the peaks know in previous climatic optimums (notice that phrase "climatic optimum"), suddenly so lethal and bad, when all previous ones represented a flowering of civilization as it became easier to grow excess food to feed the population?

Oh, and Andrew, the reason why the USA's readings are so important, is that the AGWers touted them as the best, most reliable, unbiased evidence. So, if the AGW position's best, most reliable and unbiased evidence turns out to be garbage and/or manipulated, then how can we trust the lesser quality measurements comprising the other 98% of the globe?

Just so you know why record highs and record lows are all proof of AGW to the cult. The article was lifed from Icecap.us. Its all about spinning the propoganda!

By Dr. Bob Carter, Marine Geophysical Laboratory

Some aspects of AGW have a history lost (often intentionally) in the mists of time. But, by chance, I have just stumbled across at least one step in the real birth of this semantic switcheroo, and - yes again - it�s the U.K. Met Office and their scientific cohorts to the fore. Here it is a brief extract from Working Paper No. 58 of the Tyndall Centre (The Social Simulation of the Public Perception of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change � Dennis Bray & Simon Shackley, Sept. 2004.

- Only the perception of positive anomalies will be registered as an indication of change, if the issue is framed as global warming.

- Both positive and negative temperature anomalies will be registered in experience as an indication of change, if the issue is framed as �climate change�. (Hence cold weather can be blamed on CO2.)

- We propose that in those countries where climate change has become the predominant popular term for the phenomenon, unseasonably cold temperatures, for example, are also interpreted to reflect climate change/global warming.

What this extract from a British working paper highlights yet again is the cynical and shameless propaganda campaign that is being run by the very government agencies that purport to be scientific centres of excellence and providers of disinterested advice in the public interest

Here's something that bothers me. Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. Active volcanoes represent an additional 2%. Since the atmosphere is made up of 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, that leaves depending on the source .038 to .045% for CO2 as an atmospheric gas. It seems to me that we are making a great deal of assumptions about a gas that represents less than 1/2% of the atmosphere and attributing the potential end of the world to it. My sources are available at http://globalwarminghysteri a.blogspot.com
I'm not a scientist, I am a scuba diving instructor and know the figures above to be accurate, but in lay terms I wonder if somebody can explain to me why the main GHG water vapor is left out of the discussion? Is it because we can't tax it? We are being hosed big time by those that are putting this nonsense before us. Remember, A lie repeated often enough is often accepted as the truth. Global Warming is theory based on flawed mathematical models, and can't stand up to the rigor of the scientific method.

Also,But what would happen if we had evidence of glaciers melting and massive flooding that occurred 10,000 years ago - long before man burned fossil fuels to any significant degree ? Such evidence would certainly be considered evidence that global warming is a natural phenomenon - as opposed to man-made.

Well - this evidence actually exists and was reported in a Yahoo News article (via LiveScience.com) titled "Stone Age Settlement Found Under English Channel." http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070810/sc_livescience/stoneagesettlementfoundunderenglishchannel;_ylt=AsF.5ZIOoCSv09YpSdlI21Ws0NUE #
Thanks, Jim

I've already thought about it. After thinking about it, it's clear to me that people who deny the scientific consensus on AGW are the Libertarian nutjobs within the Republican party. Anarchists and Libertarians: They're both cut from the same cloth, with just a slight change of color.

Unbiased, objective skepticism is good. It furthers the science. Most deniers are not skeptics, however. They have a political axe to grind and abuse the science to further their agenda.

Incidentally, since we hear a lot of chatter here when the weather gets "cold," I wonder why the silence about the brutal heatwave in the central and southern states? This heatwave, when all is said and done, will rival some of the legendary heat waves of years past. It may turn out to be the worst heat wave on record in the southeast. Why do I bring this up? Does it prove AGW? No, of course not. But what it does prove is that AGW deniers are a bunch of cherry-pickers who only want to talk about the "weather" if it suits their argument.

BTW, The NWS has a new product showing global medium range temperature forecasts:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/short_range/NAEFS/poeabn_h264.00.global.gif

I notice that most of the world is red on the map. You know, just sayin'. But hey, I'm sure some of our resident deniers will scour that map and focus on the blue colors -- what little of it there is. Because, hey, if AGW is real, then why is central Russia cold? Why is Brazil cold? Spare us those arguments -- you guys are too predictable.

Mark,
This is getting old. McIntyre is doing the due diligence that the people at the IPCC, NOAA, NASA, HadCru and other organizations should be doing. It is the Alarmists who reverently point to "peer reviewed" science. Unfortunatly, the term peer review has lost a bit of its cache, and is taking on an entirely different meaning.

Andrew only a quick comment since I am on vacation.
All previous records .... and we only have satellite data from when ... the '70s ... so assuming the NOAA liars aren't fudging their ice data like they do the temp data then we are at a low point in a record of thirty some years duration. Statistically significant in terms of climate. Not likely. My suggestion, get some ice & pour yourself a nice drink, go out on your deck & enjoy the meteors this evening.
One last comment ... if you had ever been up north you would know it is starting to get cool this time of year so the remaining melting may not amount to much & often it freezes up at about this time.
Brett, could you comment on the current temps up north ... we had our first frosts on Friday night here in Alberta & it was only 4 C for the low in Calgary & we are along way from the pole.
Be good,
Rick.

Do the preceeding years and the following years of 1934 show simular average temperatures to those recorded before and after 1998?
If the deniers think 1934 proves the cyclical event mantra, they could not have a better example to support their view.
Heres a chance, what was the global average temps for the decades before and after 1934?

It is truly fascinating watching the multiple ways you can spin the facts. If you are not a card-carrying member of the skeptic set, please take a look at the graphics.

Silly me, I've let the hostility get to me. Everyone has eyes. So please regardless of your prejudice take a look at the graphics in the link. The attempt to obscure what is obvious to anyone by intimating that updated data are "flawed" is obvious; please trust your own eyes rather than someone who finds a way to say no with a strong voice. Science listens and grows; prejudice doesn't.

I can't believe how many people buy into the biggest myth and scam of our time GLOBAL WARMING. Just look at the FACTUAL data. For instance do a search on the hottest and coldest temperatures for each state and you will see that 90% of each states hottest ever temperature occured from the 1930s or EARLIER. and 70% of the all time coldest temperatures occured from the late 1930s or LATER! If the earth was getting hotter at a record pace wouldn't it make sense that the hottest temperatures would be very recent?

Did you know that most of antarctica is actually getting colder and glaciers are actually THICKENING! with the exception of a small part near the peninsula. Do a search on it if you don't believe it! Same with Greenland, thickening of the ice is noted there also. again with the exception of some areas near the coast. These are noted FACTS!

Why don't you hear the media report on this?

Did you know this year parts of Argentina and South Africa had measurable snow for the first time in almost 100 years?! And last year parts of Saudi Arabia had snow! Yeah sure sounds like global warming to me.

And as for the comment from Andrew about the sea ice minimum. If you did a little bit more research you would learned the reason for the more than usual open waters was mainly off the coast of Siberia and not Canada or Greenland and was caused by a stationary weather system that blew the ice away from siberia and piled it up across the other side of the arctic ocean

I for one have not noticed any warming in my 40 years of living on Long Island. In Fact we had a record low temperature 2 days ago! Surely this should not happen in a warmer world! Also note 3 out of the last 4 winters had MUCH ABOVE snowfall totals with the winter of 2003 being the coldest winter since 1977. There are record low and high temperature recorded somewhere every year. Its called weather cycles and has been happening since the beginning of time

Use your brain people. Don't believe the global warming hype from the media. Do some research and Look at FACTUAL data and make the decision yourself.

Here is an interesting way to view the "U.S. is only 2% of the world's landmass" argument from Steve McIntyre himself

"One more story to conclude. Non-compliant surface stations were reported in the formal academic literature by Pielke and Davey (2005) who described a number of non-compliant sites in eastern Colorado. In NOAA�s official response to this criticism, Vose et al (2005) said in effect -

it doesn�t matter. It�s only eastern Colorado. You haven�t proved that there are problems anywhere else in the United States.

In most businesses, the identification of glaring problems, even in a restricted region like eastern Colorado, would prompt an immediate evaluation to ensure that problems did not actually exist. However, that does not appear to have taken place and matters rested until Anthony Watts and the volunteers at surfacestations.org launched a concerted effort to evaluate stations in other parts of the country and determined that the problems were not only just as bad as eastern Colorado, but in some cases were much worse.

Now in response to problems with both station quality and adjustment software, Schmidt and Hansen say in effect, as NOAA did before them -

it doesn�t matter. It�s only the United States. You haven�t proved that there are problems anywhere else in the world."

But I suppose that none of this matters since the science is settled and all debate is over. Anyone with a view not exactly like Rev. Algore