Here’s more about adjustments made after the first graph ended. RTFP to learn more.

We compare the United States and global surface air temperature changes of the past century using the current Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis and the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) record [Karl et al., 1990]. Changes in the GISS analysis subsequent to the documentation by Hansen et al. [1999] are as follows: (1) incorporation of corrections for time-of-observation bias and station history adjustments in the United States based on Easterling et al. [1996a], (2) reclassification of rural, small-town, and urban stations in the United States, southern Canada, and northern Mexico based on satellite measurements of night light intensity [Imhoff et al., 1997], and (3) a more flexible urban adjustment than that employed by Hansen et al. [1999], including reliance on only unlit stations in the United States and rural stations in the rest of the world for determining long-term trends. We find evidence of local human effects (“urban warming”) even in suburban and small-town surface air temperature records, but the effect is modest in magnitude and conceivably could be an artifact of inhomogeneities in the station records. We suggest further studies, including more complete satellite night light analyses, which may clarify the potential urban effect. There are inherent uncertainties in the long-term temperature change at least of the order of 0.1°C for both the U.S. mean and the global mean. Nevertheless, it is clear that the post-1930s cooling was much larger in the United States than in the global mean. The U.S. mean temperature has now reached a level comparable to that of the 1930s, while the global temperature is now far above the levels earlier in the century. The successive periods of global warming (1900-1940), cooling (1940-1965), and warming (1965-2000) in the 20th century show distinctive patterns of temperature change suggestive of roles for both climate forcings and dynamical variability. The U.S. was warm in 2000 but cooler than the warmest years in the 1930s and 1990s. Global temperature was moderately high in 2000 despite a lingering La Niña in the Pacific Ocean.

Does your use of scare quotes show that you are not approaching this issue with an open mind?

RTGDM is more offensive!!! Try it out next time.

Anyway, I think the point of this post is to show how the data is being changed, in an upward fashion. I don’t think the 2000 has anything to do with that because the revised numbers are higher even for 1999.

Can you explain some more about why these are being adjusted upwards? I don’t have time to go look for the papers…

Does the fact that numbers are being “corrected” show that this is NOT settled science?

Perhaps that’s because the first one stops in 2000, and the second one carries on into the warmest decade the world has seen for hundreds of years. Did you notice that? The differences in the common part are not very large.

I have written a number of letters and inquiries asking the GISS what systematic bias they are finding/assuming that biased measurements upwards in rural times but downwards in urban times, but I have never gotten a response, nor seen one anywhere online. – I think the phrase here is RTFM. Try reading the papers describing the data. They are all online. How could you have failed to notice this? While you have fixed in your head the idea that biases can only ever be upwards, in fact, if you compare urban trends to nearby rural trends, urban sites show cooling relative to rural in about 40% of cases.

As always, looking at the data (and trying to understand it, as far as you are actually capable of doing so) would be better than writing nonsense based on flawed assumptions.