"Warmest June on record at the South Pole."

WHAT!?! If we were to believe Patrick (always a bad idea), the South Pole has been getting colder; therefore, AGW doesn't exist.

"The combined global land and ocean sea surface temperature for the January through June period was 2nd warmest on record."

B-b-b-but Brett, since 1998 was the warmest year, this means we're getting colder! Oh, and btw, did you know it was chilly and wet in Manchester, England last week? Surely, this can't happen if AGW was real.

What else should be said?

"WHAT!?! If we were to believe Patrick (always a bad idea), the South Pole has been getting colder; therefore, AGW doesn't exist. B-b-b-but Brett, since 1998 was the warmest year, this means we're getting colder! Oh, and btw, did you know it was chilly and wet in Manchester, England last week? Surely, this can't happen if AGW was real."

hahahahaaa... good ones Mark, I totally agree with you! The South Pole is not getting colder. I don't know where Patrick took that data from, but if you look at satellite images, you'll see the ice starting to break at the South Pole.

NO MORE LIES please! Let's not publish information which is flat wrong. It's misleading, it confuses people...

Visit Jim Andrews' blog titled "Talking Climate".

What is it that the AGW deniers can't see? We do have a problem, but hey, chill out, relax and wait til there's no more snow to go skiing, or may be just wait until there's not enough electricity so you won't be able to turn on your air-conditioning: that's when the Republicans in Washington will realise there's something wrong... cuz, after all, who cares if there's an island in the Pacific that's sinking? Who cares if New Orleans is hit by another Hurricane?

Come on, just keep going to the beach, go to Camp Davis, plan a new strategy in Iraq, but hey... if you have no world to live, you'll not be able to do that anymore. Think about it.

Emiliano,

New Orleans IS going to be hit by another hurricane. It is in a hurricane zone. It is a foregone conclusion. Hurricane zones are where hurricanes happen. There is/was nothing unusual about that. My family is from a little south of there and lost it all in....1964--Hurricane Betsy. 1969--Hurricane Camile. Etc. Get over it George Bush did not invent hurricanes and it is not his fault (or Republicans in general) that the levy failed.

Ok, I'm convinced, global warming is happening. And clearly, though completely unwritten, mankind is at fault.

LOL, just teasing. So what! After reading up on the problems with the measuring sites and the "massaging" that is done on the data, I have a hard time gaining confidence in the numbers.

Nope, Mark/BT, I ain't saying their lying but common sense would seem to make one wonder over the process.

Emiliano,

How would you propose to keep New Orleans from being hit by another hurricane, move it? Considering that it is pretty much in the middle of the Gulf hurricane zone it IS going to be hit. Count on it. I helped clean up after Hurricane Betsy in '64 and Camile in '69 and there have been others and there will be more. I know that liberals are fully under the impression that nanny governments are supposed to stop all bad things from happening but, no, Chimpy Mc Halliburtonhitler hanging out at Camp David did not cause Katrina and is not going to cause the next one. He didn't invent hurricanes.

Clearly the June, 2007 temperatures in Antarctica is not representative of the past 20 years. It is -105F in Vostok today. The warm average in June was due to about 3 or 4 warm days. July has been cold.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/89606/2007/6/18/MonthlyHistory.html

Early January was warm in some parts of the country - the part I was in had record cold and snow in January. The rest of the winter after mid-January was bitter cold in much of the US.

Not sure what the agenda is here - but a bit disappointing to see this post. Some NOAA data is adjusted upwards as has been discussed extensively on this site. The raw data does not agree. Note Kansas and much of the central and eastern portion of the country is below normal, unlike the manipulated map linked to above.
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/YearTDeptUS.png

Reply, Patrick there is no agenda here. We got the info in here today and I felt I should post it for everyone to see whether it showed warming or not. It's only a six month period, but there were some interesting stats. Brett.

Warmest June on record at the South Pole. Whoop-de-do. One month does not a trend make. I'd like to know what the other years are when they say second warmest, or sixth warmest.

Reply, Chris we are not stating that it is a trend, but it is an interesting stat. What I would like to know is how far back have they kept records at the south pole. It did not say anything about that in the press release. Brett.

Predictable as a hot day in July, the anthropogenic advocates break out their sanctimonious platitudes every time NOAA comes out with new figures. Thanks for being so consistent.

Since I do not doubt GW, the figures ring true. However, in light of the recent concerns about the locations of the stations that NOAA uses, I'd like to see NOAA break the data to a level of granularity that would allow one to see data from only those stations whose environment has not changed significantly over the years. For example, I think that temperature data from a station that has always been in the middle of a field might be more representative than a station that used to be in a field, but is now surrounded by asphalt and buildings.

Mark/Emiliano

My Gaaaawwwwwwwddddd!!!! This is the warmest June in 50 years. You guys must be estatic. Congratulations!!

However, the overall trend in the last 50 years for the Scott-Amundsen Station (South Pole for you AGWers) is a 0.026 degree C decline (yes, I said decline) per annum. Don't you just hate it when that happens? I'd go back further, but that's as far back as it goes. Sorry.

Now, to add insult to injury, June-July-August temps through 2006 are declining at a rate of -0.03 deg C per annum. May had an overall decline of -0.024 deg C per annum through 2007. If it will make you any happier, the annual temperature is only declining at a rate of -0.008 deg C per annum.

Emilyanaao,

Go to jim hansen's database and look it up yourself. BTW, AQI is getting their glutemus maximus' kicked in Iraq. Guess who's helping our guys out? The Sunni's. You keep on listening to the BBC and CNN. They do excellent reporting from the comfort of their hotel beds in the Green zone.

Brief reply about Iraq to Paul,

I don't want to talk about the war in Iraq because -unfortunately- there's nothing I can do about it. I'm not saying it's wrong to combat terrorism... I'm just wondering if they could do something more productive, like sending the real terrorists to jail. Do you think I support Al Qaeda? I'm as fed up with terrorism and terrorist attacks as you are. But, evidently, something is not going well in Iraq.

Now, back to my favourite topic: the weather.
To all of you who laughed at what I said about New Orleans. I know it will be hit by another Hurricane... I know it's a hurricane-prone area! But what I mean is: considering that there's a link between warm sea-surface temps and the strength of hurricanes, these storms may become more strong and perhaps hit the area more frequently. Consequently, it would be a good idea to prevent New Orleans (or any other city) from having a catastrophic flooding again. The same thing has happened here, in Argentina, in a city next to mine: The levees were not strong enough, and quite old as well. BUT, the government already knew they wouldn't be strong enough, and they had indications that there were some floodings in sight. So... wouldn't it be good to take measures before disasters happen?

Rbnyc wrote: "Emiliano (...) Get over it George Bush did not invent hurricanes and it is not his fault (or Republicans in general) that the levy failed."

REPLY: I'm not saying Bush invented them and I'm not saying it is Republicans' fault that the levy failed... I just referred to Republicans and Bush because they are the people leading US right now. Besides, there are other things I like about him (it's not that bad to be a bit conservative concerning certain issues).
I'd criticise any other person, just like I did in Argentina, when our President decided to allow a big company to cut down a huge area of rainforest.

This AGW thing has nothing to do with politics or George Bush. I do refer to him many times, yes, because as the president of the most powerful country in the world, he could be the leader voice for a campaing against Climate Change. I would encourage Argentina's President too, but no one would pay attention to him... lol..

Paul, you're not strengthening your credibility by vouching for a war that 80% of the public doesn't support. You make yourself look silly, and it only serves to confirm how extreme your politics are.

It never ceases to amaze me how much deniers squirm when facts are presented to them. The data is what it is, guys, no matter how much you creatively attempt to spin it.

Oh well, this looks like a chime in. There has already been plenty of fun busting Jim Hansen and company's work recently here, where the "adjusted" temperatures always are warmer than the raw data. Speaking of Antartica, go back to those NOAA maps and look at them again. One sliver of one station's reading was expanded to cover the entire continent. Oh, of course, they chose the hottest reading.

Ah, I see the fear mongers and the political leftists are out in fool force with there "GASP!!!! THE WARMEST JUNE ON RECORD AT THE SOUTH POLE!!!!" and their "B-B-B-But I thought it was 70 degrees in Pittsburgh in June and snowing in Argentina!" puke!.
hahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHA...yeah, good ones Marx! I laugh at you! Anything to put forth their agenda of more Government regulations and taxation for something that can't be controled by humans, that being the climate and weather....Now everyone run and hide, because the big bad Global Warming boogie man is melting Antarctica and destroying the polar bears and will submerge New Orleans and is coming to get us all if we don't impose our political agenda!!...GASP!!!!!

DENY DENY DENY THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE!!!!!

Reply, Patrick there is no agenda here. We got the info in here today and I felt I should post it for everyone to see whether it showed warming or not. It's only a six month period, but there were some interesting stats. Brett.

What do you mean "no agenda", Brett? Of course you have an agenda. You're promoting the liberal marxist socialist leftist communist atheist anti-american pro-terrorist anarchist agenda. That's because you keep insisting that we rely on data, theory, and science.

The deniers here have spent this week arguing that the peer-review process should be discarded. This is the crowd that demands an "explanation" for why the water vapor emissions from a cooling tower are different from co2 emissions from fossil fuel. These are the "experts" who insist that there is no scientific evidence that CO2 is a climate driver.

In all seriousness, however, the "agenda" that you do have is to enhance advertising revenue for accuweather by promoting site traffic. Controversy raises the impression rate, and a higher impression rate means higher ad revenue.

In the world at large, the fundamental facts debated ad nauseum here are long-settled. The scientific community properly ignores the AGW deniers just as it ignores the "evolution deniers".

I think it's therefore worth reminding the audience here that our deniers -- and accuweather -- have much more to gain from the "debate" here than the rest of us. The fact that any of us wastes our time responding to the same relentlessly-repeated canards itself inflates the credibility of the deniers far beyond the merits of their position.

NOAA says some areas are above normal; some near normal and some below normal. What time period is used as the baseline for what normal is?

Reply, I believe they use 30-year periods. Brett.

BT:

You crack me up. What a bunch of sanctimonious garbage.

Typical liberal mantra, First, be self-affacing (just to take people off guard), second, make up an argument based in no merit, third, cut-down someone based on little actual knowledge, fourth, overstate the justification of your actions, and fifth, point out it is beneath you to be a part of society at large.

BTW, your understanding of engineering as related to the peer review process is inherently and fatally flawed as nearly every decision made in the engineering process is in itself a peer review.

Just about everything designed in today's world (no matter what branch of engineering) is based upon the work of other engineers or knowledgeable individuals. When I choose to include something in a design, I have by proxy or reality, reviewed their work and accepted it as fact. In essence, I have accepted the consequenses of their work. If I disagree with the methodology or process of a particular system, I choose to not use it. That is a review of my peers in its' most basic form.

It is exactly what is occurring in this debate over the apparent warming of the climate. The peers may agree, as you and the other AGWers constantly harp about, but this is not an engineering debate at this point. It is primarily an instrumentation and interpretation debate. Change just a couple of your fundamental tenets and understandings of global warming and the implications of cause and determination of an actual problem disappear entirely.

The topic of this thread is the perfect example. The data set may be overtly flawed by the process in which they "justify" the temps to account for an inadequate recording procedure. If the numbers go down by just a fraction of the total, there would be no apparent warming to discuss. I think this brings up enough of a question that I am skeptical of the process.

Sadly, agendas become involved because there is money to be "won" in the reporting. No issue, no money for the agency or grants to be given to study the issue. Big issue, more money. It happens at every level of government. I know from personal expierence, it usually is a big waste of time and wealth.

Of course, if an engineer chooses to disregard codes, industry standards, and manufactured items in their designs, then you are absolutely correct, the peer review process does not apply at all. But in nearly every project out there, and certainly all of the things that the general public sees and uses on a daily basis, the decisions of engineers are based upon their personal review of the data at hand otherwise known as a peer review.

Patrick, Guiltline Tom, and Brett:

Let me digress for a moment off of my typical responses (prior one not withstanding) to say this. I have to agree with Brett that there is no agenda on his part. Brett, you post these items, and then we decide as to which position we agree with. I have seen numerous stories on this blog posted that have had skeptics and deniers as well. Naturally the Toms and Marks of this board are going play this up and say "SEE, SEE, SEE, IT'S GETTING WARMER, WE NEED TO RUN TO THE GOVERNMENT BEFORE THE EARTH EXPLODES" & folks like myself will respond in our usual way. However, I am not so sure that when Patrick says "not sure what the agenda is here," is he meaning your agenda, Brett??? (I personally don't think so). Or NOAA's??? Or who's??? I think what Patrick is saying is not very clear, and I would like to hear him elaborate if he gets the chance to. But anyway, that's thus an observation.

DENY DENY DENY THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE!!!!

Six months of weather data is interesting but quite useless when discussing "climate."

"The fact that any of us wastes our time responding to the same relentlessly-repeated canards itself inflates the credibility of the deniers far beyond the merits of their position."

Brookline Tom, if you think you're wasting your time, do something else. Nobody's forcing you to comment and respond to comments.

"Of course you have an agenda. You're promoting the liberal marxist socialist leftist communist atheist anti-american pro-terrorist anarchist agenda."

Oh dear! these guys will never understand what being a Marxist means. Do you think that because we want a better environment we are evil socialist leftist and communist? Do you thin that turns us into atheist? Cuz I DO believe in God... Wow, go to a History book and find out what being a marxist is. I'm not anti-american either. The ones who think that way are wrong: I have americans friends, I've been to the US and loved the time spent there. Considering that the US should take more care of the environment is not hating USA. That doesn't make me an anti-american. Anarchist? pfff... we all need authorities, otherwise the world would be chaotic. And what pisses me off is what you said about us being pro-terrorist: "I'm as fed up with terrorism and terrorist attacks as you are. " This is what I wrote yesterday in my previous comments. Terrorist attacks happen everywhere, not only in the US and has happened here in Argentina as well killing dozens at the Jewish Embassy...

Stop saying such things because reading what you wrote, which is offensive and wrong, IS a waste of time.

Oops;
Didn't mean to post twice. Had a problem with my wireless connection and didn't think that the first one went. I blame Bush. Rove too, but I think that they're the same person.

let me know what you think about this alternative energy conversation: http://www.mypetpeeves.com/plog/index.php/archives/2365

In the world at large, the fundamental facts debated ad nauseum here are long-settled. The scientific community properly ignores the AGW deniers just as it ignores the "evolution deniers".

And the sceptics will continue to do the proper due diligence that science demands. Whether it's raising the question as to why the IPCC deleted the Biffra and Osborne graphics from thier AR4 temp renditions, auditing USHCN temp reporting stations (in which 15% thus far haven't followed NOAAs site requirements, thus rendering much of the data useless), or discovering that the California Foxtail Bristlecone was heavily wieghted in MBH9X proxy reconstruction (creating the famous blade of the Hockey Stick), sceptics will continue to do what the peer reviewed settled science won't do- spot inaccuracies and report errors.

The USHCN network has several problems that have been published. NOAA doesn't use raw temp data, but gridded, adjusted, and "corrected" data; the raw data which feeds NOAA's gridcells has site problems which again are documented.

Everytime someone brings these errors, ommissions, and inaccuracies up with either the authors, the IPCC, or the goverment, said person is quickly labled a denier. This isn't science.

Hi, I dont post really but have been a long time professional member here. I want to say that the problem is increasingly aparant that the surface temps are the outlier and if this can be eliminated the problems will also be...I firmly believe based on the DATA obtained by satelite and balloon readings is the only way to obtain accurate temps....that said, there has been only a modest ~0.3C increase in the past century! The alarmism, hype and agendas would all dissapear! But with the billions and billions of $ invested I fear this will never come about until mother nature steps in to 'cool' the debate once and forall...Amazingly peoples common sense has been thwarted largely due too miss-leading 'stats' all too common as displayed in this 'study'. Do people realize that BIG OIL is making BIG $ off of MGW theory? Dont they see the commercials? If I ever hear the idiotic claim that skeptics are n the pay of oil 1 more time I may actually puke! thats all, im sick, just needed to vent that.