"Near-record" warmth?

Last I heard NOAA said that 2006 was the warmest year ever in the US and it was largely due to El Nino. When did they downgrade us and blame it on greenhouse gas?

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2772.htm

NOAA REPORTS 2006 WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD FOR U.S.
General Warming Trend, El Nino Contribute to Milder Winter Temps

I saved NOAA maps at the end of the last year which showed much of the western and eastern US near or below normal for the year. The heat was centered in the great plains. The new maps show the entire country well above normal.

There needs to be accountability and tracking in place for press releases and predictions from NOAA, NASA, and the Met. They constantly morph their stories, and appear to be more marketing driven than science these days.

This kind of talk is going to be the norm for NOAA now. They have bought into it and they can't help but keep the hype up with these kind of ridiculous headlines. They are banking on people only remembering today not yesterday as their marketing plan. It is sad as I used to look up to them as a great organization, not any more.

Umm, they didn't 'find' or demonstrate anything, that's "likely" accounted for, in their words - what does "likely" mean? What it means is that their guess, informed by their theory and as encoded in their computer models, is that half the departure from climactic averages last year is due to an increase in GHG. This is circular reasoning.

Patrick - the NOAA downgraded 2006 in May, according to the release. Funny, I don't remember hearing much about that. This means we are in a near decade-long cooling trend. My prediction is the cooling trend will continue - 2007 will be cooler than 2006, which was cooler than 1998.

I love this statement: "The NOAA team also found that the probability of U.S. temperatures breaking a record in 2006 had increased 15-fold compared to pre-industrial times because of greenhouse gas increases in Earth�s atmosphere." This is, of course, impossible to verify - by 'probabilities', they no doubt mean the outcomes of their computer games. More circular reasoning.

Another gem: "To overcome uncertainties inherent in the data analysis, the team also studied the El Ni�o influence using two atmospheric climate models." Why use data when you have computer models? No doubt these inconvenient 'uncertainities' would have forced them to temper their claims.

Final gem: 'When average annual temperature in the United States broke records in 1998, a powerful El Niño was affecting climate around the globe. Scientists widely attributed the unusual warmth in the United States to the influence of the ongoing El Niño.
“That attribution was not confirmed at the time,” says Hoerling.' Ouch! They just make it all up!

It's hard to glean much in way of detail about methodology from the release. Guess I'll have to wait until the paper is released. Other than this, the same old computer games...yawn.

I know that the Northeast had an exceptionally mild November and December 2006.

Just wait until there is another major El Nino.
It will likely be another record setting year.

Also, with the Arctic Sea ice setting yet another record summer minimum, one may expect another delayed start to the winter just like there was last winter. We are currently at 89 percent of the previous record low. In other words, there has been an 11 percent decline in a single year.
In the past, declines were that much in a decade.

Here is the latest update on the Arctic Sea Ice.

http://www.nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html

Quote from the link.

Sea ice extent continues to decline, and is now at 4.78 million square kilometers (1.84 million square miles), falling yet further below the record absolute minimum of 5.32 million square kilometers (2.05 million square miles) that occurred on September 20�21, 2005.

As I have said before, Global Warming is not likely to go away anytime soon and is likely to get much worse. Sorry if that bothers some people, but that is what is happening.

Patrick - it is very informative to read those two press releases, compare and contrast them.

It just goes to show you how unsettled the science is.

Hello Bret!

2006 was how warm? And where? This Global Warming nonsence is getting too generalized, for example, last fall there was a remarkable and anomolous southwesterly flow accross the eastern half of North America, this produced record breaking cold waves on the Indian Subcontinent, India, Pakistan and the Middle east saw human deaths from freezing temps , Pakistan had several days of -30F in many locations, Southern India saw frosts that killed people and Jorden recieved more than a foot of snow in one event in the desert.
In the United States, Winter arrived ealier than usual for Oklahoma, Texas, and these areas saw record snow and ice storms and freezing temps. In southern California the winter crops froze to the tune of over a billion dollars crop loss and florida citris crop was similarly affected. Then after a remarkable appearance of an upper lever low south of Greenland, we here in New England and New York State down to New Jersey saw the third coldest February on record! I personally saw Ice Breakers keeping shipping lanes open on the Hudson River!This right after the warmest December and first half of January 2005/2006
SOOOOO, How about some Global Colding reports please! George

Wow, what a lie. I live in the Northeast and most of the summer was below average and the winter 05-06 was average to below average. December 06' was very warm, I won't lie, but that doesn't mean "global warming from greenhouse gases". Now my birthday is November 18th and on that day we went out to the Thirsty Moose and let me tell you, it was not warm.

What if I say that summer 07' in the northeast set many record lows? It did here. There were 4 days in August where we didn't get above 60 degrees and only 2 in which we broke 90. I could see my breath in the mornings and all day long. 46 degrees is not a nice temperature to wake up too at all, not in August anyway. Im not shouting global cooling or ICE AGE, but that is what NOAA is doing! Well they are shouting warming not cooling.

NOAA should be just like Accuweather, they shouldn't pick a side of the GW debate and spread it around as if it was fact. Maybe this is why I like Accuweather more and have more respect for them?

And wait they used models? WOAH! Models do whatever we tell them to do. If plug into the computer that canned tomatoes cause .004543 degrees warming per can the models are going to factor that in! If I tell it that CO2 cools the atmosphere its going to cool the atmosphere. If I tell it that C02 has a --- warming affect its going to listen to me. People make the models and people make mistakes and are wrong sometimes, therefore we can't trust the models. We don't know if all of our information is correct or accurate.

Andrew,

How many years have they been keeping records on artic sea ice? Do you know, or anyone?

It just goes to show you how unsettled the science is.

Virtually ALL of the "science" repeated here ad nauseum by our local coterie of jesters has been settled for decades. Solar irradiance, Milankovitch Cycles, CO2's role as a GHG -- these have been settled for a very long time.

Unfortunately, a certain segment of our population is very unhappy about the implications of this settled science, and they continue to loudly squawk.

Make no mistake about the fundamentals, though: the science IS settled. It is the implications that are not.

"There needs to be accountability and tracking in place for press releases and predictions from NOAA, NASA, and the Met. They constantly morph their stories, and appear to be more marketing driven than science these days."

When are we all going to realize that Meteorology is not a science? It is a bunch of people using scientific instruments and then making a prediction...It is an Art form. Some do it better than others. The models are just a best quess….. and being "computer models" it lends legitimacy to this art form. [Kind of like computer generated astrology?]
As for forgetting what they said 6 months ago....who has the time to do research or science and remember? We just repeat what we heard 3 minutes ago as proof. "It must be CO2 cause that gives us more money and keeps us in the news!”
How do these people sleep at night?
Patrick- I applaud your research and records. Damn biting them with their own material. LOL You keep them honest.
Brett- Is somebody from Accu-Weather media going to confront NOAA on this seeming inconsistency or lie? Maybe Katie should interview NOAA and specifically ask for an explanation? I am sure we would all like to hear the answer to this one. I mean we are trying to keep this subject fair and balanced?

Brookline Tom - the science can hardly be called settled when a preeminent organization like the NOAA can make two completely contradictory statements in the space of a few months AND also admit they simply invented previous claims (oops - I mean they "made attributions they didn't bother to confirm")!

There are also many scientists who would take issue with your assertion "Solar irradiance, Milankovitch Cycles, CO2's role as a GHG -- these have been settled for a very long time." Hardly.

I'll ignore the gratuitous insult.

Virtually ALL of the "science" repeated here ad nauseum by our local coterie of jesters has been settled for decades.
Guess we should all just go home and wait for the Tax increases. BT has delcared the science settled.
Guess that's it.

Perhaps we can now save some money by NOT SPENDING BILLIONS ON RESEARCHING SETTLED SCIENCE.

NOAA always changes what they say. Earlier this year NOAA blamed it on El Nino and now they blame it on us. Sometimes they can be real confusing.

BT wrote: "local coterie of jesters" So, just what was your decision on name calling, Bret?
Reply: I thought about that one for awhile, but it did not specifically single out a certain individual. If it bothers you, I will edit that out from now on. Brett.

Andrew, it's Summer guy - ice melts!

I live in New Hampshire. We had a fairly mild summer and winter in 2006. I spent the last week of June on Squam Lake (where "On Gloden Pond" was filmed) and it was cold in the morning and the days were mostly mild until the last 2 days. Then it got a bit warmer to where I actually went swimming to cool off from fishing. We had a few warm days, but I hardly ran the AC units at all last summer.

This all goes along with what george naytowhowcon posted above.

"The team analyzed 42 simulations of the Earth's climate from 18 climate models provided for the latest assessment by the IPCC. "

IPCC gee they aren't pushing an agenda are they?
Still a DENIER.

We live in the Northeast in a semi-rural area near Philadelphia. We have been monitoring the outside temperature all summer, with multiple temperature sensors around the outside of the house. We have yet to reach 90 even though Accuweather and others say we are experiencing 92 or higher. We live on almost 2 tree-covered acres, our house is surrounded by trees and the rest of the neighborhood and surrounding area is on 1 and more acres (farmland) with serious trees aplenty. Reply: that is why you are running about 2 degrees cooler during the day......its the trees! Brett. Everyone is marveling how hot it has NOT been. BUT as I have said before, when I go to the shopping center about 5 miles away, the temperature is usually 5 to 15 degrees warmer than my homesite. Could it be the asphalt parking lot and lack of green and large trees as in heat island??? And guess where the local reporting temperature stations are??

Sorry Andrew and BT, "global warming" doesn't bother me because the science IS NOT settled and the warming in the Northeast, which I am still waiting for, will be kind of nice. Gardening is going to be great. But I will resist any Socialist attempt by AGW alarmists to control me via global warming scare tactics based on unsound science.

Mary the "Live One" (kudos to Mark)

Ed - nice catch, I didn't see that.

Gary - true, true. Of course, we're speaking about a person who thinks Mann's "hockey stick" is credible science and Ed Wegman is an oil-industry hack.

Sheesh - who wouldn't be skeptical of these people?

NOAA is saying that more than half of the warming of 2006 was due to Greenhouse Gases with the rest due to natural causes and that El Nino should not be blamed for much of the warming.

I will admit, that I was still under the mindset that El Nino was partly to blame, so it will take a while for this latest study to be digested.

However, as has been observed already arctic sea ice is reaching new minimums and some of the 2006 warming was due to a relative lack of arctic air outbreaks. This is consistent with the arctic sea ice reaching new record minimums in the summer.

It only stands to reason that if arctic sea ice is at a record minimum, then it will take longer for it to freeze back up thereby less cold air will be around during the fall and early winter.

It also stands to reason that such a pattern will likely intensify over time with albedo feedback and all.

Say goodby to El Nino and Hello to Arctic Sea Ice and Greenhouse Gases.

Darren;

Records of arctic sea ice go back to at least 1900. Here is an interesting link.

http://nwpi.krc.karelia.ru/climas/Ice/Ice_no_sat/XX_Arctic.htm

...by our local coterie of jesters...

I find it strange that he (bt) who protests the most about name-calling and keeping it civil is the first to cross the line.

I call "Yellow Card" on Brookline Tom.

BTW, Brett, I could care less what he calls me. When he heads down that road, it is a sign that he has no argument. I'd prefer that you let them rant on.

I agree with Paul - these advocates of AGW are ignorant juveniles, pumped full of talking points but lacking any substance or capacity for critical thinking. If they want to call names, let them, since it reflects poorly upon them rather than me.

i agree ted...how can you meteorological dudes, after reporting and headlining all the cold this winter stand by and publish the inconsistencies of the apparent National Office of Amnesic ANALysis without investigating the discrepancies and change of mind they consistently put out?...the truth always prevails, and if I were you guys, i would start asking the hard questions...the windfall to your business of weather reporting will only be enhanced by taking the lead in investigating this scam...2006 near record warmth? what a joke!!!...Cant you guys see thru their arbitrarily chosen time frames and flawed scientific methods?...and what about the equipment and its flawed data they are using to substantiate their claims?...how about you senior guys that have been around for awhile?...doesnt this seem a little bit ridiculous to you wasting all that money on hocus pocus climate models?...you live weather everyday... the weather and climate are dynamic, cyclic and largely unpredictable two weeks out...it is caused by interaction of things alot bigger than us bipeds and our industry...how confident are you in your two week forecast?...do you bet on temperature predictions to within a tenth of a degree two weeks from now based on what ole HAL the computer just told you?...you guys have a better understanding than most about weather modeling...come on, lets get to investigating the real science or lack their of and quit bowing to politicians and government grant busybodies...jump on the real science train, its engines are being stoked and starting to roll down the track...have a nice sunny, warm day....its a good thing!!!

Thanks very much Andrew, very informative.

It has been one of the coolest and is the wettest summer on record for south Texas and here in Amarillo it was a cold winter and so far a relativly cool summer. I am tired of hearing how any modes of transportation we have is causing the earth to warm. In 1934 the official hottest year on record for the earth there were less autos. I am all for alternative fuels just remember that car that you plugged in got its electricity from guess what fossil fuels, you turn on a light L.E.D, flouresent or ortherwise it took fossil fuels. One alternative is the use of Diesel fuels for cars but there are still 5 state that would rather use gas. A diesel gets bettter mileage and actually is more efficient so less emissions.

The problem with the entire global warming theory is that it is now being driven more by political pressures than good unbiased science. Global warming is simply means an unique warming trend beyond the normal cycles recorded over the last century or so. For some the concept of global warming is automatically tied to greenhouse emissions. Given that federal budgets are driven by politics, which means national agencies are provided funds to prove global warming, I am hardly surprised at NOAA report. It would be politically incorrect to report on the monumental abundance of evidence that disproves global warming. Simply put, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Although I admit there is some evidence for a warming trend, it does not rise to the level of being extraordinary.

Some of the evidence for global warming is also completely false. For example the common line graph that shows temperature and CO2 gas trends overlapping each other. The presenter says, "See temperature is rising as a result of the rise of CO2." But the scale is always so smooshed that you can only take their word for it. In reality, if that scale were to be blown up so that you can actually separately view the temperature and CO2 lines (no longer overlapping) you will quickly notice that the CO2 follows the temperature. That is, temperature is actually driving the CO2 levels, not the other way around.

Another natural occurrence that none of the global warming supporters have touched on is the fact that the earth's magnetic field strength has decreased by 10 percent over the last 300 years, roughly corresponding to the end of the little ice age. Certainly a decrease of this degree would also allow more solar radiation to reach the earth's surface, thus providing a gradual warming trend. Has this statistic been researched in any of the global warming models? I doubt it.

Of course, I greatly support environmental conservation and renewable energy resources, but I cannot support bad science, especially that driven by politics where practicing one's freedom of speech to disagree with global warming is politically incorrect.

We now know from the NOAA press release that the only important factor affecting temperature is greenhouse gases.

The fact that 2007 is cooler than 2006, and that GISS data shows a steady decline in world temperatures since 1998, must therefor mean that greenhouse gases are on the decline.

AGW groupies will soon be looking for another cause celebre.