Very predictable.

SST's were about average over most of the earth. South America was much below normal. Western Europe and much of Asia was below normal. Africa was about normal. Australia was about normal. Antarctica hit it's record maximum sea ice extent (due to very cold temperatures.) Texas and much of the Northern and eastern US was below normal.

I wonder if the NOAA bothered to look at their own SST maps for August before declaring the oceans to be the "ninth warmest August" ever?

Question: In what years were the six warmer summers that exceeded the 2007 year? That information would be interesting to know.
Thanks.

Why is it not the warmest on record? What with CO2 concentrations skyrocketing out of sight, you'd think that this summer would have been the warmest on record. Why only 7th?

Patrick, seriously, are you a scientist?

And regarding the "7th Warmest Summer" hoohah, it's witchery I saw, witchery!

;-)

If you think this year is bad, just wait until next year. Almanac Calls for Warmer Weather in 2008 Couldn't ask for a better source.

Why isn't the northeast really mentioned to much in there? What about NYC having a high of 59 on the 22nd of August! I was wearing pants and jackets for days at a time, in August! We only broke 90 5 times this year, the max being 94 degrees. And where I live we had 2 days that didn't get about 60 and 2 more days that didn't break 65. Reply: it was not a cold summer in the Northeast. Actually, temperatures were near or even slightly above normal. But on the other hand, I certainly would not call the summer of 2007 a hot one in the Northeast. Brett

The cold summer for the NE isn't evidence that AGW or climate change isn't real, but neither is the 7th warmest summer for the United States. After all, the US is only 2% of the world and just records from here alone aren't enough to shout out climate change. Isn't that right?

Why is New Jersey "above average" temperature wise on the map? Reply: due to higher humidity levels compared to normaI, nighttime temperatures remained well above normal, which was the primary reason for the overall (day/night combined) average to be near or slightly above. Brett.

I know that's a mistake of some sort. O yeah, 75% percent of the weather stations are located in urban areas where temperatures are greater because of urban heating. Reply: that is also a valid concern to a certain extent, though, I do not know if it is as high as 75%. Brett.
I would like to see NOAA take more time and do the averages by counties rather than states. I bet that map would look a lot different.

Rather than cherry pick data, here is a global analysis summary from the NCDC:

The 2007 January-August year-to-date period ranked as the fourth warmest January-August since records began in 1880 for combined global land and ocean surface temperatures, while the global land surface temperature ranked warmest on record. Meanwhile, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature for boreal summer (June-August 2007) was seventh warmest on record, and the land surface temperature was 5th warmest. As for the month of August, the land surface temperature ranked third warmest on record, while the ocean surface temperature tied with 1995 and 2000 as the ninth warmest in the 127-year record.

The following links contains maps and analysis for precipitation, sea ice,

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/aug/global.html#temp

Once again they don't tell what years the other five warmest were. I would guess most were before 1940 otherwise they'd be crowing about most of them being within the last fifteen years.
Just another stastistic here, not too relevant one way or the other.

Reply: I agree, that is information that I would like to see. Brett.

Patrick,

No disputing the new all-time Antarctic sea ice maximum. Oddly enough (and that's not a note of condescension, but true amusement) this week also saw the all-time Arctic sea ice minimum.

What I don't see is how you support your claim that temperatures in the northern and eastern US were below normal this summer. From HPRCC data, I'd say that temperatures there were roughly normal to above normal (except perhaps Maine). Reply: That is about correct Travis. Brett.

http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/maps/index.php?action=update_daterange&daterange=Last3m

@Patrick Henry

Are you questioning their math? You point out alot of areas that were below or near normal, but it seems that the warm anomalies overwhelmed the cool anaomolies. Of course, there is always the issue of flawed data.

Patrick,

I'm wondering where you got your data for Europe. What I found gave a different picture:

http://ingrid.ldeo.columbia.edu/maproom/.Regional/.Europe/.Atm_Temp/Anomaly.html

One degree below normal is not significant. At best, you could say that temps in western Europe were about normal this summer (and in August). Positive temperature anomalies in eastern Europe were not only stronger, but much more widespread.

Also suspect is your comment about below normal temperatures in Asia:

http://ingrid.ldeo.columbia.edu/maproom/.Regional/.Asia_Indonesia/.Atm_Temp/Anomaly.html

Otherwise yes, Africa and Australia were roughly normal this summer aside from the significant positive anomalies in Libya. That wasn't characteristic of the continent, though.

All very interesting and entertaining.
But.... You should take a look at the latest posts at climateaudit.org.
Begining to look like most of the numbers are quite meaningless.
Hmmmmmm

I noticed in my previous SST adjustment that the pixels for all regions (including land) weren't totaling up to 100%, and traced the problem to some variability of how the same color was stored in different pixels of the image. So I increased the tolerance in my per pixel check and got the total a lot closer to 100%.

Here are the new numbers adjusted for latitudinal distortion. Surprisingly similar to the uncorrected numbers.

59% of the sea area is normal temps
26% is above normal.
15% is below normal

119274 gray pixels
31055 cold pixels
52310 warm pixels
80769 white (land) pixels.

The total is still not quite 100% but I believe this is due to integer rounding errors in rounding the cosine on each row.

Marcus - I have science and engineering degrees and work actively in both professions.

Patrick,

Sorry for all the separate posts, but I just noticed that the Cryosphere site added a new chart tracking global sea ice extent since 1979:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

I've been hoping they would do something like this to better show how sea ice levels fluctuate worldwide. I'd also like them to do a movie of Antarctic sea ice just as they did for the Arctic. The one for the Arctic gives a relatively good picture of ocean currents and ice melt patterns.

One degree below normal is not significant.

Travis,

Excellent point. Hansen's entire AGW story is based on less than one degree of warming.

The Southern Hemisphere sea ice area has broken the previous maximum of 16.03 million sq. km and is currently at 16.26 million sq. km.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Although it may seem as if I am an "AGW" supporter, I would actually love to be wrong!!
I love cold weather and cold places, and I hate the fact that AGW may seriously reduce the size of the ice caps and tundra biomes.
Anywa, I am always on the llokout for any shred of data that indicates that the world is not substantially warmign as a whole. I am usually disappointed. For every record low temp, there seems to be 10 record highs. For every cold snap, there seems to be 3 heat waves or mild winters. When I looked at the maps linked by Travis, I was pleasantly surprised that were large areas of near normal (and even a few below normal spots, in northern and central canada. But it's always the same story, on almost all the anomaly maps I ever see, warm anomalies are both larger in extent and larger in magnitude. On the maps linked by Travis, there were large swaths or yellow, orange and red, but only a few pale blue swaths. Of course, one hot day, one warm month or season or year does not make a global warmign catastrophe, but when temperature anomalies are positive year in and year out, its hard for me to cling to my belief that maybe its all just a mistake.
So all AGW skeptics out there, I'm askign for help. I desperately wantto believe that the earth is not undergoing significant warming, or, that if it is , that it is simple short term climatic noise. I would like to see links to good evidence you have come across. I would especially appreciate any maps that show large scale (i.e. continental, at least) cool anomalies sometime within the last 10 years. Also, for those of you out there who don't dispute that the earth is warming, but think that it is just a natural cycle, please post any hyptheses and supporting evidence as to what natural phenomona might be causing the warming. I would especially appreciate time series showing any claimed increases in solar output over the past few decades.
So please help, me out. I am not being sarcastic. I don't want AGW to be true. Post some good evidence to show me that it is not.

P.s. A good example is Patrick henry's links to items about positive anomalies in antarctic sea ice.

Andrew,
I was wondering if you actually believe any figueres you spout out.. I hope you dont believe that there were actually accurate temp. data from the late 1800's. I choose not to beieve any temp data from anyone who was still using a pit in the backyard as a toilet.. This temp data is being driven by money hungry people who want there grants..

I have just had the coolest summer in the last 40 yrs in the sacramento area of calif.. It was the second coolest in the last 60yrs. I noticed how Brett did not mention the cool summer on the west coast.. well i am enjoying it thoroughly..

I think that you should update yourselves on US temperatures sites. Anthony Watts has found that of the 33% surveyed to date only 13% meet NDC standards. Most are biased upwards
www.climateaudit.org

WHA WHA WHA WHAT???? You mean only the 7th?????....Not the first??????....and did anyone die as a result????.....Did the earth implode????......GASP!!!!!!!....Why Brett, how could they debunk the numbers like this???....It must be those evil denier, skeptics, libertarians, republicans, and corporations!!!....I'll dare they, when the earth has a fever!....Oh, by the by, morning temperature here in good old SW PA, 51F.....Global Warming is a CROCK!!!!

The Denier from Hades

Why isn't the northeast really mentioned to much in there? What about NYC having a high of 59 on the 22nd of August! I was wearing pants and jackets for days at a time, in August! We only broke 90 5 times this year, the max being 94 degrees. And where I live we had 2 days that didn't get about 60 and 2 more days that didn't break 65.

REPLY: Silly boy, your confusing climate with weather! When they are two different things! Like hamburger and meatloaf! How could you? When those smart "scientists" who are so objective in their studies want to save the world from destruction!

Reply: it was not a cold summer in the Northeast. Actually, temperatures were near or even slightly above normal. But on the other hand, I certainly would not call the summer of 2007 a hot one in the Northeast. Brett.

REPLY: Sorry Brett, but I mostly disagree. This summer was a joke in this region. It certainly wasn't "Cold" in the literal sense, i.e. like January cold, but it sure as heck didn't live up to the predicted billing it got in early May from at least one of your associates. Reply: I agree with that Oiz. Brett.
But that's OK I consider myself fortuneate. (Scoff)...Let's see how "fortuneate" we are up here come Jan, Feb, March, and yes friends, even April!

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

Excellent point. Hansen's entire AGW story is based on less than one degree of warming.

Patrick,

It doesn't take you long to jump on any rope I give you. Let me rephrase myself:

One degree is insignificant over such a short period of time. As you could see in the three month chart, temperatures were normal--not even one degree below normal.

http://ingrid.ldeo.columbia.edu/maproom/.Regional/.Europe/.Atm_Temp/Anomaly.html

On the other hand, the warm anomalies in Eastern Europe persisted over the entire summer. True, I haven't been following international temps long enough to know if this is a long-term trend either, but seeing as I posted in order to correct and counter your erroneous claims, I'll leave it at that.

Once again these numbers show that temperature for the last 10 years or so have basically been flat. If the temps have been flat, why is there so much talk about extremes? It seems to me we may have reached a peak in temps and they will start to cool soon.

"Sorry for all the separate posts, but I just noticed that the Cryosphere site added a new chart tracking global sea ice extent since 1979:"

Great find, Travis! It's interesting to see how global sea ice has been below normal for some time. Of course, I'm sure we'll still continue to see that noisy graph of southern ice, which shows no trend whatsoever, because it fits the deniers' agenda.

"Oh, by the by, morning temperature here in good old SW PA, 51F" Reply: 39 here in central PA! Fall is coming. Brett

Wow, Oiz! Given that the average low is 55 degrees, that temp of 51 is so out of the ordinary! Of course, the fact that Pittsburgh is about 4.5 degrees above normal thus far this September is probably lost on you, too.

Travis,

Good find. Note that global sea ice is about the same as it was at this time in September, 1995. The southern hemisphere looks set to break the all time record again today.

The sky is falling! Another ice age has arrived.

Mark,

graph of southern ice, which shows no trend

Apparently records and trends are only significant when they support your point of view? The southern ice graph maximum shows a much larger percentage trend (about 10% over the last 30 years) than Hansen's temperature graph, regardless of whether it is measured in Kelvin, Centigrade or Fahrenheit..

Yet you cling religiously to Hansen's graph. Perhaps a bit of introspection is in order.

Question: And I apologize if this has been answered many times, I must have missed it.
With all the stats showing above and below normal, does any one know what the arbitrary value for "normal" is supposed to be and who picked it and why was it considered the standard?
I ask obviously because if I pick 1970 as normal, then of course all recent stats will look above normal.
Thanks