Brett,

Here's the NCDC Global Analysis for October:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/oct/global.html

And here's the U.S. analysis to which you referred:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/oct/national.html

Thanks Travis!

Sixth warmest on RECORD! Wait, why not first? With all of this CO2 in the atmosphere, how is it that we still haven't seen first yet?

I'm still waiting for a year where the global temperature is number one on record, followed by the very next year being warmer, and the third year being warmer than second and the fourth year being warmer than third. You know, a sequencial trend.

If you replace drafty windows in your home with energy efficient ones, you will see an immediate and obvious difference in your energy bill. Those windows are trapping more heat. All of this CO2 should be trapping heat, acting like invisible insulation if you will. Yet this huge spike in CO2 emmission over the past 50 years has resulted in 0 (zero) record setting years/trends, indicating that CO2 is causing warming EACH and EVERY YEAR in succession. Why not? Can someone please explain this to me.

Cold spring weather in the southern hemisphere driving commodities prices up.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7080985

Buenos Aires has been more than five degrees below normal this month.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/SABE/2007/11/16/MonthlyHistory.html

Nice graphs,

Both hemispheres show steady cooling over the last 10 years. Satellite troposphere data shows the same trends.
http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/community/2007/oct.gif

Also, it looks like the 1970s ice age has been disappeared. These graphs are quite different from the NCAR graph in the 1975 Newsweek article, which showed a sharp 0.6 degree drop in temperature. I wonder how they managed to rewrite NCAR history?
http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/newsweek-coolingworld.pdf

Speaking of the ice age scare, this is what they said in 1975. Sound familiar?

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay it's effects ...... an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells

They were seriously considering dumping soot on the Arctic to stop the ice age in 1975.

Al Gore is determined not to let the manbearpig get away this time. What a bunch of comedians. Monty Python couldn't make up material any more ridiculous.

Brett,

I have often thought, when I see near record setting temperature anomolies reported on, that it would be instructive to know in what years the other records were set. If October, 2007 is the sixth warmest on record, when did the other five warmest Octobers occur?

Reply: I did not have time to look it up today John, but I will try to do so this weekend. Brett

Thanks

Oh No... Not the big red dots again!!

Ii hate those things..LOL

Reply: Darren, I hate those dot maps as well, but now we are stuck with them. Brett.

Yeah. This October was the warmest I can remember! I love winter but it was FANTASTIC! I was working outside with shorts on, mowing grass, and enjoying an extra month of summer! Bring on the late winters!

"Big Oil" Paying Off Climate Scientists:
An Insider's Story

(Katy, TX - Nov. 11) Many environmentalists have long suspected that "Big Oil" pays a small cadre of climate scientists to perform and publish bogus research, as well as spread disinformation regarding the state of the science of global warming and climate change. But according to one administrative assistant who was recently let go from her employer, what is already known by watchdog groups like Greenpeace and ExxonSecrets.org might be just the tip of the iceberg.

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/big-oil-paying-climate-scientists.htm

Thanks for this, Brett. It's extremely useful for those of us having to fire back at the ideologically driven climate "science" that's popping up all over the place. The latest was in Utah when a think tank published an anti-climate op-ed, but the rebuttal letter, written by a physicist and former Air Force meteorologist, was excellent. Worth a read.

You can get to it here: http://solveclimate.com/blog/20071116/climate-deniers-embarrassed-again-time-utah

Thanks!
http://www.solveclimate.com

The base period is 1961 - 90? Couldn't they find a colder base period?

One more amazing comment from the 1975 ice age panic.

Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend... But they are almost unanimous in their view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some pessimists believe, the resulting famines could be catastrophic
http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/newsweek-coolingworld.pdf

Do any of these words sound familiar? I'm laughing so hard I'm going to have to step out of the office....

RANDY . GILPIN BETTER WATCH IT ON BLOCK ISLAND R.I WAS ONE OF THE 6 ON RECORD. READ STORY ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING.
STEVE

If anybody from Big Oil is reading this: can you guys (and gals) please send over some money? I have been skeptical of AGW for a while, without getting paid at all, surely by now I must have earned the right for a couple of checks?

Hi Guys,

Rich makes a good point. I believe that the warmest years are in the 1930s, only 70+ years ago. We most likely wont see the warmest since it has actually been no warming and a bit of cooling lately. See the NASA link below shows that the 25th may be the weakest solar cycle in the few hundred years (oh no not a little iceage again). How many sun spots are there ummm 0. It is funny how they always start the baseline in the 1970s. Why don't they do it in the 1940s BEFORE it cooled. Darren M. revel in the warmth while you can because it may be getting cool again and Patrick can repost that iceage article so it fits again. HEY if CO2 is such a good insulator why don't they use it in storm windows? All that warming in the windows should keep the heat from escaping right? Oh shoot thats right CO2 is logarithmic in its ability to hold heat-- darn.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm

"Why not? Can someone please explain this to me."

The interannual variation in the climate system is greater than the year to year increase in the global energy budget, hence records are not expected every year.

I'm dismayed by how little things change around here. I choose not to respond to the obviously provocative comments here, but I do want to answer John Thompson's question:

If October, 2007 is the sixth warmest on record, when did the other five warmest Octobers occur?

Looking at the global land and sea bar chart, it looks looks like October 2003 was warmest, followed by 2005, 1997, 2006, 2004, and 2007 in that order. So with the exception of 1997, all have occurred in the past 5 years. Here's the chart:

http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/community/2007/oct.gif

Reply: Travis, thanks for doing the investigative work for me on that one. Appreciate it. Brett.

And since provocative comments seem to be the norm today, here's one:

Global land surface temperatures for the year-to-date are the warmest on record. Not only that, it's the warmest year ever in the Northern Hemisphere for land and sea combined.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/oct/global.html#year-to-date

Note, however, that this comment can not be disputed unless someone here decides to attack the credibility of the data being used. If this is the case, I can not help them.

RICH,

Any extended period with temperature records set yearly is highly unlikely due to the effect of the natural variations of global climate. We had back-to-back record-setting years in 1997 and 1998 because of a strong El Nino, followed by the two coolest years since, which involved at mild-to-moderate La Nina. Each year since the 1999-2000 La Nina (through October) has been above the 1997 record.

solveclimate.com?
You've got to be kidding. Here's one of their solutions to AGW.

"Sign a Global Treaty
Time to transform America's international posture -- from obstructionist to global leader. Lead by example -- China, India & the rest will follow."

Oh, of course they will.
What a frighteningly naive statement. I can't believe an adult came up with it.
For anyone wondering why AGW is being pushed so hard, this is a perfect example. It's become an industry.

mrsund,

Changing the base doesn't alter the yearly temperature data. If the base was in a cooler period, we would see more red on the chart. If the base was 1997-2006, we would see almost no red. What would not change is the fact that the past eleven years have seen the warmest global temperatures on record.

Great analysis Brett. You get paid big buck to put �sixth highest October� in the same paragraph with �GW�, and that is supposed to mean something? I am 62 years old and live in Texas; this is the coolest summer I can remember. Can�t see my blue dot on your graph.
John Swenson

John, I posted your summer blue dot a while ago. I did not say it meant something. I am just relaying the NOAA data results.

There is something rather strange with those maps.

First, they do not appear easy to interpret. Compare http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/oct/map-land-sfc-mntp-200710-pg.gif showing global anomaly with 1961-1990 base period to http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/oct/avgtemp.dfn-200710.gif showing US anomaly with 1971-2000 base period.

Why couldn't they use the same base periods, I do not know.

Also there is something strange in the data. Argentina has experience quite a cool year, yet it mostly gets red dots in the global map.

The values for Australia are peculiar too, as those red dots in the map do not appear to correspond to what one can read at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology's website http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi

Anomalies appear mostly confined with 1C in the BOM's data, but shoot to values higher than 2C in the NCDC's

The "the 1975 ice age panic", again?

Is this canard about the alleged ice age prediction on the contrarian/denier talking-point list for the week?

Patrick Henry has cited a Newsweek article. If our friend claims that Newsweek is an unreliable source for scientific information, he'll get no complaint from most of the scientists I know, and certainly none from me. Similarly, he could be citing this as an example of why meteorology is not necessarily a reliable source of climatological information.

Somehow, I doubt that he intended to make either implication. I invite Patrick Henry to follow up the references cited in this piece and see what the authors actually wrote. It shouldn't be too hard -- "Dr. Murray Mitchell" (NOAA), "George Kukla" (Columbia University), even Reid Bryson!

The same Reid Bryson described HERE as an AGW skeptic! What's the deal?

You don't suppose Patrick Henry and our contrarians are trying to have it both ways, do you?

I note that the strongest editorial comment -- "The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality" is not attributed and appears to be opinion of "Peter Gwynne" -- a Newsweek writer.

I wonder how the right wing would have handled this piece if it had come from Dan Rather.

iceman:
solveclimate.com? LOL.. I went to the site linked at the end of the Oid funding farce and found amound other rediculus chaff article about:

Polar Bears "Dropping Like Flies" From Heat Exhaustion
[ Picture of poor polar bear being cuddled by hunter - heart renching ]
Hunter Jeremiah Johnson comforts a polar bear that had collapsed from heat exhaustion before he could shoot it.
(Cold Bay, Alaska) Warming temperatures in polar regions are causing an increasing number of polar bears to collapse from heat exhaustion, local hunters report.
Very Credible sites. hahahaha!

Hi BT,

Here is some more comedy for you-

Prof. Hansen and his colleagues argue that rapidly melting ice caps in Antarctica and Greenland could cause oceans to swell several metres by 2100 - or maybe even as much as 25 metres
http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/news_repository/will-oceans-surge-59-centimetres-this-century-or-25-metres

25 meters is pretty impressive. That is nearly one inch a month. If Hansen has his way, Brookline will be history soon - but Colorado will be a just a little closer to the beach.

Pristine Alaskan Glacier Turns Into Tropical Wasteland

Few places on Earth have suffered the ravages of global warming more than Alaska. While recent news reports have highlighted accounts of the native Inuits' snowmobiles falling through the ice, threatening their traditional way of life, there are isolated parts of Alaska have been completely transformed by global warming.

Possibly the most frightening example of this climate catastrophe that continues to unfold before the eyes of humanity is the case of Frosty Cove, Alaska. Once dominated by a pristine ice field, with a slowly advancing glacier dumping its frigid cargo into the sea, the Cove's original beauty has been forever lost.

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/Frosty-Cove-Alaska.htm

residents in Argentina and Brazil are wondering if this winter will ever end. Buenos Aires recorded this Thursday (November 15th) the lowest November temperature in 90 years. Temperature in the Downtown weather station reached 2.5C. Since records began more than a century ago, only two days had colder lows in November. It was in 1914 (1.6) and 1917 (2.4). And ninety years ago the urban heat island effect was much less pronounced than nowadays. In Brazil's southernmost province Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil temperatures fell to 2.3C. In Sao Joaquim Monday's (Nov., 12) the temperature was -1.2 C with frost.

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/november_2007/al_gore_wrong_again.htm

I just spoke with five lovely Irish Ladies visiting NYC, theey said Ireland has had NO SUMMER this year, COLD and WET and .....well COLD. They said it was like autum all summer.

Sixth warmest? Where I was in New England yes October was warm, we used to call it Indian Summer, going back to Puritan days when the colonists thought the climate was warmer, and winter nearly killed tham all!

Are these numbers driven higher by urban heat island effects?

Hi BT,

I see that you have invoked the "Newsweek defense." For future reference, here is a good example of the "Exxon defense."
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20071116/climate-deniers-embarrassed-again-time-utah

Another one you may want to consider is the "Chewbacca defense."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense

These are all good ways of avoiding an actual discussion of the gaping problems with AGW theory and folklore.

Patrick, you've got to be kidding!

Cold Spring in Argentina?

a) Check, www.wxmaps.org, the 15-day outlook for Argentina: ABOVE AVERAGE.

b) We're not experiencing an unusually cool year. We're just experiencing the kind of temperatures my gran-parents were used to. Buenos Aires frost? It has happened before... Buenos Aires snow? Has happened before.

c) Pick any city in Argentina and see the forecast: warmer than average.

Where's the cold you talk about?

Here are some important numbers for nuclear power advocates.

"These ten countries possess about 96% of the global uranium reserves. With their 2 million tonnes, all 439 world-wide operated nuclear power plants can be supplied for several decades."
http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/u/uranium-reserves.htm

Now consider a 20 fold increase in the number of nuclear power plants, as some global warming proponents advocate. That would reduce the supply of Uranium to just a few years. Also, it would increase the amount of nuclear waste by 20 fold which would be an environmental crisis.

It would appear that fission powered nuclear reactors are not the panacea some would have us believe.

Maurizio,
You noticed something we covered a few months ago on this blog. One of the problems with the global reporting network, is that most of the stations outside of the US have closed since 1960. (over 50% when compared with the sixties). NOAA and NASA extrapolate grid cells temps and anamolies based on existing surface reporting stations. That is, they fill in the empty grids based on adjacent grids, which in themselves may have been extrapolated. For instance, Brazil has only 6 surface stations (mainly urban), yet, that doesn't prevent NOAA from "extraploating" the temperatues for the entire country. The same goes for Africa, most Sibera an Asia.

And you are also correct in that NASA and NOAA report on "anamolies"; you change the base period, you change the anomoly. Why NOAA doesn't choose a 100 year base period (1900-2000)is obvious.

"The interannual variation in the climate system is greater than the year to year increase in the global energy budget, hence records are not expected every year."

Uhhh....can you better explain your explanation please. You lost me.

"Any extended period with temperature records set yearly is highly unlikely due to the effect of the natural variations of global climate. We had back-to-back record-setting years in 1997 and 1998 because of a strong El Nino, followed by the two coolest years since, which involved at mild-to-moderate La Nina. Each year since the 1999-2000 La Nina (through October) has been above the 1997 record."

So disecting your statement, nature is DRIVING our climate and not CO2. You cannot have it both ways. Is CO2 preventing heat from escaping or not? Its a simple question. If atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased by a whopping 40 percent on RECORD and are increasing EVERY year, where are the sequential RECORDS to prove the existance of this trapped heat? If there is an invisible blanket encompassing the globe because of the highest CO2 concentrations ever recorded, where are the successive years of RECORD breaking warmth?

Take a clear beachball. Put a few icecubes in there. Place it in the sun. Record the air temperature inside the beachball. Despite the cubes contributing to cooling, the temperature in that beachball will increase EACH and EVERY hour, even as the ice melts. Where is the YEAR after YEAR of INCREASING record breaking warmth in our clear plastic beachball we call the earths atmosphere? 150 years of building a beachball-like atmosphere and yet it was warm it the 30's and cool in the 70's. Your theory DOESNT MAKE SENSE!!!!

Hi Guys,

Boy this base period stuff is heavy. Why do they use 1961, why 1971. How about this should the base year be the warmest period since the last iceage? That would make it the holocene maximum. Just a thought.

" Another Nail in the "Hockey Stick" Coffin "

"Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit continues a series of excellent posts reviewing the latest futile attempts to revive the hockey stick. "

Since the first challenges to the hockey stick by MCintyre and McKitrick, there have been many attempts by the close-knit team of paleoclimatologists to breath life back into the hockey stick and save face for Mann but there approaches all suffer from the same fatal flaws of the original work. "

http://www.icecap.us/

The Missing Debate On Global Warming
" Science becomes a thing of consensus � which by definition means that science is no longer science. "

http://www.fortcollinsforumonline.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=447

And this from an article about
" Nuclear Energy and the CO2 Fiction "
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ANSNuclearenergyCO2.pdf

Has anyone seen this graph before? It begs some questons.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2_Beck.jpg

Marie,

Wasn't that a "Silvia" who supplied Dan Rather with the Rathergate memos? I wonder if she is one and the same?!?!!!??

Verrrrrry Interesting!!

Brett,

Looking forward to your "spin" on the IPCC synthesis report. Wouldn't be surprised to see you put it under the "Odd News" section....and I'm sure PH is readying his links to Antarctic snow depth reports and conspiracy theories. How about some thoughtful commentary on the VAST CONSENSUS of climate change, as opposed to unleashing the raving lunatic Bastardi upon us again?

Reply: To everyone who posted a comment this weekend I apologize for not getting them online in a timely matter. I was out of town as I went to my father's 70th b'day party in Rhode Island. His laptop is useless, just full of viruses for whatever reason so I had no computer. I just got back Sunday evening after driving 7 hours, half of it in the snow which was not fun, so my tank is running close to empty now. I'll be back on my game Monday, and yes heatmiser you should see a post on the IPCC.

Andrew, Steve Bloom, Mark, BT, etc.

The BBC explains why you are wasting your time. The world is increasingly dependent on fossil fuels, and there is nothing the US or the UN can do about it. You should read this carefully and then enjoy your life in our pleasant climate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7100039.stm

"The IPCC is a UN agency, the Convention on Climate Change and Kyoto Protocol are UN treaties, so it would be a bit odd if a senior UN official came out and said "it's a waste of time, it's hopeless, we're never going to do it".

Looking at the real world, it is hard to see any real grounds for their optimism, however.

The IPCC analysis implies that we need to curb fossil fuel use within a decade.

The International Energy Agency predicts energy use will increase by 50% by 2025, with fossil fuels still the dominant component.

The Asian Development Bank projects that the number of vehicles in some Asian countries including China could rise by a factor of 15 within 30 years, dwarfing any efficiency gains. "

Where is the evidence that climate SHOULDN'T change? Isn't that what it is in a constant state of doing? Without the help of humans? Shouldn't those little graphs constantly be trending either up or down? I guess the climate that you were born into is the "perfect" climate and that it should always and forever stay that way. I believe, according to ice core samples, the climate has been in an anomalous period of "calm" for about the last 8000 or so years (a mere blip on a geological scale). If it just gets back to "normal", that means returning to more fluctuating climate changes and sometimes over relatively short periods of time. If the climate is changing, maybe it's just getting back to normal.

Travis

I dispute the statement that "Global land surface temperatures for the year-to-date are the warmest on record" on the basis of what published on the CRU web site.

Look at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt

YTD, we are a long shot from 2005 with a distinct "cooling" after the large positive January anomaly.

On an annual basis, if the average for the last 3 months is below +0.334 (admittedly, not a given) then this year will be the coolest since 2000.

Since we're here: 2007 is shaping up as the coolest year since 2000 in terms of ocean temperatures. In fact, those have been falling since 2001

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadsst2gl.txt

Interestingly, CO2 has been rising, no major volcanoes have happened, and there has been no La Nina in the intervening time.

(sarcasm)Perhaps it's all been thanks to the Kyoto agreement(/sarcasm)

re:M morabito

I agree, the data does not appear to stack up re local meteorological sites (ie Southern Hemisphere, Australia etc. Maybe someone should enquire of NASA Gisstemp

Maurizio,

The data for the global dot map and the U.S. dot map came from different sources; one mainly from gridded satellite data and the other from ground station data. That likely accounts for the different base periods as well as the difference in formats.

The Argentina map only describes temperatures from last month, not for the year to date. October temperatures were indeed above normal in Argentina, but temperatures are now below normal again as they have been for most of the year. I'm guessing this is in large part related to the developing La Nina since temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere are so dependent on the oceans, but I don't know enough about South American climate to make any more of an educated guess.

As for Australia, the differences between the dot map and whatever you saw on the the Australian site (your link directed me to an annual rainfall bar chart, but I've seen other places showing the data you describe) is likely due to how the data was analyzed; the dot map is divided into boxes and is analyzed in that quantized manner.

The chart you are referring to likely averages temperature readings over large regions, which would lend itself to showing less extreme temperatures. The one I just linked, for instance, does not show the -3C anomalies over the equatorial Pacific or Mongolia while the dot map does. In fact, the negative anomalies in Mongolia don't even show up in the map I linked because it is close to the very large positive anomalies in nearby Siberia.

Having said that, I agree with Darren. I hate the dot maps.

Brett, We are all educated. There is no global warming.

Rich,

You're oversimplifying things. There are many different factors that drive climate. Ocean currents, ocean mixing, volcanic activity, solar activity, Earth's orbit, concentration of certain atmospheric gasses, etc. To say that only one of these is the true driver of climate would be inaccurate and poor scientific analysis.

The AGW theory states that human-induced changes are having an increasing effect on Earth's climate, but that does not mean that CO2 is the biggest driver of global climate. Natural events like oceanic oscillations and ENSO events still have a greater short-term impact on climate locally and globally than changes in CO2 levels.

Long term, however, those natural events are theoretically altered by the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Altering these natural variabilities does not mean that they go away. Thus there will always be year-to-year variability in global temperatures and global climate in general, very likely preventing temperature records from being set for several years in a row.

Paul,

The ecoenquirer is an environmental parody site run by Dr. John Christy from UAH - an IPCC lead author and well known skeptic. He does a great job of pointing out the absurdity of the panic and paranoia.

Brett,

Thanks for you blog and happy birthday to your dad.

Maurizio,

The Hadley numbers are not in dispute. The NCDC site will show clearly that ocean temps are only 7th warmest on record for the year to date, some ways from the record. I was talking about only LAND surface temperatures; the first link you provided included both land and sea surface anomalies. Naturally, the two would be different. If you'd like to make comparisons, here's the CRU data for land temps only:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/crutem3gl.txt

CRU data does indeed show 2005 to be warmer to date than 2007 for land temps. But also consider that CRU data is taken and analyzed using different methodologies than what is used by the NCDC. For the sea and land-sea data, CRU does not use satellite data to measure sea surface temperatures (they use temperature readings taken by volunteer ocean-going vessels). The NCDC analysis does use satellite data. This will naturally lend itself to noticeably different temperature measurements from the two methods.

We can still compare the data sets for similarities and differences, but it's not as easy to make clear-cut conclusions based on the two different analyses. On the other hand, CRU does seem to agree with NCDC that 2007 is so far in the top 3 for annual temperatures:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

And yes, we are currently experiencing a moderate and still-strengthening La Nina, which would account for the noticeably cooler SSTs this year.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/sst/wksst.20071107.gif

Locutus has spoken!

"The world's scientists have spoken clearly and with one voice," Ban said
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071118/D8SVRO100.html

The UN Secretary General is now dictating what all scientists believe.

"These scenes are as frightening as a science fiction movie," said Ban.

Can't argue with him about that!

"Resistance is futile - you will be assimilated."

Brett, JP,

I have a meteorological question for professionals. It looks like temperatures in western Alaska have been running well below normal for most of the year. Particularly since fall started.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/PADQ/2007/1/1/CustomHistory.html?dayend=18&monthend=11&yearend=2007&req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

Any ideas what would be causing that?

15 November 2007...The Brazilian Base Comandante Ferraz in Antarctica is rationing water. During the last twenty years the weather has not been as cold and snowy this time of the year in the Brazilian post near the South Pole. The nearby lakes that provide water to the base have been frozen since September. The heliport is covered by three meters of snow and cannot be used. (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/PorquenotecallasAlGore.doc)

This is one of MANY examples which do not fit with the red dots shown on the NOAA map!

Travis

We agree on those dots

Regarding Australia, the other possibility is that they mean degF, but write degC

About Argentina, and the discrepancies with the CRU data, it may really be that the NOAA dots are extrapolations of extrapolations

I'd recommend to Brett not to mention maps with red dots any longer. Either NOAA publishes the figures or long live the CRU downloads!!

Marie:

"Few places on Earth have suffered the ravages of global warming more than Alaska. While recent news reports have highlighted accounts of the native Inuits' snowmobiles falling through the ice, threatening their traditional way of life, there are isolated parts of Alaska have been completely transformed by global warming."

I'm going to miss those traditional Inuit snowmobile hunts.

I am celebrating the recent warming trend as it is very beneficial to mankind. I am hoping for a mild winter here in Northeast Ohio as many elderly people die from the cold temps we experience in Jan. and Feb. So, where's the headline that declares, "Global Warming Predicted to Save Lives!"

The fearmongers who claim that this warming trend is bad for mankind really have another agenda. All they see is catastrophic consequences to warming because they want to "solve" climate change with higher taxes and more government controls over our everyday lives. They can't you know - it's a fool's errand and it is a giant hoax.

Regarding Australia, the other possibility is that they mean degF, but write degC

I wouldn't rule it out; stranger things have happened. I'd have to look at individual station data to check on that though, and I just don't have the time right now.

Thanks for the link to the CRU site!

Patrick Henry,

You know I respect you, so don't think I'm being rude. I know that Summit station has been quite chilly this fall, as has western Alaska, but isn't that sort of overwhelmed by the nearly continual positive temperature anomaly over most of the northern hemisphere for the last 15 years or so?

Also, for the record, I was checking out the wikipedia description of the IPC IV report, and it notes that the calculated radiative forcing for an "increase in solar intensity since 1750" is about +0.12 w/m. Whereas the contribution from greenhouse gases is about 1.6 W/m. This is strong evidence against any assertion that the sun has been a significant factor in the warming of the last several decades.

Patrick,
All indications point to a typical La Nina signal for the Pacific Northwest, Western Canada and Alaska. How much of this past Autumn's weather for Western Alaska was due to La Nina, I cannot say. Maybe someone at Accuweather can comment. Reading Brett's interpetation of the European Medium Forecast Models for this Winter, it appears there is some consistency (the models do not deviate from past runs in thier depiction of forecasted upper level wind flow), and with that we can with condfidence point to La Nina as a reason for cooler than normal Alaskan autumn weather.

One thing that might be interesting to see is what happens after this bout of cooler equatorial SSTs. There have been some grumblings that the PDO has changed from positive to negative. If that is indeed the case, El Nino events will be like the last weak one we saw in 2006, and La Nina events will be stronger and more frequent. Brett, could probably comment more on this.

cmbclean,

"Overwhelmed" is a rather strong word. After upwards adjustment, they say average temperatures have increased by a couple of tenths of degree over the last 15 years.

Sea level is not rising any faster than it has for the last 9000 years. They have found a 9000 year old city submerged 36 meters off the coast of India. Polar sea ice is within 3% of the 30 year mean. Polar bear populations have increased 400% since the 1950s.

AGW proponents have perfected the art of covering maps with red dots to scare people. Can you feel a 0.2 degree change in temperature?

PH;
Locutus has spoken
An excerpt from the Borg disaster rant.

" Even if factories were shut down today and cars taken off the roads, the average sea level will gradually rise over the next 1,000 years to reach as high as 4.6 feet above that in the preindustrial period, or about 1850. "

Converting this to metric it indicates an average sea level rise of 1.375 mm per year.
Does this number look familiar to anyone.
That is how much sea level has been rising all along.
I am sure most people will be misslead by this and will think it is somthing "Unpresidented"

What a farce.....

Hi Guys,

cmbclean you sounding like Mark, Andrew and BT in quoting the IPCC as fact. It is a political group. JP makes a good point with the AMO and PDO. You have to remember the the current cycle of iceages are caused because the isthmus of Panama closed the gap between North and South America thus causing the Gulf Stream to head north and distribute the heat to the northern ocean. The IPCC discounts solar activity because it looks at the brightness and not the affect of cosmic rays. The cosmic ray flux has been shown to have the ability to seed clouds (Svensmark Hypothesis). This has a conservative net affect on clouds of +/- 2% or 1.5W/m2 at the surface. This is about 67% of the IPCC so called human caused warming. With the AMO, PDO and solar all in positive or high activity stage then why is it being ignored when all of these factors have big influences on the climate. JP is correct in that we may be seeing a negative in the PDO but also the solar cycle as well. It slays me when CO2 has never been a driving factor in climate but is now the main factor because it supports certain groups agendas. PLEASE STOP quoting Wikipedia as sources unless you want the meaning of "is", because Billy Joe Bob can post his theory of AGW if he wants and that is scary. Oh yea Polar Bear populations have exploded since the 1950s. Can't wait for the next great traditional Inuit Snowmobile hunt.

PH,

I think overwhelm is an appropriate word. If we were to focus only on the arctic regions, over the last 15 years or so, warm anomalies have vastly outnumberd cold anomalies. Models predict that the rate of warming should increase significantly over the next few decades. I suppose only time will tell which one of us is more correct, but I fear the loss of permanant sea ice by 2050.

Looks like we may be shaping up for smaller red dots in Switzerland!!..........Swiss ski resorts have had promising season starter snowfalls. Swissinfo has reported that ski resorts including Davos, St Antonien and Braunwald have experienced exceptional early season snowfalls. Last weekend, 62 cm of snow fell in the eastern resort of Davos, while St Antonien received 64 cm and Braunwald got 72 cm on Sunday according to the national weather service Meteo Swiss. According to the report, Switzerland has not received such a strong start to its winter ski season since 1952.

Travis,

I am simplifying things intentionally.

It sounds like you are saying that CO2 is not entirely responsible for the .6 degree rise in global temperature over the past 100 years. Good to hear. If not entirely though, then how much is CO2 responsible for?

The world has already burned approximately 20 percent of its entire fossil fuel reserves. After this burning, the earths average temperature has gone up by .6 degrees (not that CO2 is entirely to blame for this).

Bear with me here. 20 percent burned fossil fuels equals .6 degrees of warmth. 80 percent of burnt fossil fuel reserves would mean 2.4 more degrees of warmth. Double that figure to account for population growth and potential non-linear changes in the warming rate(more emmissions over less time).

That would mean 4.8 more degrees of warmth, after we burn the remaining 80 percent of fossil fuels. That 4.8 degrees mind you is if you entirely blame CO2 for the initial .6 degree rise in temperature. Lets see, it was -69 on Greenland last week. Add 4.8 degrees and it would be -64.2. Yup, a lot of melting there.

Also try proving that it would have been even colder in the 1970s, if it were not for AGW.

Sorry, but man kinds role in warming is microscopic(.088 at best). 500 years from now, there will be plenty of life on earth, IF it is not destroyed by World War. However the chances of there not being a World War are dramatically slimmer than the chance that man caused the .6 degree rise in temperature to begin with. Also as Marie pointed out, 2007 is shaping up as the coolest year since 2000 in terms of ocean temperatures. For New England, November 2007 has been quite chilly.

With that, we need to get off of foreign oil and start using energy efficient technology. This is where we probably agree.

Cheers

RICH,

It's always good to know we at least have one place where we agree. You bring up legitimate questions that I don't have time to address properly right now. As I told Maurizio, I've been busy lately and continue to be so.

Yet I have no doubt that this won't be the last time this topic comes up, so I look forward to discussing it with you in more depth in the future.

Best regards,

~Travis

cmbclean,

Arctic sea ice has caught up with last year, and several basins are ahead. Baffin Bay sea ice is 2X last year's level. Remember the blog entry two weeks ago lamenting the AGW demise of Baffin Island while the author dodged frostbite?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.4.html

Last December saw record warmth in the Arctic due to El Nino, so the sea ice never fully recovered. This year is likely to see the opposite.

Travis,

Rich is correct in that nuclear war is the primary threat to mankind, and nuclear power is it's enabler. Here is how it works.

Step 1. We (all countries) start building thousands of nuclear power plants.

Step 2. We realize that there is not enough Uranium to support that many light water reactors for more than maybe a decade or two. At current usage levels, the reserves are no more than 60 years.

Step 3. Having committed to nuclear, we start building breeder reactors - as that is the only long term fission based solution.

Step 4. Plutonium from the breeder reactors disappears all over Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

Step 5. Suicide bombers with plutonium bombs or dirty bombs start taking out western cities, and no way to track the responsible parties.

Patrick H,

You'll get no argument from me that nuclear war is the biggest threat to mankind. In case I haven't said it before: if we have a nuclear war, we have much bigger problems to worry about than climate or the economy or the quality of public schooling. As I am not a staunch advocate of nuclear power, I'm not sure why you brought it up.

Have a good Thanksgiving.

PH,
"Remember the blog entry two weeks ago lamenting the AGW demise of Baffin Island while the author dodged frostbite?"
Reminds me of the two women last year trekking to the North Pole to show the effects of AGW. They had to be rescued due to the cold.

Travis,

I am looking forward to your response.

Patrick Henry,

Your scenario is very possible. However, it would not take hundreds or thousands of nuclear power plants to provide terrorists with the ability to plant dirty bombs. It would take just one well placed bomb to start chaos. We wouldnt know where or how many more bombs would be detonated. Chaos and fear, no doubt. This can easily happen IF Iran was allowed unfettered access to nuclear power. Israel will not allow Iran to go nuclear. This French American cannot blame them. Israel will attack Iran pre-emptively, similiar to the 6 day war in 1967. This will infuriate many and will be the start of a war much larger in scale than what we currently see in Iraq. There is a storm brewing on the horizon. Sadly, most are distracted and dont see it coming. War will come before thousands of nuclear power plants are built. The president of Iran, if you listen to him, prays for the coming of this war before or after every speech. He knows whats coming. He wants it. He will be rewarded with heaven by encouraging it. I strongly urge you to look into The Mahdi.

With that, we need to get off of foreign oil. Not for environmental sake, but for economical sake. The upcoming turbulance in the middle east will make fuel prices soar. Fuel drives our economy. If we reduced our dependence in that region, we would be better off. We can safely sustain ourselves with our home grown energy. We need to secure our borders though.

Also by America developing and marketing energy efficient technology, this will free up middle eastern oil. If less civilized countries have more oil, there will be no need for them to have nuclear. The middle eastern countries have enough oil to sustain themselves for a very, very long time. They dont NEED nuclear power. By the time they burned up there reserves, new and safe energy technologies would have been developed. Will we get to see it? We cannot allow threatening countries the ability to start nuclear war. Unfortunately there are some who blog here who think in order to save the earth from AGW, middle eastern countries will need nuclear power. Thats scary.

Your scenario is very possible. However, it would not take hundreds or thousands of nuclear power plants to provide terrorists with the ability to plant dirty bombs.

Since we're so far afield of AGW already without complaint from Brett, I suppose we might as well linger a bit longer.

First, the "dirty bomb" scenarios are -- when examined objectively as factual scenarios -- not nearly so frightening as the Cheney/Bush fear-mongers would have us believe. The immediate property damage from such an event would be very localized, it would be no different from the effects of any other comparable conventional device. The health effects of the radioactive material under consideration would be gradual and virtually impossible to distinguish from the health effects of the fallout from the 50's that already surrounds us and already provides a measurable signal in cancer rates (especially thyroid cancer). The primary impact of such a weapon is, however, the worst nightmare of the right-wing Capitalist: economic. The US population has been so terrified that they would flee. Panic-stricken hoards would kill and injure each other attempting to escape the non-event. Area businesses and real-estate values would plummet. The taxpayer would absorb huge economic losses as cleanup crews attempted to remove every trace of radioactive material.

I wonder why our right-wingers are so fearful of an Iranian nuclear capability while Pakistan -- which already HAS nuclear weapons with our blessing -- teeters on the edge of political chaos. Our right-wingers perhaps want us to forget that Iran, under the Shaw, was once a valued US protectorate and friend.

The risk of an Iranian-style extremist takeover in Pakistan is, to my eyes, far greater than anything in Iran in a comparable time period.

The only meaningful solution in Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, and the rest of the ME is, unfortunately requires the single most glaring incompetence of the current administration: diplomacy. There is no meaningful military solution.

I am convinced that future generations will judge this administration very harshly indeed, because of its catastrophically inept blunders in diplomacy, energy policy, and climate change. The issues are inextricably interwoven, and their solution requires precisely those skills that are most lacking in the current administration -- tact, diplomacy, credibility, trust, charisma, and an unwavering and obvious commitment to human rights and decency. We needed JFK and got someone with the moral fiber of Nixon and the mental acuity of Reagan in his final days in office.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Hi BT,

Marie Curie and Alexander Litvinenko might disagree with you about the dangers of low-level radiation. It is also worth remembering that Plutonium is one of the most toxic chemicals.

BTW - what happened to hysteria earlier this year about we can't win a "civil war" in Iraq? Now the Dems excuse for running away is that Iraq hasn't yet achieved 100% of their political goals.

Chances are history will judge Bush quite favorably. Those on the left screaming "catastrophe" over and over again will not be remembered at all.

BT,
"The only meaningful solution in Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, and the rest of the ME is, unfortunately requires the single most glaring incompetence of the current administration: diplomacy. There is no meaningful military solution."

Sorry BT, I have to disagree with you when it comes to Iran. Until Iran gets beyond a tenth century mentality, diplomacy seems impossible. There is a delicate balance in the middle east. Obviously, this balance is tipped in Israel's favor. If Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons that will tip the balance. At that point Israel would have lost their advantage. For this reason, Israel can never let this happen. It really doesn't matter what we do. In their eyes it's survival. I'm sure the Israelis take Ahmadinejad's threats serious.
Just some thoughts.
Have a nice Thanksgiving.

Marie Curie and Alexander Litvinenko might disagree with you about the dangers of low-level radiation. It is also worth remembering that Plutonium is one of the most toxic chemicals.

I invite anyone who wishes, including Patrick Henry, to choose the toxic radioactive material of their choice, estimate how much of it their hypothetical bomber might package into a bomb, and then calculate how broad an area would receive a significant radiation dose after the explosion. Please bear in mind that dosage falls as the square of the radius. Don't forget to include the half-life of the material in your calculation.

The NRC -- that notoriously liberal, anti-American, pro-terrorist propaganda source -- has, fortunately, performed this analysis and offers an analysis for all who care. Here's their summary:

Most RDDs would not release enough radiation to kill people or cause severe illness - the conventional explosive itself would be more harmful to individuals than the radioactive material. However, depending on the scenario, an RDD explosion could create fear and panic, contaminate property, and require potentially costly cleanup. Making prompt, accurate information available to the public could prevent the panic sought by terrorists. (emphasis mine)

Patrick Henry, and the right wing, are fear-mongering again.

Iceman, if diplomacy is impossible with Iran (was their no diplomacy in the tenth century?), it seems to me that it makes diplomacy even more important regarding the other states in the region. If Muslim extremists take over Pakistan, they acquire access to Pakistan's nuclear weapons as part of their prize. If your intent is to preserve Israel's advantage, then the risk of upheaval in Pakistan appears to be a more immediate threat than any scenario in Iran.

We invaded Iraq with the stated intent of bringing "freedom" and "democracy". Our right wingers seem to ignore the reality that the "will of the people" throughout the ME is to immediately destroy Israel. The US and our allies prop up dictatorships that repress this will -- I offer Saudi Arabia as exhibit A, and Pakistan as exhibit B.

This reveals the fundamental lie upon which our military policy in the ME is based. We do not seek "freedom and democracy", because that would immediately imperil our strongest protectorate (Israel). What then do we seek?

Secure access to affordable petroleum is the only meaningful answer. All else is a distraction. Given a choice in nuclear-armed Pakistan between the military dictatorship of Musharif and a democratically-elected Muslim government that supports the Taliban and the elimination of Israel, we'll take Musharif every time.

So long as we retain our dependence on fossil fuels, we will be at war in the ME. This war is the same, whether we call it the "War on Terror" or "America's Oil War". The right-wing, who began the war, have been telling us since its inception that it will continue for the forseeable future and that it has no clearly definable objective. This is because this war is an expression of our addiction to affordable petroleum.

The environmental and climatological consequences of our addiction to fossil fuel should, in my opinion, be evaluated in that light.

Wow, you floor me BT. Dirty bombs not so nearly frightening?

Your right, people should just go about their normal business if this happens. Nothing to see here people, move along.

Obviously Pakistan is a huge concern. Atleast their leaders are not verbally threatening to wipe countries off the face of the map. But of course, still a problem. Lets just magnify that problem by allowing other countries access to nuclear power in order to save the earth from AGW. What do you say, is that logical?

As far as diplomacy, what do our terrorists sponsoring nations want BT? If we are to be diplomatic as you vaguely put it, what do we have to do NOW in order to be diplomatic? Free trade? Access to nuclear power? No sanctions? What will they do for us? Change their religous ideology?

You and I cannot find common ground. This YAHOO wishes you good luck in diplomacy with those fruitcakes. Clinton and Carter did a great job at diplomacy with North Korea, didnt they?

You have so much vitriol towards this administration that perhaps a dirty bomb detonated in one of our cities would prove that this administration failed.

This administration achieved;
1. No attacks on our soil.
2. Virtually annihilated Al Quadea.
3. Regime change, replaced by democracy.
4. Proof that the surge is working.

With that, I am very disappointed on both sides of the political spectrum with the energy bill. INCENTIVES. I want to start seeing a small percentage of cars rolling out of Detroit powered by something other than gas.

It snowed in Nashua on Tuesday, 1 month before the start of winter. Happy Thanksgiving.

...On Record.
...On Record.
...On Record.

These claims continue to be made, even though man's (accurate) recording of weather data has only been taking place for several hundered years. A length of time that nears insignifigance based on the time that Homo Sapiens has inhabited the Earth and a length of time that doesn't even rate a fly spec on the continuim that the Earth has existed. Our archiological findings have demonstrated that the Earth has has wide and frequent (in archiological timing) climate changes that have had nothing to do with anything that man has done. All we can truthfully do is to continue to observe and record. To take any 'drastic' actions based on our limited vistigal understanding of the forces that drive climatology could be, and probably would be, counter productive.

BT,
"(Was their no diplomacy in the tenth century?)"
Actually BT there really wasn't much. I think diplomacy in the tenth century meant being disemboweled, beheaded, skinned alive, etc.
As for the rest of your rant-
You constantly make reference to the right wing. I hope you don't really believe that our thirst for oil is only a right wing deal. The position we're in there is far from just the result of right wing politics. Supporting dictators is far from being only a republican practice. Check your history.
As for our addiction to fossil fuel; the left is filled with hypocrites and phonies who suck up as much, or more, fossil fuel than anyone. Take Al Gore for example. Exactly what did the Clinton administration do to free us from the bonds of fossil fuel? Lest we forget the Hollywood crowd, supporters of the left, who call on America to sacrifice and conserve, while they fly in their private jets, drive their SUV's, and party in their power draining mansions. While you berate the right, you ignore the phonies on the left whose actions don't match their words.
I agree with you BT about breaking our dependence on fossil fuels. Not because the earth is going to turn into Venus, but because it makes sense for many reasons. Though it may be convenient now to blame the right, both parties must accept blame. Even if oil has been taken out of the picture, our support of Israel will continue keep us embroiled in the problems of the ME. That's not going to change.