No surprise that Hansen's data is the highest. He has based his reputation for the last 20 years on proving a hypothesis, and is also in charge of the measurements used to evaluate the hypothesis.

This is a blatant conflict of interest, and he should step down. All of the other sources of data show 2007 as the coldest or second coldest year this millenium.

OT,

Sorry, couldn't pass this one up.

Houston, we have a problem.

Seems that the SH sea ice anomaly is headed the wrong way from what one would expect during the summer. The sea ice extent is approaching the positive side of 2 million square kilometers.

If they had graphed from 1998 instead of 2000, there would have been a constant or downward trend. It's statistical trash.

Reply: Pielke's site goes back to 1990, I posted a link to that in the post.

Hi Guy,

I prefer to use Roger Sr.'s data on SST and ocean temps.

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/12/17/reality-check-2-long-term-sea-surface-temperature-trend-anomalies-and-ocean-heat-content-trends/

Starting from 2000 is too short a trend. 1990 is better, but starting right before a major volcanic eruption not "predicted" by the IPCC biases the results by quite a bit.

Jr. gets taken apart in the comments on real climate here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/langswitch_lang/sw

Paul:
OT,

"Sorry, couldn't pass this one up.

Houston, we have a problem.

Seems that the SH sea ice anomaly is headed the wrong way from what one would expect during the summer. The sea ice extent is approaching the positive side of 2 million square kilometers."

This is houston flight control center latest satellite imagey shows thin ice. Thinner is not better than thicker!

A new study by University of Colorado at Boulder researchers indicates older, multi-year sea ice in the Arctic is giving way to younger, thinner ice, making it more susceptible to record summer sea-ice lows like the one that occurred in 2007.

The team used satellite data going back to 1982 to reconstruct past Arctic sea ice conditions, concluding there has been a nearly complete loss of the oldest, thickest ice and that 58 percent of the remaining perennial ice is thin and only 2-to-3 years old, said the lead study author, Research Professor James Maslanik of CU-Boulder's Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research. In the mid-1980s, only 35 percent of the sea ice was that young and that thin according to the study, the first to quantify the magnitude of the Arctic sea ice retreat using data on the age of the ice and its thickness, he said.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2008/10.html

NOAA satellite data shows that the troposphere is cooling quite quickly and steadily since 1998.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2006/ann/msu2006-pg.gif

Reply: But, it is warming an average of 0.05-0.13 c per decade since 1980, based on the trend of the two graphs that you have linked to.

The AGW hypothesis is a weak one with numerous actual observations flying in the face of its predictions. The data cited here do not support the theory and it seems to me that the aledged correlation between rising CO2 and warming doesn't exist. You have to crank up those computer models to find data in support of AGW and that's "artificial intelligence" at best and "cooking the books" at worst.

BTW, Baghdad saw its first snow in 100 years today! I know, I know, that's weather, not climate but it sure seems odd that it could happen during this "unprecedented warming."

Hi Guys,

Boy it is hot in Baghdad today.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,321994,00.html

Hey Brett do you think this might be a return of weather patterns from the 1930s and 1940s like Joe B. has been saying? Reply: Jim, I don't know. I need to look at a lot more data.

I read this graph as largely confirming the IPCC forecast. Look at the lower dotted brown line; just eyeballing it, I'd say that it is just a little below the best linear fit to the data. In other words, if I fit a line to that data, then I'd draw that line just above and parallel to the lower dotted brown line. Which means that the result is within the IPCC uncertainty band.

BTW, it would help enormously to know how many standard deviations are enclosed by that band. If it represents one standard deviation, then they did a good job. If it represents two standard deviations (the most common approach), then they did an acceptable job.

Bob, as Pielke notes, that graph is a feast for cherry pickers. Yes, you could get different results if you extend it back to 1998. You could get even more different results if you extend it back to 1990, as Pielke did. That's why nobody should try to prove anything from this graph. It's an interesting exercise and little more. Reply: Agreed.

yo pablo,

better yet: "houston, we have lots of problems." the scam is falling apart at the seams cause we cannot even run to the polar ice excuse anymore. Geez, it even snowed in Bagdad yesterday, the political poster child for the lefties...Somebody, quick change the next powwow of hotair from Hawaii to DEATH VALLEY, USA...an appropriate title for the direction this scam is headed towards...have a nice day, dudes!

Boris, using the same data that Dr. Pielke Jr uses (which does go back to 1990, btw), the 1998 El Nino event does the very same thing the Pinatubo eruption does that you mention.

Jr. held his own at RealClimate I thought. His point regarding *which* trends are indicative of long term change is completely valid---reminds me of an exchange I had recently with someone regarding Sea Ice (apparently, and this is the other party's argument and not mine, the Arctic's short term melting trend is indictative of the long term end of the world trend as posited by the IPCC, while the Antarctic's is not (even though the IPCC says it'll grow!!!) because it will go whoosh and melt any day now, even though they use the exact time scale. I found that absolutely fascinating--and the individual I was debating with was highly educated, more so then me.)

For those who want science interpreted by an Op-Ed columnist or Political Scientists, remember those two. My observation is the same as Bob Tisdale - Pielke's graph = "statistical trash"

(Note drunken behavior of trends caused by choosing an inadequate 8 year average )

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/langswitch_lang/in

Patrick, the Cyclonebuster; aka, Mr. Tunnel Man,

A new study by University of Colorado at Boulder researchers indicates older, multi-year sea ice in the Arctic is giving way to younger, thinner ice, making it more susceptible to record summer sea-ice lows like the one that occurred in 2007.

Please read my post once more. Here is the relevant section: Seems that the SH sea ice anomaly is headed the wrong way...

That SH means "Southern Hemisphere" as in Antarctica.

Patrick Henry: I was reprimanded at another blog recently for a similar statment about GISS data because their data includes polar areas, where the others don't, and since the arctic is warming faster... There are a couple of good discussions around. But still, most of their polar data is extrapolated and adjusted, and if these GISS adjustments are anything like the others.

One of the comments I remember is to the effect of, extrapolating a temperature from 1500 miles away is like trying to measure surface temperature in Atlanta from New York. LOL

Question: How is it that you're the first person to post on this blog almost every day?

Brett,

It looks to me like UAH mid-troposphere temps are nearly identical to 1980.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2006/ann/msu2006-pg.gif

Reply: yes, but the three year mean right around 1980 is less than the most recent three year mean by about 0.12 F, just estimating by the UAH graph.

Guys,
RealClimate isn't a scientific blog, but an advocacy blog. GISS data has so many problems, as does HadCrut's data, that it cannot possibly be used in any other fashion other than public advocacy. Funny how Mann's Hockey Stick is missing (one wonders why after 10 years his proxies haven't been updated?). Interesting also that all Pielke did was to post several interpretations of past temperature trends -for his efforts he is personally attacked. If his statistics are just "trash", then I suppose the work of NASA, NOAA, and Hadley are also trash; it is thier data, not his.

The Alarmists do have a problemm, and it isn't just public relations.

If you want to see the folly of 8 year trends see
http://climateprogress.org/

They have a graph of every 8 year period going back to 1980. Amazing!

also see:

http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/07/no-warming-since-1998-get-real-deniers/

Now we can stop the nonsense of "no warming since 1998." Deniers, do you know why 1998 was so warm? Huge El Nino.

"The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean has entered the cool phase of its natural El Ni�o � La Ni�a cycle."

Brett,

It would appear that the standard deviation of the data is much too large for a three year trend to have any statistical meaning. There are seven inflection points in the three year mean plot and it is extremely unlikely that they have any physical meaning.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2006/ann/msu2006-pg.gif

A more realistic view would be obtained by applying a high pass filter which would show two inflection points - a minima at about 1989 and a maxima at 1998.

It is standard practice at NOAA and GISS to show these graphs with a three year filter, and that is an indication of a lack of statistical expertise.

Hi Bob Tisdale,

Last time I checked there were two poles. One has gotten warmer and the other has gotten colder.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

Science chief: greens hurting climate fight

The scientist credited as being the first to convince Tony Blair of the urgency of the climate crisis has accused green activists of being Luddites who risk setting back the fight against global warming.

In an interview with the Guardian today Sir David King, who stepped down last month after seven years as the government's chief scientific adviser, says any approach that does not focus on technological solutions to climate change - including nuclear power - is one of "utter hopelessness".

He says: "There is a suspicion, and I have that suspicion myself, that a large number of people who label themselves 'green' are actually keen to take us back to the 18th or even the 17th century."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/12/climatechange.carbonemissions1

Leave it to San Fran
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/11/america/calif.php

What next, they will want to start rationing gasoline?

Paul,

Seems that the SH sea ice anomaly is headed the wrong way from what one would expect during the summer. The sea ice extent is approaching the positive side of 2 million square kilometers.

If you look at a chart with higher resolution, you see that isn't actually true; the positive anomaly is back down to 1 million km2 as the sea ice near the Ross Sea and East Antarctica has rapidly melted and thinned over the past two weeks.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg

For the animation:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/CT/animate.antarctic.0.html

Just as the Arctic doesn't usually see it's sea ice minimum until September, expect the Antarctic minimum to occur sometime in March. The Antarctic usually gets down to 2 million km2 of sea ice, so we'll see how things compare two months from now.

Three things.

1)They can't agree on what has happened in the past 20 years witch is not that much really.

2)They can't agree on what is happening today.

3)They can't agree on what will happen in next 20 years(much less the next thousand).

JP: "The Alarmists do have a problem, and it isn't just public relations."

I find it much better to ignore them rather than fight all day with them.Because then they won't have anybody that will listen to them.Trust me it works on other forums.

I love the way all the alarmists are attacking Pielkes graphs for merely posting their own figures. As for the El Nino of 1998 skewing that years data, of course it did, as did the data coming from the baselineof temperatures used by Schmidt, Hansen, et al are,taken from a period beginning shortly AFTER the earth coming out of the LIA. RealClimate and the alarmists here do not want a debate and will edit anyones comment on their sites (except Hansen) to make them look as stupid as possible because they are not interested in the truth, just their version of it. Pielke has found out the hard way that Schmidt is as manipulative a "scientist" as has ever been seen. He will post what verifies (interesting word for you alarmists)his opinions and edit anyones who disdagrees with his mercilessly or else just not allow it to see the light of day. It is an old trick Gavin and you will pay the piper someday.

Global warming, as evidenced by frozen rivers and sub-zero temperatures. "Environmentally conscious" tourists taking long-haul flights to see dogs run. Classic global warming lunacy and hypocrisy.

Dog-Sledding, Like Climate, Heating Up

JUKKASJARVI, Sweden -- Sixty Alaskan Huskies yipped and yelped and howled on a frozen river 120 miles north of the Arctic Circle, itching to run.

The dogs, five teams of 12, tugged impatiently at harnesses tethering them to wooden sleds, where 20 tourists -- from Britain, Portugal, Denmark and the United States -- sat in insulated snowsuits, bracing themselves against subzero temperatures and wind.

Tens of thousands more people, meanwhile, are traveling as tourists to the world's far north -- including Alaska, Canada, Norway, Sweden and Finland -- to spend a few hours or days being towed by teams of dogs.

Dog breeders and tour operators said the rising interest comes in part from the bull market for environmentally friendly vacations.