Nice cherry-picked article. As usual, the data is vastly skewed by temperatures in Siberia, for which the long term records are shoddy at best.

They mention the record minimum ice in the Arctic, and fail to mention the record maximum ice in the Antarctic.

They mention the warming in the Arctic, and fail to mention the cooling in the Antarctic. They fail to mention the cold year in South America. They fail to mention that the data is being manipulated upwards by more than half a degree.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

They try to make it appear that it was an active hurricane season, when in fact (according to climate audit) it was the least active on record.

Where I live, 2007 brought three of the coldest months on record. (January, February and December.) I'm not impressed by this selective, agenda driven journalism.

The data is inaccurate....based on misleading information....Global Warming is a con job.
This will be proven in time.

Antartica ice shield is growing. You don't mention that.
Reply: no, the article that I linked to does not mention it. I have talked about the Antarctic ice sheet on many occasions.

Uh, oh!! This can't be good.

The headlines read: Snow Flurries Possible In Central Florida During Hard Freeze
Daytona Beach, Titusville, Palm Bay May See Snow.

Lovely day out there according to the chill map. It's 24 deg F here in Atlanta at 11:00 AM. Can you imagine how cold it would be without global warming?

Cue the "but it's cold outside my house!" crowd in 3....2....1....

Dear Boris,

It appears to be quite cold outside everybody's house today.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sfc_con_wchill.html

Boris,

According to your fellow AGW zealots, it's supposed to be getting warmer. I thought I could throw away my cold weather clothes by now. Why isn't it warm outside? The climate is supposed to be warmer and here I am freezing my buns off in Hotlanta. What gives?

Boris? Boris? Buehler?

I see that ol' denier gang is back at it in the new year! LBP, lets try this again. Weather is not climate. Just what is it that you lost? No, let me guess. PH re-cherry picks his own data - again. The one note samba goes on, and on, and on...

Who is behind this vast conspiracy to alter data indicating that there is global warming? What is there motive? Are they left-over communists or something?

Also, it's a fact that you can't trust scientists. I'll put my trust in Exxon and Dr. Singer - by the way, he's also NEARLY proved there's no link between second hand smoke and cancer. I prefer to get my forecasts from a physicist and electrical engineer.

Where I live there was barely a skiing season last year, the lakes don't freeze over nearly as often and by golly, it's just been warmer. I'm sure that's because there is some local phenomenon micro-climate going on.

Paul Revere

New Hampshire has set an ALL TIME snow record for the month of December. Lets blame that one on climate change, not global warming.

Quite a cold mass across the country. Look out citrus crops! What about across the pond?

Forecast high for Thursday in Warsaw, Poland...21 degrees.

Global warming....sound the alarm!!!

Hows that Boris?

So, why wasn't 2007 the warmest year on record? We are told that CO2 drives global temperature and yet warming seems to have flattened out in this decade with 2007 slipping into 5th place. CO2 has risen significantly but there has been no statistically significant increase in global temperature.

There is an interesting article by Dr. David Whitehouse entitled, "Has Global Warming Stopped?"
In it he says, "The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming - the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly."

Here is a link to the entire article: http://www.newstatesman.com/print/200712190004

Hi Thor,

You are correct. It is cold outside my house. An undeniable signature of global warming. The excess CO2 is trapping heat and suffocating us, winter after winter. And BTW - we haven't had temperatures this cold since the 1980s.

http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=5363494&version=8&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

DENVER - Dangerous cold temperatures gripped much of Colorado early New Year's Day. The wind chill in Denver was 19 degrees below zero at 8:00 a.m. The wind chill was 43 degrees below zero in Alamosa.

Many mountain and valley locations had air temperature readings at sunrise that fell far below zero:

* Crested Butte: -34 degrees
* Alamosa: -30 degrees
* Vail Pass: -27 degrees
* Gunnison: -27 degrees
* Berthoud Pass: -25 degrees
* Basalt: -22 degrees
* Steamboat: -21 degrees

Hi Guys,

Here is a nice link. I quote from it and link it.

"We conclude that the data contamination likely leads to an overstatement of actual trends over land. Using the regression model to filter the extraneous, nonclimatic effects reduces the estimated 1980-2002 global average temperature trend over land by about half."

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/12/31/new-research-paper-quantifying-the-influence-of-anthropogenic-surface-processes-and-inhomogeneities-on-gridded-global-climate-data-by-ross-mckitrick-and-pat-michaels/
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2008/01/02/documentation-of-bias-in-the-data-used-to-diagnose-global-warming-by-the-ipcc/
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2008/01/01/important-new-paper-using-limited-time-period-trends-as-a-means-to-determine-attribution-of-discrepancies-in-microwave-sounding-unit-derived-tropospheric-temperature-time-by-rmrandall-and-bm-herman/

I am confused. The USG published 1962 Standard Atmosphere, used in all Military Specs has Sea Level Standard Temp at 59 degrees F. The intent was of this publication was to provide designers the historical average temperatures at sea level and altitude. How could it be that this temp is in the top ten warmest years on record?

These preliminary surface data could be a bit premature could expect to see lower December 07 data after looking at NOAA data site

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/global_monitoring/temperature/global_temp_accum.shtml
although some of the station data is absolutely shocking (most of Australia, South america, Africa not covered, missing etc)

Also forget to mention the real significant data which is the RSS and UHA satellite data. In any case, according to AGW has to keep going up as CO2 does, and it hasn't since 2001? The more they push the agenda by insinuating in all reports "warmest, greatest melting etc, the greater will be the embarrasment in the next 2-3 years? I would expect to see quite a few prominent climatologist beginning to pull out this year from the AGW. I dont think the skeptical crowd will need to defend anything by the end of 2008. In fact all they need to do is sit down and watch as the cooling scenario unfolds....cheers

The real question is, can 2008 beat 2007?

I would be willing to wager 1 pound of candy buckeyes against anyone who says that 2008 will be reported as being less "warm" than 2007. And, holy Toledo, if we happen to have a couple of hurricanes, Katy bar the door.

See kids, it's not about whether the data is right or wrong, nor about whether it is accurate or not, it is all about how it can be reported as being apart of the continuation of AGW theory. And no, there is no vast conspiracy, it simply is a matter of prolonging the current hot button topic. And when the AGW pundits spout that they foresee millions of deaths and water wars in near future, this issue attains nearly instantaneous hot buttonedness.

I have no doubt that the data is accurate in the form that it is being presented and I have no doubt that countless skeptics will write about how cold it is in their area. Both are perfectly correct in the forms with which they have written. But, I am certain that a methodology could be developed to alter the ranking of 2007 just as Colorado could be reported as being warm.

Hi Paul Revere,

Who is behind this vast conspiracy to alter data indicating that there is global warming? What is there motive? Are they left-over communists or something?

Funny - I remember your grasp of the English language being better. You might want to look up the words "there" and "their" in the dictionary.

There is no vast conspiracy, but there are many different motives for NOAA and GISS to push global warming. The most obvious is money. Research scientists typically struggle year after year for funding. Now they are riding the gravy train. Money leads to peer pressure - "don't rock the boat." Self-importance is another one. Hansen honestly thinks he is saving the world.

For the UN it is legitimacy, money and power. For international corporations, it is a great opportunity to legitimately outsource American jobs to Asia - "we are doing it to save world!" For politicians like Arnie, it is millions of no-brainer votes.

The Paul Revere I remember was a diligent defender of freedom. I think you are an imposter.

While I was driving home, this morning, O was pondering something that Patrick Henry has said earlier about some of the anomalous Northern Hemispheric warmth being caused soot causing a lower albedo on Northern ice. As a thought experiment, I considered what it would mean if that assertion were true, and it turned out that the CO2 wasn't really causing the warming. It hit me that this would mean that modern science did not have as firm a grasp on physics as it thought.
What I mean to say is, at its most basic level, the prediction that CO2 will cause AGW was not first based on experimental evidence or computer models. It was based on physics calculations. In otherwords, according to the hypothesis, increasing CO2 cannot help but to warm the earth.
In reality, the physical principles upon which the prediction of AGW is based are solid and well-established. An increase in tropospheric CO@ will decrease the amount of Infrared radiation that is radiated from the earth to space. Thus, the earth's surface will warm.
I know that the first response that many of you will have is "But the troposphere's IR absorption spectrum is already saturated by H2O. But it's not, as least as far as I understand it. The absorption spectrum is saturated, but only in the lower troposphere. In the upper troposphere, there is very little water vapor. Since CO2 concentration is approximately uniform throughout the troposphere, even if the lower troposphere's abosorption bands are saturated, the decreased rate of upper tropospheric infrared radiation transfer will cause increased surface temps on the earth's surface.

"Funny - I remember your grasp of the English language being better. You might want to look up the words "there" and "their" in the dictionary."

Don't worry Paul, keep writing and making mistakes, that's how people learn. I don't speak perfect English and write anyways. But apparently, Patrick has never made a mistake.

Reply: Paul, we all make mistakes like that, cut Emiliano some slack!

In the second of the three "Climate Science" links posted above, Roger Pielke concludes:

"We have identified a fundamental problem with the use of land surface air temperatures in the construction of a global average multi-decadal trend. The question is whether these temperatures are sufficiently coupled to the radiative and thermodynamic characteristics of the Earth system to construct a global average trend that can be diagnosed to obtain the radiative forcing of the climate system.

"We conclude, that particularly for the minimum temperatures, it is not sufficiently coupled!

"This analysis, as well as other studies such as the McKitrick and Michaels JGR paper, should be a wake up call that erroneous information is being communicated to policymakers and others on the actual radiative imbalance of the climate system. The 2007 IPCC ignored assesing these unresolved issues which, as a consequence, result in a warm bias in their conclusions on the magnitude of global warming."

This and other recent papers lead to:

Measurement Biases + Instrument Siting Biases + Data Manipulation Errors + Influences of Other Near Surface Factors = Data of Questionable Value

And from this Data of Questionable Value, politicians wish to disrupt the economy, imposing further burdens on the poor, by imposing tarrifs on carbon producers, with little to no potential for impact on future climate.

Brett,
After reading this article I wonder if anybody can take these temperatures to a 3 decimal level with any scientific confidence to be able to make a claim of what year is hotter?
There are some science questions.
What is the sensibility and sensitivity of the instruments used to record temperatures?
If they used averages from 1895 -2003 are the instruments sensitive enough to get a 3 decimal average that is accurate enough to make these claims?
Has anybody in climate science ever stated the confidence level in which you can accurately take a temperature out to 3 decimal places?
If not done making claims of greater sensitivity than their instruments are capable of would be considered scientific misconduct in any other scientific field. But then again this is climate science where adjustments are made frequently and without notice.

As for the article:
When making comparisons why do the writers keep using different years for their averages?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/01/980113062713.htm
(Normal is defined by the mean temperature, 61.7 degrees F, for the 30-years 1961-90.)
That average is 8.9 degrees F higher than the below averages.

NOAA scientists report that the average temperature for the contiguous United States for 2004 (based on preliminary data) will likely be approximately 53.5 degrees F (11.9 degrees C), which is 0.7 degrees F (0.4 degrees C) above the 1895-2003 mean, and the 24th warmest year on record

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070213142902.htm
Based on preliminary data, the 2006 annual average temperature was 55 degrees F—2.2 degrees F (1.2 degrees C) above the 20th Century mean and 0.07 degrees F (0.04 degrees C) warmer than 1998

Paul says:

"Why isn't it warm outside?"

Unscramble the word below to find out the answer!

REWNIT

Marie,

I did some research. Turns out not "everyone" lives in the lower 48. Who knew?

Rich,

I'll respond when you demonstrate mastery of the difference between weather and climate. Good luck!

Rick,

"So, why wasn't 2007 the warmest year on record?"

Interannual internal variability is greater than the annual increase expected from rising CO2. Upshot: The data are noisy. As for global warming having stopped, well tamino tears that argument apart:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/

Hi Patrick,

The global warming conspiracy is coming! The global warming conspiracy is coming!

Where I live, sled dog races have been canceled the last several years, ice boat races no longer take place and the skiing season - last year especially - was terrible. Animal ranges are changing to higher elevations and further north.

First, has the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased? I haven't personally measured it, but reliable sources say it has. Second, how does that increase in CO2 affect the climate? It's a green house (heat trapping) gas.

I'm fairly certain the money to be made by the oil companies dwarfs the grants given research scientists. I also believe that companies such as Exxon and BP want to keep the demand for oil high. I would be interested to see how the CEO for Exxon is compensated versus all the money the scientists are making.

I believe an imposter is someone who wants to maintain the status quo: Continue obtaining oil from the Middle East at the cost of American lives. I think the best thing the country could do is find alternative energy sources and conserve energy so climatic effects are minimized and our country no longer needs to be held hostage by dictatorships that are exporting terror.

Well, maybe some of you AGW fundies can explain why the data is always, always, "adjusted" warmer and at an increasing rate. After all, we can actually find the evidence on the NOAA site.

There is no indication of any unnatural alteration to Climate. Observable Climate is not itself a 'thing of good measure' being only the effect of interactions of as yet unrealised or ill-defined Natural Processes. There is in fact no reason to assume that human beings have had any influence upon the world's climate at all
No valid Process to make such has been detailed, and not even overtly consistent warming has even been noticed, let alone given credible cause in valid SCIENCE to detail any such alteration or even indentify which underpinning Natural Process has been altered.

In fact of those Natural Processes perhaps known, the star Sol is the major and its apparent effect is now to place Temperature into a decline. With current Temperature appearing to be within a Plateau and variability perhaps increasing then the transition into a 'climate trough' is coming nearer. Realise that although Temperatures Now are 'greater than within the previous 400 years, such also are 'a trough' that followed another Temperature Plateau ...which was 'higher' than that presently experienced.

The overall motion of this 'secondary oscillation' is downward however, and so the overall motion of Temperature is, and will continue to be, downward. It is once again becoming cooler ...this 'global warming' mentioned then is only observation of a short period whilst Climate changes still in its irregular periodic style. Fluctuations will still be noticed but are of no great concern.

-There is near consistent reporting of rises in Relative Sea Level now of ~1mm per year, and this is seen as consistent with the 'average' of the past since the previous 'Ice Age'.
-There are many sprawl centres subsiding far faster than this (due to poor location) and as example Bangkok (built also upon an old swamp) has its foundations 'sinking' at a rate of ~10cm per year. The average elevation of the region above Relative Sea Level is only ~1.5 metres.

-Notice also that the 'coming Cool' is of far greater consequence than any 'modelled warming' can ever be also. Notice points made in; http://www.usafreedomforum.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=308&PN=1 ; to find comment on previous 'life style' not so far removed from Now.

-With mention of 'climate models' made, do realise also that the Industrial Revolution was being made 'in earnest' into the late 18th and early 19th Centuries ...with records detailing how ~14,000 of iron was smelted within Wales in 1812 alone. These operations where not 'particulate' clean and heaps of ash (and other 'foundry' waste) still can be seen (to this day) marring landscapes.

There is no reason then to assume that 'human beings' can influence the world's climate, there is little to indicate that Climate is doing anything 'unnatural' and there is no capable 'human influenced process' shown validly potential even, let alone able to alter Climate.

The overall Natural Progression continues, and that is for an overall decline in Temperature into another 'trough'. This is as near to being an inescapable certainty as 'it can be' and only Natural variability and fluctuation of this complex Planetary scale system can make 'the when' less than certain. It will happen, will this 'cool trough' but when is 'the bottom to be reached' is up to Nature.

Yours, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(TM)