I find it remarkable that someone in the UK can tell me that the freezing %$#@ weather we have had for the last year in Canada is above normal; our normal ten weeks of winter on Vancouver Island has extended to over five months this year (still frost yesterday morning...). Why does funding by DEFRA make these folks more reliable than folks funded by Exxon/Mobil? Oh wait, the UK fiscal year started on 1 April, so the new budget had to be justified! Maybe I'm just getting cynical (brought on by North America's first carbon tax).

Reply: They are looking at a much longer time period as a whole, not just last year.

Three questions in my little pea brain:

For what period of time do we have reliable, directly measured global records of this sort?

Is it possible for us to know whether or not the temperature trends referenced in this article are unusual compared to the actual variability in the last few thousand years or so?

Do we understand all the natural climate drivers well enough to confidently declare that recent tempurature trends cannot be attributed to natural variability?

Just wondering.

Not surprising that they picked 1950 as the start date, because it was near the bottom of a temperature dip. Nearly every temperature extreme record was set prior to 1950, and they conveniently ignore data which negates their thesis. The Canadian record high temperature was set in 1937. The Asian record was set in 1942.

The Met is batting close to zero on predictions (hot summer last year in the UK,) so now they have switched to rewriting history - brilliant use of public money.

Temperature records by continent
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001375.html

World (Africa) El Azizia, Libya Sept. 13, 1922 - 136
North America (U.S.) Death Valley, Calif. July 10, 1913 - 134
Asia Tirat Tsvi, Israel June 21, 1942 - 129
Australia Cloncurry, Queensland Jan. 16, 1889 - 128
Europe Seville, Spain Aug. 4, 1881 - 122
South America Rivadavia, Argentina Dec. 11, 1905 - 120
Canada Midale and Yellow Grass,
Saskatchewan, Canada July 5, 1937 - 113
Oceania Tuguegarao, Philippines April 29, 1912 - 108
Persian Gulf (sea-surface) Aug. 5, 1924 - 96
Antarctica Vanda Station, Scott Coast Jan. 5, 1974 - 59
South Pole Dec. 27, 1978 - 7.5

Interesting note at the end of the press release:

"The 2003 European summer heatwave caused between 22,000 and 35,000 heat-related deaths and approaching 13.1 billion in agricultural losses."

Remember boys and girls: Weather isn't climate -- unless it's consistent with global warming.

'The total area exhibiting positive trends is significantly greater than can be attributed to unforced natural variability'.

Nothing untoward about this report. The planet has been warming since the last PDO/ENSO change but where oh where does the above statement come from. What they are saying here is that if the planet warms naturelly it warms only in patches. That's ridiculous. Why do they feel the need to alway stick in a human global warming phrase.

Oh I know, to keep the funds flowing.

Just of the top of my head, maybe this is cause by the urban island effect? How many of those temperature sensors used to be in rural areas are now in urban or sub-urban areas? Reply: Good question.

4. The total area exhibiting positive trends is significantly greater than can be attributed to unforced natural variability.
This is patently false. A cursory look at past climate variability shows this happened many times in just as short a time span.
The rest of what he says can just as easily be attributed to natural causes unless you have an agenda.

Received October 2006, Accepted December 2007, Published March 2008

Either the graphs which show no average global warming since 1998 are voodoo or someone is lying.

Besides the global evidence since the 'study' was submitted appears to contradict the study.

2005: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101202498.html

Late last month, a team of University of Colorado and NASA scientists announced that the Arctic sea ice cap shrank this summer to 200 million square miles, 500,000 square miles less than its average area between 1979 and 2000. And a scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration determined that sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico were higher in August than at any time since 1890, which may have contributed to the intense hurricanes that struck the region this year.

"At this point, people shouldn't be surprised this is happening," said Goddard atmospheric scientist David Rind, noting that 2002, 2003 and 2004 were among the warmest years on record.

Many climatologists, along with policymakers in a number of countries, believe the rapid temperature rise over the past 50 years is heavily driven by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities that have spewed carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere. A vocal minority of scientists say the warming climate is the result of a natural cycle....

Global temperatures this year are about 1.36 degrees Fahrenheit (0.75 Celsius) above the average between 1950 and 1980, according to the Goddard analysis. Worldwide temperatures in 1998 were 1.28 degrees Fahrenheit (0.71 Celsius) above that 30-year average. The data show that Earth is warming more in the Northern Hemisphere, where the average 2005 temperature was two-tenths of a degree above the 1998 level.

2/10 a degree 'warmer' back in 2005, head north guys, the sky is fallin'!

In the last 50 years there was an ice age predicted. In the middle of the 20 century the world was going through a miny ice age, Dark Ages.
When temperatures are warmer man does better, health wise. Cold kills more than heat or warmth.
I hope its warming, man or sun.

folks check out Anthony W's latest post at climate audit for some interesting info on "adjusting" the temperature data.
I'm beginning to think that a lot of the temp data has no credibilty what so ever ... that is it can't be used to look for fraction of a degree changes when the range of error is +/- a degree or more.
Brett do you know if there is a euro equivalent to Anthony looking into the quality of the temp data in that part of the world? Reply: I am not aware of any.

From Dr. Jeff Mathews blog on Weather Underground:

Why did we see a cool winter, if global warming is occurring? (2 answers)

It is important to understand the difference between weather and climate. Climate is what you expect; weather is what you get. What we experience in one particular season or year is "weather". Weather has a large variation from year to year, with cool seasons and years mixed in with warms ones. "Climate" is the weather measured on scales of tens of years or longer. One cool winter or year is not an indication that the climate is cooling back to normal. The climate is warming, and unless we see a series of several years of cool conditions, this year's cool winter merely represents a normal fluctuation of the weather. Relatively cool weather is to be expected globally during a strong La Ni�a event in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, and relatively warm weather is expected during an El Ni�o event. We shouldn't expect to see record warmth for the globe unless an El Ni�o event is occurring.

Why did we see record snows this winter, if global warming is occurring?

Beware of global warming skeptics trumpeting record snowfalls this winter as an excuse to doubt that global warming is occurring. One should primarily look at global temperatures on a scale of decades to judge the validity of global warming. Dr. Ricky Rood, who writes our Climate Change blog, put it this way in his current blog, Creeping Onset of Spring and in an earlier blog, Water, water, water:

This year has been very snowy in the northern hemisphere. That it is snowy does not suggest that it is colder. If it gets warmer, it does not mean that we no longer see freezing temperatures in places like Michigan. If it gets warmer there is more water in the atmosphere, and when there is precipitation there will be more precipitation, and if it is below freezing, then that precipitation will be ice and snow. The high mountains near the coast, like the Cascades and the Sierra Nevada would expect more snow. This is also true for the high altitudes parts of Greenland and Antarctica. From a climate point of view it is more important to look at snow cover in the late winter and early spring. Is the snow melting earlier?

Obviously Dr. Mathews is not a skeptic, however, you guys might pay a visit to his blog and give him a bit of Skeptic....:-)...

EXACTLY what data are the Hysterics using to say we are still warming as opposed to the EXACT data the Skeptics are using saying the world has been cooling since 1998.....does one override the other? Dr. Mathews states its till warming even if it has been cooling.......

Everyone put up or shut up! This is getting ridiculous!

Hey, Brett, please drop those two Denver posts if you will, they were off subject and I would rather them not be there unless you see something worthwhile, otherwise, make them disappear. Thanks, Steve Rowland

Reply: Oh, now you tell me!! LOL

More proof of GW at NOAA

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/mar/national.html

We have such a small set of climate data -- barely 120 years of actual measurement -- that it's very hard to support any claims of extreme weather being on the increase.

That 120 years of real data is for only a small portion of the earth. We have quite a bit less for most regions of the world and in fact we still have no direct weather data measurement for most of the earth's surface.

The fears of man-made climate changed are based on about 30 years of warming, but that warming stopped a decade ago. The last 10 years has shown a slight cooling, but that may be a meaningless short-term variation. The actual climate record during the last 120 years shows many up-and-downs. The frame of reference is much too small.

The 1950's were part of a cool period in the 20th century. Is that a good reference point? Would we have different results if we used the 1930's or 1920's as the starting point?

If we chart the estimated global temperature with the starting point approximately 8,000 years ago during the Holocene Climate Optimum, the chart slopes downhill, with a noticeable and undeniable cooling trend.

Brett - Off topic:
I became aware of an effort by Friends of the Earth to pressure Houghton Mifflin into revising a high school textbook it publishes because it didn't declare man-made global warming as settled science. There is even a letter from Dr. James Hansen supporting Friends of the Earth which should erase any doubts as to his lack of scientific objectivity.

This might make for an interesting thread. I'm sure it will ignite the passions on both sides of the AGW debate.

Here are the links:
First Friends of the Earth press release:
http://action.foe.org/pressRelease.jsp?press_release_KEY=358

Second, Dr. Hansen's letter:
http://www.foe.org/textbook/Hansen_Letter.pdf

Reply: I'll check it out Rick. Thanks.

So Much for Global Warming February 20, 2008
By Phil Brennan

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=552E34BF-D7DC-4F6B-B5DA-92F40FCFDFF6

Excerpt:
Are the world's ice caps melting because of climate change, or are the reports just a lot of scare mongering by the advocates of the global warming theory?

Scare mongering appears to be the case, according to reports from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal that almost all the allegedly �lost� ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.

Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.

The Daily express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof (Reply: It has???) of the need to fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al Gore during his "Inconvenient Truth" lectures about mankind�s alleged impact on the global climate.

Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of August when melting is normal. Or that the polar bear population has soared in recent years.

As winter roars in across the Northern Hemisphere, Mother Nature seems to have joined the ranks of the skeptics.

more.....

Brett,
My tunnel idea can regulate these temperatures back down if we need to. Who do you know that may want to computer model the tunnels to prove it??? Reply: I don't know anyone in that particular field. Most of the people I hang out with are fellow meteorologists who are not computer modelers. Sorry Patrick, you are barking up the wrong tree in this case.

I have been watching some of the Al Gore`s group ads running on television and it is all about climate change. I find it disingenous and dishonest not using global warming in their wording. If they really believe that AGW is occurring why are they so reluctant? Also, I believe all temperature readings around the world that does not have credible supervision by licensed statisticians should be declared null and void.

Hey, Rick Ressler: (looks like i'm hogging the blog)

Thanks a LOT for the links, even though they are off subject as mine tend to wander, they are very interesting. Looks like ol' Hansen and others are not trying to pressure school systems, at least this one, to toe the politically correct AGW line. It is obvious from reading Hansen's letter that he and his ilk prefer NO contradictory media be given in the public schools that might cause students to QUESTION AGW.

As BT stated in am earlier response, he believes the science of AGW is 'settled' as "The point is that arguments put forward in support of AGW are, in fact, the best that the world's scientific community can offer in this first decade of the twenty-first century. If they are flawed, those flaws will themselves be demonstrated through good science."

I believe any open minded person would have to agree with this as far as the furtherance of 'science' is indicated, however, the problem is that AGW proponents are so certain of the certainty of global warming that they have thrown caution to the wind by insisting that not only that the world at large conform to their particular religion but that this religion be taught in the public schools without any counter arguments.

Since Skeptics have been branded as 'religious' and their arguments, even with evidence 'religious', looks like we are going to get the same position on AGW, 'can't teach religion in the public schools'.

PH has totally debunked this story. Also no reply= true

My biggest concern about reviewing previous temps worldwide is their accuracy. If somebody polled me I would have to say I have absolutely no faith that the system to measure temps is accurate at all. As an example, our local temps are taken at the airport. I do not know if this was always true, but at one point the airport was considerably smaller or not there at all. So if it was the same location all these years the environment around that measuring station is significantly different. I know without any doubt that the temps measured at the airport are no where near the same at my house on a daily basis. I live in a rural environment whereas the airport is now surrounded by large neighborhoods. In fact, I completely blow off any measurements taken from that airport with regards to weather at my house. As an example, our daily lows are much lower than at that airport. I can read -30 at my house whereas they might see -18. I check the weather during the winter around 11 each night before I check on all the barn animals. I can look at the sky and see every star in the universe and know the night will be extremely frigid.

If we can't have any certainty about the temps being used to build a case for global warming or even global cooling, we can then only be looking at short-term signs of change and making guesses. I have lived all over the US during my lifetime and at best all I can say is that I have seen yearly swings in the temperatures depending on where I was living at that time. Last winter we started seeing more seasonal temps during the winter. Feb was the coldest they said in 60 years. This year the winter came earlier and has stayed later and had considerably more time hovering in the frigid range and we had considerably more wind associated with the frigid weather. I would not expect in my lifetime to be able to string enough years together to see any cause and effect based on the existence of man. A human life is just too short.

I am always amazed when researchers make these sorts of pronouncements. It just seems so conceited since the data is over such a small time frame.

The sad thing is I know that these people know that the statement should be made with a gigantic asterisk. Yet, they are always treated as fact.

It really furthers my understanding that AGW is not about science but rather societal modification. To what end I am not certain.

Interesting study. I'm not sure how much the NAO can influence Siberia or the interior of Canada, but since we are talking of the NAO, it has been in a positive phase at least since the 1975, probably as early as 1968-70.

Since 1975 both the NAO and PDO have been positive. And since 1995, the AMO, NAO, and PDO have been positive.

a new quasi-global data set indicates that extreme daily maximum and minimum temperatures (>98.5 or <1.5 percentile)

Interesting choice of words taken directly from the abstract !

I wonder if a statement like ........... Normal range temperatures (>50 & <98.5 or <50 & >1.5 percentile) have remained statistically stable since the 1950's ............... would garner as much interest ? ? ? ?

After all, changes in anomolies in the both extreme 1.5 percentiles, is hardly significant with error margins e