Wow, I look at the graphs and it reminds me again that they back up the fact that we are coming out of a baby ice age since the middle of the 1800s and to be expected. If all the red was the same as the blue and fell under the line, then wouldn't we still be in a baby ice age? Or should we all be *on the line*, i.e., no deviation?

I thought of a good way to prove AGW to us contrarians. Win-Win solution. Since we are a tiny minority, ALL the AGW proponents should immediately adopt all the necessary CO2 reduction requirements, i.e., stop driving, stop using animal products, stop all use of fossil fuels and basically anything that emits CO2. We contrarians will continue to live our normal and happy lives but not produce excessive waste, etc. Since we are a tiny minority, if AGW is as bad as *They* say, there should be a dramatic change of temperature downwards in the next 50 years. Therefore, there will be definite proof of AGW and we contrarians can sheepishly say *oops* and then we will join the AGW folks. If AGW turns out to be a bust, then at least something was done, no harm, no foul. And both sides would be happy for the next 50 years.

Saw a bumper sticker recently , " I Love My Country , I Just Don't Trust My Government. " Is there anything anymore that we can rely on from these people [ NOAA & GISS ] that can be taken as credible ? To Gary Gulrud. Hi Gary. I left a response to your post on the Solar Thread . I don't know how much longer beyond today Brett is going to keep it up before he throws it into the archives. I wonder if you would take the time to respond to a question I had on that thread before it disappears. Thank You . Dave.

snowfall levels in Eurasia was the lowest on record? Why didn't Patrick Henry and Marie tell us about this? I mean, they'll be the first to tell us that there was a big snowstorm in Timbuktoo, or that it was cold at their house this morning, or whatever tidbit aligns with their political beliefs.

--The average temperature for the U.S. was 0.22 Celsius (0.4 degrees F) below normal for March.

--Western snow pack was among the healthiest in more than a decade, which is great news.

REPLY: Oh yeah, really great. I am doing back flips over it.

1.28 F? PANIC!!!! PANIC!!!!! PANIC!!!!! Better destroy capitalism for a 1.28 F increase!!!!!.....GASP!!!!!....Before we all get swallowed up!!!! LOL........

I noted in commentary there, particularly by a 'Mike', that the archived GISS data for their current report, are incomplete. They might update March in the future and this 0.67 degree value will doubtless be adusted in any event.

How could anyone trust data analysis from GISS or NCDC anymore? It is quite clear they have a fixed agenda: global warming HAS to continue, we cannot allow mean temps to fall anymore.. The maps speak for themselves
http://climate.uah.edu/
and
http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_monthly.html?channel=tlt
(anomaly)

All three of these charts looks pretty cyclical to me, with a minimum around 1910, and inflection around 1940-45 and a maximum around 2005.

It'd be interesting to see what a simple curve fit would predict for the next 50 years.

All the best

Aaron

Many places in the world are not represented very well with the land surface.GISS estimates quite a bit to get there 1200 km map that represents the global anomaly.

GISS 250km shows this.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2008&month_last=3&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=03&year1=2008&year2=2008&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg

Base period GISS: 1951-1980
For HadCRUT: 1961-1990
For RSS/UAH: 1979-1990

Makes a difference on anomaly reporting.

I prefer satellite over land instrement. To many discrepencies with land instrementation, globally.

Get the thermometers off the blacktop!

Hi all - here is something to keep in mind when looking at these monthly propaganda releases ... my BS detector goes off big time when I see the " adjustments " made to the data ... combine this with all the stations moved to parking lots & no wonder they get hotter numbers.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ndp019.html#tempdata

anonymus,
The NCDC surface temps are the GISS temps. Enough said.

Comparing five major sources of climate analysis (UAH, RSS, GISS, NCDC, Hadley), it's obvious that there are differences in all of the monthly data (if RSS and UAH are both from satellites, why do they routinely come up with different numbers?), but taken over the same 1979-2008 time period, the trends for March differ by less than 0.05C per decade. UAH happens to be the lowest--about +0.14C per decade. GISS shows a little less than 0.19C/decade.

People sure put up a big stink about a 0.05C/decade difference. If 0.05C is such a big difference, then why not launch an investigation as to why UAH data gives a trend 0.02C cooler per decade than RSS? That's almost half the difference between the analysis from UAH and the analysis done by that villan Hansen! Both RSS and UAH are "non-government" sources, which according to people here means both must be accurate--yet they come in with different numbers! Surely one of them must be manipulating their data to fulfill a political agenda....John Christy and Roy Spencer admit openly on the UAH site that they changed the February temperature from what was reported originally. Surely they have some sort of devious agenda as well.

http://climate.uah.edu/march2008.htm

To all of those who continue to continue to question the reliability of the NOAA and GISS temperature data sets, I will again refer them to the more physical record that appears to back up the temperature record for March. See the attached snow cover chart for the northern hemisphere:

http://moe.met.fsu.edu/snow/nhtime-4month.png

Especially take note of the much below normal graph in red below the larger chart. It also backs up Brett's statement: "March snow cover extent on the Eurasian Continent was the lowest on record".

If those that criticize the temperature records as some sort of conspiracy can actually provide scientific data (both physical and graphical) to back up their statements (opinions), then I will consider their arguments (opinions) as something worthwhile to consider.

Hi Mark,

Thanks for highlighting another NOAA screwup about March snow in Europe

Spring officially began last Thursday, but much of Switzerland has remained in the grip of unusually severe weather, with fresh snowfalls covering most of the country by Tuesday....Jacques Amb�hl of the Federal Meteorology and Climatology Office (MeteoSwiss) told swissinfo that it was extraordinary to have this much snow so late in the year
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news/travel/Spring_begins_with_heavy_snowfall.html?siteSect=411&sid=8893645&rss=true&ty=st

According to the report, Switzerland has not received such a strong start to its winter ski season since 1952
http://www.fasttrackski.co.uk/ski-news/switzerland/swiss-snow-makes-50-year-record-200711151407.php

The thing that continues to amuse me is that the aggregate of the temps from the surface stations around the globe is reported so precisely in hundreths of a degree.

I'm no statistician, but I do know this: about 2 divided by somewhere around 3 is probably in the neighborhood of two thirds. It is most certainly not .67.

I don't buy that the monthly global temperature anomolies being reported by NOAA and NASA are as precise as reported. The precision of the 150 year temperature record I trust even less.

And we're being stampeded into dismantling the global economy based on changes of tenths of a degree???

DC

Looks like AGW fearmongering is really making inroads with the general populace:

ABC Poll from Rush: RUSH: I have the most amazing polling data here from ABC. I'm not going to tease you. I'll tell you about it right now. Question number three on this poll: "Thinking ahead to the November presidential election, what's the single most important issue in your choice for president?" You go down the list, and you get here to global warming, and zero! Nobody in the ABC poll listed global warming as the single most important issue in their choice for president. Number one is the economy and jobs. Number two is Iraq, terrorism, national security. It's 41 for the economy, 18 for the Iraq war, national security, and 7 percent is health care. Stop and think of that: health care, only 7 percent of the respondents in this poll say it's the most important issue in electing a president. Immigration is at 4 percent. Ethics, honesty, corruption in government is also at 4 percent. Abortion is at 1 percent; morality, family values, two percent. Global warming, zero.

Hi Mark,

More on NOAA's "record low March snowpack" in Europe.

Reply: Didn't they say Eurasia. The spots you are talking about are just a tiny percentage of that huge landmass.

March 26, 2008

Heavy snowfall across the Alps this weekend blanketed ski resorts in France, Austria, Switzerland and parts of Italy.

The resorts to benefit most in France were Argentiere in the Chamonix valley, which had 106cm in the five days over Easter, and Tignes, where at least 75cm of snow fell over the weekend.

The highest recorded snowfall was registered in Cauterets in the Pyrenees, where the snow depth increased by 150cm last week, and Crans Montana in Switzerland, where 141cm fell.

http://travel.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/travel/news/article3619988.ece

One thing I wonder about is if the 20 year mean that the temperatures are compared to is for the same period for all the records. If not, then we must compare them to the same reference to make sense.

take your pick for April 2008 temps
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/fnl/sfctmpmer_01a.fnl.anim.html
It will be intensely interesting to see how GISS handles April data because having observed COLA
http://wxmaps.org/pix/analyses.html (climate outlook),
and above link daily there seems to have been a consistent large pool of cool air over the same Asian region (like January 2008), that was a warm pool in March 2008. According to GISS data manipulation, thence April 2008, should be "super cool" so keep your eyes open to see how they are going to "handle" this....

Hi Brett,

March produced unusual cold and snow through almost all of western and Northern Europe. The NOAA press release failed to mention that as they simultaneously downplayed the record snowpack in much of the US and Canada. Much of Europe had record Easter snowfall.

Their worldwide temperature numbers were completely out of line with satellite data, and they are largely cherry-picking warm data for their reports.

Paraphrasing your words, they are talking about a "tiny percentage of a huge" planet. The cold areas were much larger than the warm areas.
http://climate.uah.edu/

Trying to make sense makes an excellent point.

Brett, have you compared these different numbers to the same baseline. GISS uses 1951-1980 avg. I believe CRU uses a 1901-2000 average. The satellite records (which measure the lower troposphere and are not directly comparable to surface records anyway) have yet a different baseline.

Patrick Henry compares Eurasian snowpack in March with Alpine snowfall on a weekend in March.

Just another illustration that Patrick Henry doesn't know what he's talking about.

Just to clarify:

snowpack =/= snowfall
the Alps =/= Europe and Asia
A weekend in March =/= the month of March.

Carry on...

I am new to these matters, so may be wrong. But from what I could find was that GISS seems to be calculating changes wrt 1951-1980 mean and the MSU wrt 1979-2000. From the report you linked to, Brett, I thought that NCDC calculated change wrt 1961-1990 mean (not a 20 year period as baseline). Perhaps you could kindly point me to where I should look for that 20 year period? Just for GISS vs MSU though, one would imagine MSU figures to be lower just because the base period temperature 1979-2000 vs 1951-1980 was higher. This does not mean that absolute temperatures were lower in one record and not in other; it just means that the records were measuring differences with respect to a different base period. Again, I know Brett you are busy, but just so that readers are not confused because of this, it might be nice to point this out explicitly as an update?

Reply: I'll take another look at it.

Patrick,

Thanks for highlighting another NOAA screwup about March snow in Europe

It's not just NOAA. Here's the info from Rutgers' Snow Lab on March:

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_vis.php?ui_year=2008&ui_month=3&ui_set=2

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=eurasia&ui_month=3

Two things I found troubling in this article is ALL the reporting sources show a global temperature increase for march. That makes me wonder if GW really is occurring. (Reply: It's just one month, keep that in mind. You cannot conclude anything in terms of long-term gw from one month. I post these things since it is climate and is is interesting to follow what's going on. Brett.) The 2nd is the HUGE difference between GISS and the others. I havent been following this subject closely until recently, but now am beginning to see why theres so much concern with the credibility towards the GISS numbers.

With regard to all showing an increase, its important to keep in mind that the AGW side not only has to show an almost continuing temp increase but has to link it to man-made causes. The skeptic side just has to show temps not always increasing (and hopefully going down) OR that if they are its not related mainly to man.

Steve Rowland, thanks for that poll. I've been wondering what the average US citizen has been thinking on this issue. It will be interesting to see what polls show before and after the upcoming Green Day.

I'm just a regular guy sitting here in the northwest corner of the US so I don't have any fancy numbers to throw out but just an obsevation from a thinking individual. Local snows in the Seattle area reached as high as 10 inches last night. More flurries expected througout the weekend. Since early March to now the temps have with the exception of one day been ALL below normal. As mentioned in this blog earlier the snowpack is unusually high. Now I'm sure this kind of thing has occured before but what is so revealing about the AGW propagandists is that this news receives no media attention outside of local reports. And they never come close to mentioning the "global warming" words in regard to these events. Well you can only imagine the attention given if this were one of those "sweltering heat waves" in St. Louis in mid-August. Those too occur from time to time. Paul