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

It was interesting to read an article by George Taylor, Director of Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University about how easy it is to get the conclusion you want by just changing the start date of your model. If you go back 150 years to now you can make a case for global warming but if you use 1934 to 2007, the past 70 years the planet has been cooling.

Off topic but I guess the snow must have melted in Illinois because it didn't take long for them to have an earthquake. At least I'm guessing global warming would have had to been the cause of this.

Setting the various temp databases to a consistent baseline isn't too tough. See here and here for an up-to-date comparison of four of them. The results are disappointing to denialists (but then so much is these days) and not especially surprising to anyone else. Atmoz (the blog author) didn't include NOAA but perhaps could be persuaded to add it.

Jack, the exercise you refer to is an excellent example of how to lie with statistics. First of all, you don't mention it but this can only be done for the continental U.S., which has warmed rather less than the global average, and had a very warm 1930s (and 1934 in particular) compared to most of the rest of the planet. So, having selected that area, we take the warm 1934, which it turns out was about the same temperature in the continental U.S. as 1998 and 2005, and start our period for comparison with that year. Conveniently, 2007 was a little cooler than 1934, so we can slip straight to a conclusion that there was a slight cooling during that period, right? Wrong.

It turns out that proper statistical analysis keeps one from being tricked by having inadvertently chosen high or low years for one's end points. Of course in Geroge's case there was nothing inadvertent about it. Jack, doesn't it bother you even a little that George sought to trick you like that?

Brett.. You incorrectly state that the NCDC data is using the 20-year mean when it is in fact using the 20th century mean. The reports can be very confusing from all of the reporting agencies unless the data is compared to the same baseline.

Reply: You are correct, I misread it.

So now what is the truth? Is there above or below normal snow pack for march in eurasia? (Reply: Below.) And what does that mean really? (Reply: In terms of long term climate change, probably nothing.) I have an informant from spain reporting Madrid has been cold and wet past 2 months or so... This is not typical as March and April are dryer and warmer. And I have read several articals about the banner ski season in pretty much ALL of the northern hemisphere's ski resorts. Japan , The Alps and East and West Coast North America....Must be Global Warming huh....

Travis, Boris,

My point is that NOAA is cherry picking what they report. Much of Europe had near-record snow in March yet NOAA failed to mention that. They make a broad brush statement about Eurasian snow, yet don't bother to explain the fact that most of that region has thin snow in March which melted early due to unusually warm temperatures.

On the other hand, the very heavy snowfall in the Alps the last two months will have important implications for the summer. Reply: That is true! Just like much of the Rockies.

They also brushed over the fact that much of North America had record snow this winter. It wasn't just one day in Ohio.

Hi Travis,

I plotted the Rutgers Northern Hemisphere snow cover data. There have only been four years since they started keeping records in the 1960s where snow cover has reached 50,000,000 km2. This year being one of them, and is the first time snow cover has been that extensive in 24 years. There certainly is not a downward trend evident in that graph. More likely an upwards trend.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=plphQL3kEd7Ui-Uci8hiOVQ&oid=5&output=image

NOAA's press department consistently cherry-picks data to support global warming and downplays the huge amount of contrary data - such as the very cold spring you are having in Washington. Juneau, Alaska set a snowfall record yesterday too, but some people at NOAA will pretend they don't know about it.

Jack McLaughlin,

Yes the starting point of your comparison of temperatures is very important in what your ultimate conclusion becomes. However, I allways refer everyone back to what the physical record over that same time perid tells me. The glacier retreat (based on pictures of the same glaciers) has increased over the period from the 1930's to the present, so your conclusion of cooling (just based on the temperature record) would be inaccurate. You would discover that if you use the 1930's as the start time of your data comparison, your correlation of the temperature data with the record of physical changes would be very poor. Therefore you would have to find a period of time that does provide a better correlation, and the 150 year record matches it better for both.

Hi Steve Bloom,

Hansen used to think that the 1930s were a lot warmer than the 1990s.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif

Later he bumped the 1990s up about a couple of tenths and brought the 1930s down a notch.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.lrg.gif

All for the sake of good science, no doubt.

Well Steve, I believe calling people denialists, who simply ask that all facts be considered, akin to attempting to label them as those such as alcoholics or gambling addicts. Al Gore allready tried this method and has looked silly because of it. This attempt to marginalize those who want reason to prevail and fairness in the reporting of this issue, furthur negates the arguement of the AGW advocates. Paul

Patrick Henry,

I just posted a comment to Jack McLaughlin about the correlation of temperatures based the plots typically shown by the anti-AGW's where the temperatures in that last warm period of the 1930's are higher than the curent temperatures and comparing that temperature record with the actual physical record of glacial retreat. I stated that if you are to believe the cooler temperatures in those plots since the 1930's, there is poor correlation with the physical record of glacial retreat.

My point to him was that if the physical record does not seem to correlate with the anti-AGW's temperature plots showing the warmer 1930's compared to the present, the data appears to have problems with it.

During the past month, I posted some pictures of glaciers that show a dramatic retreat of the ice during the past 70 years despite the claims of the anti-AGW's that temperatures are lower now when compared to the 1930's (as Mr. McLaghlin seems to indicate). I really doubt that the people that took the pictures of the glaciers back in the 1930's were able to alter those pictures in any way to make them have more ice then they actually had. I am not sure you can say the same about those that put together the recent anti-AGW temperature plots. The unaltered glacial retreat record shows one thing while the anti-AGW temperature plots appear to show another.

See the latest plot based on March 2008 data: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm

The GISS, NOAA, and CRU temperature plots show a that the current period (the past 15-20 years) compared to the 1930's and appear to be a better match of the physical record of glacial retreat indicated during that same time period. I don't think you can conclude the same correlation if you try to match it with the typical anti-AGW temperature plots.

My final point is if you cannot match your temperature plots with glacial retreat data during a given 70-year record, then something must be wrong with the way you are adjusting your temperature records. But then why would the anti-AGW's do that?

Patrick,

On the other hand, the very heavy snowfall in the Alps the last two months will have important implications for the summer.

I agree, and that's true her in Washington as wellm but you still seem to fail to grasp the fact that colder weather doesn't necessarily mean more snowfall, just was warmer weather doesn't necessarily mean less. Snowpack levels cannot be used empirically as evidence against global warming. Reply: That's a good point Travis.

Let's see, Patrick, did I mention the 1990s? Interestingly I didn't.

But let's look at your graphs:

Hmm, interestingly the current one (your second link) that you implied had been rigged in some way still shows U.S. temps as warmer in the 1930s than the 1990s. Since the analysis Jack quoted was for 1934 to 2007, what was your point here?

By contrast, the most recent decade (1998-2007) is warmer than any other, which is consistent with my conclusion and is obvious just from eyeballing your second link.

I tend to agree with Patrick Henry, in that it does seem some at NOAA, especially in the press release department, are inclined to downplay events that suggest cooling, and practice over-kill when it comes to events that suggest warming.

It wouldn't bother me as much if they were content with raw data, however there seems to be a willingness to "adjust" data in a manner which is tantamount to distortion.

For example, the RSS satellite data does show a warm anomaly over Asia, and that warmth accounts for the warm readings for the entire northern hemisphere. It more than cancels out the normal or slightly below normal readings for a larger surface area, making up the rest of the northern hemisphere. However the NOAA surface data shown above makes that anomaly much larger.

Why is the anomaly larger? Well, if you look you can see it is largely over areas with few or no surface observations. In essence NOAA is estimating the temperatures over that area. They are guessing. Given the leeway guess-work entails, will they guess on the high side, or the low side? After all, we are talking only 4 tenths of a degree.

That area of Asia is drier than normal, and dry soil heats more swiftly than wet soil. If you were in charge of the guess work, how easy it would be to add .1 or .2 or .3 degree to the guess, to account for drought. A little here, a little there, all the time feeling you have scientific reasons for the adjustments, but they are all in one direction. And it is not an actual observation; it is a guess, an estimate.

The RSS data is an actual observation, which is why I trust it more.

Regarding snow-cover, I noted our local map stated we had no snow cover as soon as the south-facing slopes were bare, even though the north-facing slopes still had up to two feet. Once again it seems an example where a person has leeway, and chooses the warmer interpretation.

Not that I would like to be in the shoes of the person who determines what counts as snow-cover. If he looks at the south slope and says there is none he'll catch it from one side, and if he looks at the north slope and says there is two feet he'll catch it from the other.

Fortunately that poor fellow is now off the hook, in these parts. In southern New Hampshire we have had fifteen glorious days with only two light rains. The dense, crusty snow-pack has faded away without last year's flooding, as temperatures broke 60 for the first time since November 1, broke 70 for the first time since October 23, and touched 80 for the first time since October 22.

The vanishing snow exposed tons of work to do, but it was perfect weather for working, without even a bug to slap at. I was thinking I shouldn't be enjoying it so much, (as such weather gives Alarmists cause to frighten little children with predictions of doom,) however I just couldn't help myself. After the winter we've slogged through, it's hard to be ungrateful for the mercy of warmth, and the miracle of spring.

Hi Steve Bloom,

In 1999, Hansen believed that the 1930s, 1940s and 1980s were all at least as warm as the 1990s.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif

By 2007, he had hoisted the 1990s up to the top.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.lrg.gif

Being the preeminent climate scientist in the world, and a Nobel Peace Prize Winner - I'm sure that this was done out of a pure love of scientific truth.

Hi Travis,

How about unusually cold temperatures combined with snowpack levels greater than 200% of average - as we see in much of The Cascades?

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/snotelanom/basinswe.html

Hi Dennis Hlinka,

The historical record of glacial retreat is indeed interesting. From the Weather Bureau in November, 1922.

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

Another interesting one is the record of glacial retreat in Glacier Bay, Alaska - where most of the observed retreat occurred prior to 1890.

when European explorers first sailed along the Alaska coastline in the 1790s, they noted only a small embayment along the coastline. By the 1880s the glacier that filled what became known as Glacier Bay had retreated, leaving a bay that extended nearly 40 miles (64 kilometers). The glacier has continued to retreat and today Glacier Bay extends more than 60 miles (96 kilometers) into the Alaskan coastline.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1217_alaskaglaciers.html

Hi Patrick Henry,

I think we had this discussion before. The 1922 article is probably accurate for it's own frame of reference, but you need to put that ice retreat into proper perspective. I am attaching plots of glacial retreat for a 400+year time period.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-18.htm

The 1922 ice melt that your reference shows up as a little dip in the overall curves in and around Norway with a majority of cases showing the current glacial retreat having a more significant minimum.

Going back to the 1800's doesn't really answer my question to you in regards to why the temperature curves typically portrayed by the "skeptics" allways have the 1930's as being warmer then current temperatures. This has nothing to do with what happended back in the 1800's. My argument is that if the NOAA, GISS, and CRU curves are incorrectly adjusted, as you suggest, then why do they seem to correlate better with the physical record of glacial retreat since the 1930's? The "skeptic" temperature curves do not have the same correlation.

So the arguments that the NOAA, GISS, and CRU curves are wrong because you question their adjustments seems to apply more to the "skeptic" curves and their adjustments to make them appear to minimize the current warming trend relative to the 1930's. Is it because the "skeptics" haven't found a way to adjust those glacial retreat values yet? It's probably because they haven't found a way to adjust pictures taken back in the 1930's as well as they can the numbers in the temperature curves to make their points.

Anyone can change numbers by applying adjustments to try to correct the data. But if you question those adjustments you should have some other independent data base (such as glacial retreat or other physical data) to back up your arguments for or against the adjustments and why they are right or wrong.

Patrick, apparently you can't even read these graphs. That second one (which you claim proves than Hansen changed the U.S. temps to show the 1990s as warmer than the 1930s) clearly shows the 1930s as the warmest decade for the U.S.

Patrick,

How about unusually cold temperatures combined with snowpack levels greater than 200% of average - as we see in much of The Cascades?

As I've already said, colder than normal weather and above-average precipitation are the norm for La Nina years in Washington and Oregon. I also said colder weather doesn't NECESSARILY mean more snowfall, not that colder weather and extra snowfall are incompatible. I don't mind repeating myself, but please do read more carefully.

Atmoz has now added NOAA NCDC to his comparison of the temperature databases.

Hi Dennis Hlinka,

Dr. Hansen also thinks that the Arctic was warmer in 1920s.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431042500000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

I suspect that the people at the Weather Bureau in 1922 were intelligent enough to discern the meaning of a "glacier disappearing."

Hi Patrick Henry,

Yes I can agree the people at the Weather Bureau in 1922 were intelligent. My point to you is your representation of the 1922 data (while accurate) needs to have relative perspective to actual data plots of the glacial retreat in that area. What they saw in 1922 was indeed dramatic for them, but comparing the glacial retreat records since then shows that further glacial retreat has occurred.

"My point to him was that if the physical record does not seem to correlate with the anti-AGW's temperature plots showing the warmer 1930's compared to the present, the data appears to have problems with it."

This is poor thinking IMHO. Any specific glacier is a record of just that local climate, which van vary from a larger area's trends, and retreat/advance is keyed off of more than just temperature. Hence, there is no inherent contradiction between glacier trends in a local area and temp trends in a wider area.
Furthermore, a lot of these 'glacier retreat' reports going way back are little more than anecdotes, not real measurement studies. Was a full analysis of snowfall, calving, and retention on year-by-year basis done, or just a comparison of two pics?

US temps were higher in 1930s than in the 1980s, but global temps were higher in 1980s than 1930s. If a glacier in the US was found to be retreating, what would it confirm/contradict about either temp. data point? Nothing, really.

The term of art for using selective local data to represent wider data is cherry picking.

Dr James Hansen has been vindicated, the human ghgs are making a difference. We're suppose to be cooling and we're not!