Well,rest assured that when the GISS data comes out it will show may as 42 degrees above normal globablly.Hmm,which one to believe?

The "observed" surface data are not observed, they are "adjusted" beyond all credibility: http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2008/06/adjustments-at-hansens-nasa-giss.html

The lower troposphere data are accurate, both RSS and UAH agree. The globe is cooling, has been for 10 years, Hansen, NASA GISS and NOAH notwithstanding.

"was the eighth warmest on record."

What record? The record of temperatures that have bee buggered and adjusted until all hope of meaning has been removed?

Why are there so many reports of crop damage, ski resorts still operating, and on and on if it is so bloody hot?

(Reply: Most of what we hear is from this country, and a large part of the Midwest was cool and wet in May, and the ski areas had a lot of snow pack from the winter and some recent cold and snow. I amd trying to focus on the global picture with this blog.)

I don't understand.

When does Alaska get to be part of North America and the "continental U.S"?

Wow, the divergence between RSS/UAH and NCDC is becoming almost ludicrous. Satellite measurements that cover the actual globe (except for the poles) 2X/day are showing a remarkably different story. Is NCDC still using surface temp from land based stations with all their UHI/bad placement and extrapolating the temps over the oceans/from stations they don't have data from? If so, its time for them to step into the 21st Century.

No doubt there was quite a contrast between the observed surface data and the lower tropospheric data!
That's why GISS uses the weather stations that are beside bbq's and open fires...start out with higher than normal temps and then adjust them higher for good measure (and to make global warming appear to be happening).

This is the last gasp for AGW. As long as they keep putting this out, people will think AGW might be real. It's been cold where they were, but maybe it has been warm everywhere else, so they will believe that they were just in an unusual weather pattern.

Note the 1961 -1990 base period for the red dots. Probably the coldest 30 year period available.

I trust the NOAA dataset as much as the GISS dataset, which not at all. Their Canadian data, historical and current, is virtually untracable, and is not representative of MSC (Env. Canada) surface station data.

Uh Huh. NCDC- 8th Warmest. UAH & RSS - 5th & 8th Coolest. Ooooooh Yeah, this ought to be real good.

I have lived in this area for about 13 years I think. The first couple we had extremely cold winters much like the past two winters. So there was about 7 years I would say that were much warmer overall and much, much drier. I am very heat sensitive and so I think I can be a good judge of increased warmth. Two winters ago, we had a much colder Feb than normal and it seems since then things have been adjusting downward in temp. Also what I have noticed is that the winter started earlier this year like it did back when I first moved here, and ended later as well which was like it was back 13 years ago. The big difference this spring has been the sky. It is not at all the sky we normally see this time of year. It has been looking like a fall sky which makes sense since our temps have been much cooler. I think it is impossible to draw any conclusions based on my observations of the past 13 years. What I can say for sure is that it has been both warmer and cooler than normal during those 13 years.

If the base line is 1961-1990, the graph temperatures should average base line between those years. It does not.

SteveP,

Well,rest assured that when the GISS data comes out it will show may as 42 degrees above normal globablly.Hmm,which one to believe?

It already is. GISS shows a +0.36C anomaly for May compared to the period 1951-1980, although if you align the base period to that of UAH, the anomaly is only +0.14. If I'm counting correctly, it's 11th warmest in the past 129 years, though cooler than any year since 2000.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2008&month_last=5&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=05&year1=2008&year2=2008&base1=1979&base2=1998&radius=1200&pol=reg

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Also keep in mind that while GISS and NCDC deal largely with surface data, RSS and UAH are taking an average of the air temperature across a 5-8km range in altitude. We can expect both datasets to show the same trend (and indeed they are very similar for the past 30 years of satellite data), but we can't expect them to align closely each month. In fact, during the super El Nino of 1998 when there was so much heat in the atmosphere, RSS and UAH show significantly higher anomalies (when adjusted to the same base period) than NCDC and GISS do in the surface data. It was a reversal of what we see in the most recent data.

When is everyone gonna finally start to realize that this section should be changed to the global cooling column? The interglacial period is and has been winding down and before too long we will all begin feeling the reality that an ice age is approaching. Remember the 1970's when all the rage was the coming ice age? Well guess what-----they had it right! The recent wild events are only the beginning. People should start listening to William Gray and Joe Bastardi. They know what they're talking about! I hope Al Gore is reading! Harold Olsen, Belle Harbor, NY

You know, I might have said this before, but those charts ALL look VERY cyclic to me. Damned near sinusoidal..... or some other oidal. And if they are, the data will continue to show that the current year is one of the warmest on record for years even though the values are trending down. I understand that this is just a visual interpretation, but that's why you make charts yeah? To show (visually) that temps were low, then they were high, and now they're going back down again. And in a few years everyone will be sleeping under down comforters because it'll be colder than today, and it'll be illegal to burn fuel for home heating..... even IF you can afford it after paying your carbon tax.

You know. I think if you go back far enough you'll find that lynching was a practice that first began with the ceremonial public execution of politicians who instituted a senseless tax. I'm gonna research it a little more though. I'll get back with you.

I agree. Somethings is a bit strange with the NOAA & GISS reports. I don't know exactly what they do as what they do is cloaked in mystery.

With RSS, UAH and HadCru all showing significant Global cooling since last fall to temperatures at or near their respective zero anomalies, how is it that NOAA and GISS seem to be stuck on warm?

Is it the multitude of adjustments? Is it UHI? Is it confirmation bias? Is it a combination of the above? Is it something else that should never me mentioned on a polite blog?

Whatever it is, how much longer will the American public put up with these incredible warmest comparisons while they can see out their windows (and in their heating bills) that things are very much cooler than NOAA and GISS are claiming?

Reply: Remember, these stats take into account the whole globe, not just the U.S. (Big difference).

The surface temperature readings are the most accurate, period. There are factors and biases that affect the tropospheric readings, but it matters not because different factors affect the temperatures at various levels of the atmosphere.

Unlike these biased (wrongly, I might add) commenters on this Blog, I live on the surface of the Earth and it is getting much hotter globally. Maybe you guys will let go of your hot air (balloons) and come down to Earth with the rest of us intellegent and concerned citizens of the world.

They continue to mislead people with this kind of information. There definitely needs to be some accountability for the way they are interpreting temps so differently. Not surprised at all by what they are reporting however due to the fact that this is same old story with them.

UAH data.....May was 5th coolest
RSS data (I just blogged about)...May was 8th coolest.

REPLY: Nah, really? Gee, and I thought things were heating up? But it doesn't prove or disprove anything. LOL!!!!

Oh forgot to mention. Not getting out of the 60s this week for high temperatures. Can't wait to see the data for June! But again, that's just a "back yard" forecast with absolutely no bearing on the plight of the polar bears and fiddler crab! LOL! (Brett: still not amused. I really detest cool wx, especially when people still run the AC in the office bldgs. Ain't funny. Time to make beach reservations!).

Pittsburgh and Seattle Weather. Proof that GLO-BULL Warming is a CROCK!!!!!!!!

The problem with the surface data from a statistical point of view is the overall reduction in reporting stations since 1960. Because of fiscal problems, civil war, the closing of military and civilian airfields, the clsoing of remote RADAR stations such as the Dew-line, the fall of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union, there are 2/3 less reporting stations than there were in 1960.

Climate Audit several times has visited this issue during the last 2 or 3 years. If I am not mistaken NASA and NOAA use different methods to fill in the "empty gridcells".

It should also be noted that while the US only occupies 6% of the global landmass, it provides nearly 50% of the NOAA reporting stations.

When will weather professionels demand that GISS provide real information? Enough with the massaging and adjusting already!

Didn't Brent just show us a map with a totally different picture a week or so ago?

So which one is correct?

Reply: They are two different methods and the RSS/UAH data measures the lower troposphere while the NCDC uses surface data. Maybe they are both correct.

mrsund,

Note the 1961 -1990 base period for the red dots. Probably the coldest 30 year period available.

Whether or not the base period is 1961-1990, the middle of an ice age, or during Armageddon, it won't affect the rankings of the warmest/coolest years. All it will do is make the dot map more red or more blue. The base period only provides an "average" that yearly data can be compared to. Whether they chose a particularly cold base period or not (and if they wanted to do that, they should have chosen 1901-1920), the warmest years in the record still occurred in the past 15 years.

jblethen is right: the globe has been cooling since 1998. It's also been warming since 1999. The general theory behind AGW does not outlaw cooling periods, just as it does not state that we will see record global temperatures set year after year. It only says that the general trend will be upward. Climate will always be subject to natural variability, and as we saw in 1998 and again this year, nature can throw a pretty good curveball. But when you look at the 30-year trends calculated by UAH, RSS, NCDC, and GISS, all agree on the upward trend within about .05C per decade of each other.

NCDC? Why are you still giving this scientifically dubious, alarmist source any play at all? You do realize the practice only detracts from your own credibility.

Reply: I would not call the NCDC an alarmist source. I think most of their stuff is credible.

The data across Siberia especially are objectionable, as is the base period.

"No doubt there was quite a contrast between the observed surface data and the lower tropospheric data!"
That can't be I thought Hansonian devotees discovered that the troposphere was actually heating up just like AGW predicted....and, and the Models were quite correct when looking at the data on a 6 degree positive incline.
If these guys tried revisions of data like that to the FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) they'd all be in jail and their product would be pulled off the market in an emergency Class I recall (reserved for life threatening issues) until an independent board reviewed all "their Science". Yet this government agency can revise change and subvert science for their own personal agenda.
How about we all chip in and give these guys some home study courses in ethics, math and statistics? We could make it an early Christmas present. Looks like they really need it.

Sat measurements have better coverage and measure the air around the globe. Whereas the land/ocean metrics measure some air and some water with a lot of voodoo in between.

I much prefer sat measurements for a global temp.

Thanks Brett for your work and presentation of facts. It would be nice if the majority of respondents dealt with the information provided, which is educational and interesting, rather than using this as a platform for their prejudices.

That said, the following responds to the "majority" that dominates this blog:

"last gasp" you say? Give me a break, and please please check worldwide weather at least a couple of times a week. AccuWeather does this well, as does every other global weather service. You cannot say that world weather isn't getting wilder and more dangerous, because it would not be true.

Thanks Brett for an informative and interesting post. I hope (and assume) you will do this monthly. I wish people would respond to your posts instead of using this blog as a platform for their prejudices.

It would be nice if the majority here (who have steadily driven away most interested in real science and weather) didn't have their heads in the sand and use this as a safe haven for their blindness.

PLEASE all of you check world weather a couple of times a week over time; AccuWeather does this well, as do all other world weather services. You cannot say that weather is not getting wilder and more dangerous if you pay any attention to anything but your prejudices.

Something will eventually happen on your own doorstep (have you noticed food shortages/prices; water wars?) to get you to notice what is going on. Predictions made in the 1960s and 1970s are now becoming reality, and gathering speed.

As one of the few survivors of the majority who are concerned about climate change, I will continue to post here in hopes that those who don't belong to the club will know that you all are not a true majority. The content of many of their comments is nauseatingly biased, and in some cases likely funded by interested parties.