So much for NOAA's credibility:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/latest_noaa_press_release_in_total_disagareement_with_nasa_satellite/

There seems to be a recurring problem between NCDC and the UAH/RSS data.

Eigth warmest on record, and the Earth still didn't explode! But the insanity continues:

http://sacurrent.com/news/story.asp?id=69055

Since Icecap is now a source of record, I thought I would include their response to this:

Latest NOAA Press Release in Total Disagreement with NASA Satellite

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/latest_noaa_press_release_in_total_disagareement_with_nasa_satellite/

It was the eighth warmest June on record for the globe, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported Wednesday in the 129 years since records began in 1880. And the first six months of the year were the ninth warmest since record keeping began in 1880, NOAA�s National Climatic Data Center reported. The planets average temperature for June was 60.8 degrees Fahrenheit, 0.9 degrees warmer than average for the month.

DON'T BELIEVE A WORD OF IT. Just a few days ago, the University of Alabama, Huntsville came out with their global assessment and they reported the 22nd warmest in the 30 years of records in their data base (in other words the 9th coldest). In fact, their global mean was actually below the average (base period 1979-1998) with a value of -0.11C (-0.19F). This is a full 1.1F degrees colder than the NOAA guesstimate. The other NASA satellite source, RSS had June as the 13th coldest out of the last 30 years.

[more]

Can anyone say where June 2008 ranks for NCDC from 1979-2008? It'd be a nice apples-apples comparison instead of wondering why it's the 8th warmest for NCDC and 9th and 13th coolest for the two satellite trends.

Reply: Just looking at the NCDC chart alone, it looks like it would be around the 9th warmest or 20th coolest for the 1979-2008 period.

Brett,

How can it be the 9th warmest for years 1979-2008 when the title says it is the 8th warmest from 1880-2008???????????

Reply: You are right, I was just looking at the bars on the graph quickly. It was an estimate that's all.

So out of curiosity, does anyone out there have a clue to what is going to happen to all that heat energy that concentrated over Russia and Greenland?

Some thing has to happen to it! Somewhere somehow the basic laws of thermo have to kick in since the earth is a warm body and space is very, very cold.

Particularly bad data for Brazil. NCEP has shown nearly the entire country below normal every day for the last six months (based on 1900-2001 climatology,) yet NOAA managed to cover Brazil with red dots.

What a pathetic state of affairs.

As we've seen posted above there are SERIOUS discrepancies in the data between different orgs, +.86F to -.19 F. It's clear that the error bars in the actual data overwhelm any hypothethised temperature change due to AGW. Given this fact, how is it wise to embark on massive, expensive, government mandated programs to reduce CO2 at the expense of foodstuffs, inflation and the economy? As a lifelong science advocate I'm ashamed of the modern science culture for participating in AGW hype and hysteria exacerbated by climate model software, instead of sharing privileged data for the entire community to analyze and critique any hypothethis. Climate scientists are discrediting the entire field of science and doing irreperable harm to the public's perception of scientific inquiry.

It makes sense that ground-based measurements (NOAA, GISS, HadCRUT)should differ from satellite measurements (RSS, UAH) since both methods are measuring different things. While ground-based measurements look primarily at surface temperatures, satellite measurements take their data from the entire lower five miles of Earth's atmosphere.

The conditions of the lower atmosphere do not always match the conditions at the surface, so logically satellite data and surface data will never yield exactly the same results for short term analysis like monthly or even yearly averages.

On the other hand, a good deal of useful comparison can be done using longer-term trends. When you look at the trends in all five analyses since 1979, UAH is the outlier. RSS shows and upward trend of about .17 degrees Celsius per decade (according to their website), and trends from the ground-based measurements are clustered closely around that figure. UAH, on the other hand, shows an upward trend of only .13 degrees Celsius, significantly below all the other agency analyses.

Why doesn't anyone make a fuss about the apparent large difference between UAH and RSS, both of which use satellite data? UAH has in the past had to correct their analysis methods because they significantly understated the warming. Even now their data is furthest out of agreement with the other four global temperature analyses.

On another note, in the article brought to us by Chris F and John Galt, ICECAP committed the mortal statistical sin of directly comparing temperature anomalies from two different base periods:

In fact, their global mean was actually below the average (base period 1979-1998) with a value of -0.11C (-0.19F). This is a full 1.1F degrees colder than the NOAA guesstimate.

NOAA and UAH use different base periods to calculate their anomalies, which in and of itself would create different anomaly values even if the two agencies were using the exact same data. NOAA's base period includes cooler years than UAH (resulting in a lower "normal" temperature than UAH) so naturally NOAA will produce a higher (perhaps significantly so) anomaly than UAH. That statement from ICECAP was very poor math.

I don't frequent their site, so I don't know if that is the norm there, but the mathematical analysis in this article in particular should be treated with very a wary eye.

Most clueless July on record

Al Gore is challenging the nation to produce every kilowatt of electricity through wind, sun and other Earth-friendly energy sources within 10 years

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080717/D91VH6B00.html

Complete disconnect from reality and common sense. No wonder Obama wants him on his cabinet.

Vincent Gray has had enough of the BS and is doing exactly the right thing IMO:

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=312&Itemid=1

CONCLUSION
This Climate Change Statement is veritably an orchestrated litany of lies, to borrow a phrase. As a longstanding member of the Royal Society of New Zealand I am unable to tolerate such a departure as this from the supposed objectives of fair or responsible comment on scientific matters, so I have resigned in protest.

Is it just me, or does anyone else find the "dot" pictures annoying?

Reply: Darren you are not the first on this blog.

"The Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) satellite derived data put June 2008 as the 13th coolest on their record going back to 1979."

So out of a total of 30 years temp data.

It's smack in the middle.

Some people might say there's no global warming just looking at that.

I wish for a second someone would do a study on why do hotspots always appear in certain areas instead of jumping into global warming discussions....where has science gone...

The reason for the disparity between NCDC and RSS/UAH/HadCrut/et al., is the 'measurement methodology' used by NCDC/GISS. They use monitoring stations over land and water temp for the other 71% of the globe. They have to do multiple statistical 'adjustments' to account for the urban/rural effects and the fact that 2/3 of the land based monitoring stations have been shut down since the early 90's (leaving them in the unenviable position of having to attempt to statistically derive the equivalent of temperature in Atlanta, Georgia using the temps collected in New York, New York). Another problem for the use of 'Stevenson screens' is the changeover in the mid 70's from using whitewash on the wood of the screen to latex paint without any adjustments. Anthony Watt's (I bet those NCDC guys just hate him) again started doing some testing and found that the latex paint seems to bias the screen upwards sometimes by several degrees. I haven't seen any mention of his work lately and I believe he has stopped that work while compiling his station survey. Of these land stations (as Anthony Watts has so amply demonstrated), mostly in the US, the temperatures recorded are biased upwards by a significant amount by bad placement (like at the edge of large airport runways for instance), encroaching urban sprawl, movement, and age of equipment,. etc.. They also seem to be suffering from significant lack of monitoring with many many stations not reporting readings (again forcing statistical manipulation to try to fill the gap).

The others (with the exception of HadCrut I think) use satellite microwave (which can have its own adjustment issues since it isn't a direct reading of temperature) measurements across the entire globe, land and sea several times a day.

Personally I think I trust the satellite derived temps more than NCDC.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/latest_noaa_press_release_in_total_disagareement_with_nasa_satellite/

(sorry to repost the link, but my comment refers to this article)

Ok, so reporting stations have dropped from 6000, to 2000. I wonder where the remaining 2000 stations are, and does this skew the average temperature enough to make a difference? Did more "cooler" reporting stations stop reporting as opposed to "warmer" reporting stations? or vice versa?

A quick look at GISTemp (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt not that I trust it much) shows that according to GISS, June 08 was the coolest June since 1996, and the fourth coolest since 1990. So NOAA is definitely the extreme and does not relate well with other datasets.

With regards to Arctic sea ice, if you look at http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png, If this trend continues, we may have normal arctic seaice by the beginning of August.

I want to make a comment about the above maps. (This might be considered by some to be nit-picking) Displaying the globe as a flat map distorts the northern and southern areas. This is making the hot-spot over Greenland LOOK approximately 3 times it's actual size. Of course, the cool areas in the southern hemisphere are equally distorted.

john galt: If you could cherry pick your data you would. What is most striking is the obvious answer. Now that we are in the anthropocene age,
the science has been settled. Global warming and
the destruction of the planet could be avoided if we act today. Alternate energy is where we should look, as oil specualtors are allowed by Bush, to pump up the price. Stallers think they are doing something good for America by delaying our inevitable solutions. They will just elect a 70 year old professional politician. who stayed in Vietnam, for his political worth. He's no Eisenhower who won the second world war. Dwight said, the greatest thing we have to fear is the military Industrial complex. How much more money should we pay the Iraq's not to shoot back. Our economy is a sink hole for the right wing
How close to a depression do you want to get. As deniers ramble on, China is making the bulk of Solar panels today.Wake up! Your war is over.
KIPP

Off topic, but the American Physical Society representing 50,000 Physicists has reversed their position on AGW and has opened debate, saying that a large number of their members have doubts that the IPCC is correct regarding the statement 'highly likely' that warming is human caused.

http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm

Pardon my ignorance, but can someone please tell me what exactly does an anomoly in this case of +0.48 C (+0.86 F) mean? Does it mean that the temps rose that much over a 30 year average? (Reply: They are .48 degrees c above the 30 year mean.) Rose that much compared to last year? Rose that much since 1880? If the temp anomoly would've been 0.0, what would that mean? It would've stayed the same (compared to some time frame)or actually went down since most anomolies I've seen have been on the plus side?

Also notice how the greater warming matches fairly well with the June 500 mb height anomaly map shown below (basically shows the mean upper-level weather pattern for the month with ridges (warm/dry aloft) and troughs (cool/moist aloft).

I'm getting pretty good with this HTML stuff eh? ;)

I agree over land it matches pretty good except Africa. Its over the oceans where it doesnt match very well overall (except for the far SH) IMO. They seem warmer than the June 500 mb.

All the differences with the types of temp anomolies is frustrating at best. I dont see how anyone is suppose to come to a conclusion unless some are simply ignored. I would hate it to have to come to that, but it may have to. Than how to decide which to ignore?......However, I have had a theory that the sat and ground temps may actually both be right and what is happening is the land is growing warmer while just above it, the atmosphere is growing colder. I would think this would trigger clouds which may be how the earth begins to cool itself during the day. At night when the two temps become closer together (since the sun isnt heating the land) the clouds wouldnt increase nearly as much.

Brett, about the ice pack...Does that mean more ice had melted by this time in 05 and 06? Yes.

Ps. The eight warmest....Gimme a break....Now the global warmers will be freaking out about that...

We went from 6000 reporting stations to under 2000 and then using Hansonian "al-gore-rithmic" math machinations and presto "It's a Climate Crisis!" Can anybody reconcile the huge disparity between actual data and the adjusted data with the satellite data that continues to say just the opposite! How can these made up numbers be published with their names on it? Have they no pride in their work? This is a field of charlatans not a science. Shame on those that know this manipulation is not science but agenda driven garbage and refuse to speak out. NASA should be letting the lay public know that if such findings cannot be validated they should be completely disregarded. That is what would happen in any other science field! But then, this not a science but Climate Studies where actual science is regarded as an obstacle to the “Theory.”
The fairy tale continues and while a few scream the “Emperor has no clothes”, the minions of the mindless and the incompetent media continues to support this unverifiable nonsense as the gospel.

Does his Majesty Hanson, actually think this Astrophysics where everybody politely believes esoteric pontification? Will somebody tell this person that his manipulation of data does not go unnoticed by those that who have actually spent their lives doing verifiable science! Now we dismiss his conclusions as unscientific twaddle!

How about somebody confront these gas bags and demand that real verifiable science be used. The numbers continue to be adjusted with no transparent procedures in place to validate the math, prevent fraud and assure the public that the science is real. Right now land temps belong in “The Journal of Irreproducible Results” right next to “Cold Fusion”, “Piltdown Man” and “Latrell” for cancer!

In order to believe I want verifiable science yet he and his as yet unindicted co- conspirators continue to offer nothing but manipulated junk.
Folks, read, learn and ask questions. Junk is junk no matter who publishes it.

SO much for concensus...
http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm

What!!!!!!!!!! Not the warmest June ever. Co2 is going up and up. Why aren't the temperatures going up? It looks like the artic sea will not melt away this year. Global warming is dead!!!!

Kipp, I'm starting to worry about you.

Stress is bad for your heart. Try to relax and not take this AGW stuff quite so seriously. It's "highly likely" that all this worry about the climate is affecting your health.

Hi Brett,

Looks like NCDC is now an outlier with their data. The only thing you can say about them is they are consistent with their elevated temp. data. Their home is here in Asheville and they love rooftop temps for some reason. Being open minded and fair about their data shows that it should be thrown out until all stations have been audited. Once they pass the audit they can be used once again for reliable info.

Can't wait to see the July data and see a HUGE red dot over Argentina!

Bill: Who do these people represent. Strange dude.
Here is the position from the American Institute of physics.Isn't it strange the way reality always kills a lie.
KIPP

http://www.aip.org/aip/search_results.html

"Kipp Alpert:
john galt: If you could cherry pick your data you would.
China is making the bulk of Solar panels today.Wake up! Your war is over."

Ladies and gentlemen of the audience, let me introduce you to the type of uninformed mentality you are dealing with.

Kipp, you sound so proud that the manf and pollution associated with the product has moved to a country with no pollution laws.

Kipp, it's called GLOBAL warming. Banning the pollution in this country, banning oil wells in this country, etc
will do nothing
It will only move the pollution to another country. China, Russia, and India are in the top four along with the US, and China, Russia, and India are going to do nothing about this pollution you are so freaked out about.
The rest of the world is not going to stop, just because we have some mental midgets here.
I would tell you to wake up it's global, but since we are all trying to conserve, I won't waste it.

"As people worldwide increasingly feel the heat of climate change, many are applauding the skyrocketing growth China�s fledging solar-cell industry."
"A recent Washington Post article, however, has revealed that China�s booming solar industry is not as green as one might expect. Many of the solar panels that now adorn European and American rooftops have left behind a legacy of toxic pollution in Chinese villages and farmlands. "
"Polysilicon is a key component of the sunlight-capturing wafers used in solar photovoltaic (PV) cells. "
"The Post article describes how Luoyang Zhonggui, a major Chinese polysilicon manufacturer, is dumping toxic factory waste directly on to the lands of neighboring villages, killing crops and poisoning residents."
"Technologies exist to recycle the chemical byproducts of solar-cell production, but some Chinese polysilicon plants, including Luoyang Zhonggui, are cutting costs and corners by avoiding significant extra investment in pollution control. The cheaper prices of their products, which do not currently factor in environmental costs, are projected to fan the rapid expansion of Chinese-made solar PV systems around the world, especially in industrial countries that can afford the still-expensive units."

http://www.enn.com/pollution/article/32974

Tell me how it makes sense for us to stop drilling and refining in this country,
only to buy it from other countries that has less or no pollution laws?

Wow John G. Just don't listen to a single word this NCDC ahs to say because the UAH is right. Pretty one sided to me. Th UAH had the coldest and that is definitely the one I'm gonna believe.

And for Patrick Henry.
I think it's a great idea. Lighting a fire under all our great companies.
Do you want us to keep up our dependance on foreign oil forever. How 'bout we boost our own economy by looking inward and paying our own companies to come up with new ideas. I hope it happens.

philw1776

Your entry really resonated with me...I don`t see how climate science can ever recover from this...and now in their desperation they are now blaming increased cases of kidney stones on global warming.

From the American Physical Society website:
http://www.aps.org/

APS Position Remains Unchanged

The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

Chris F,

From ICECAP: "DON'T BELIEVE A WORD OF IT. Just a few days ago, the University of Alabama, Huntsville came out with their global assessment and they reported the 22nd warmest in the 30 years of records in their data base (in other words the 9th coldest). In fact, their global mean was actually below the average (base period 1979-1998) with a value of -0.11C (-0.19F). This is a full 1.1F degrees colder than the NOAA guesstimate."

I actually looked at the data that Joe D'Aleo of ICECAP presented in his chart and compared it to the raw RSS data. Far be it from me to accuse him of purposely pulling in the wrong data into his chart, but from what I see is he used the June data for the tropical regions (20S to 20N) in his graph that he says represents the global data. What alerted me is the fact that his graph did not match my spreadsheet graph.

What he says is the latest June 2008 value of -0.11C should be +0.035C based on the raw RSS data.

Below is the year by year comparison of both the raw global and tropical RSS data for the month of June:
GLOBAL TROPICAL
1979 -0.239 -0.122
1980 0.130 0.168
1981 -0.066 -0.186
1982 -0.168 -0.086
1983 -0.147 0.140
1984 -0.252 -0.394
1985 -0.360 -0.530
1986 -0.181 -0.265
1987 0.136 0.335
1988 0.091 -0.141
1989 -0.180 -0.480
1990 0.114 0.035
1991 0.302 0.303
1992 -0.143 0.069
1993 -0.003 0.116
1994 0.105 -0.028
1995 0.204 0.349
1996 -0.012 0.031
1997 0.069 0.058
1998 0.599 0.628
1999 -0.091 -0.253
2000 0.104 -0.155
2001 0.099 -0.058
2002 0.409 0.322
2003 0.180 0.124
2004 0.161 0.026
2005 0.323 0.386
2006 0.237 0.143
2007 0.280 0.262
2008 0.035 -0.116

You can easily see that the data in his chart closely matches the data for the tropical regions (but for some reason doesn't exactly match some data points).

Because he used the wrong data, his whole statement that the NOAA estimate is wrong is totally bogus and pretty typical of the type of mis-information his web site presents. What he also doesn't mention is the periods of record of the normals being used by NOAA and MSU are totally different. So when he says that NOAA's estimate is 1.1F cooler is wrong, first of all because he used the wrong RSS data, and second he is essentially comparing apples to oranges when the normals of the two data sets are for different time periods.

Goes to show you what the lack of quality control and non peer-review of scientific data does to data that supposedly is being presented on the ICECAP site as facts.

The biggest mistake anyone here can make is assume that the data on the ICECAP site is accurate. But knowing what side of the debate the majority on this blog site are on, it is easy to understand why most missed that blatant error.

It looks as if the past 4 bars on the smith and reynolds show a decrease in anomaly, it is not a trend yet, but it is a good start to a trend.

Since 1940, there have not been 4 consecutive data points that have shown a decrease, so that is the biggest "trend" in that direction since 1940. I did not choose 1940 as a cherry pick, but prior to 1940, were mostly negative anomalies.

Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01291.html

Oh, yeah more snow forcasted for the high country and high mountain passes in CO!

NO bike riding of Independence Pass for me.

hey brett, can we get a top button near the bottom of the pages...

I will find out.

I have been in the energy business for 41 years and after reading some of Al Gore`s speech today I couldn`t believe that this man was once our Vice President. His conclusions, solutions and goals are so far-fetched and so out of touch with reality I am beginning to wonder whether he has become so isolated and insulated from the real world he can no longer function outside his tiny make believe world.

In ten years we will have built a minimum of 400 new coal-powered power plants worldwide with 40 to 60 year lifespans and we will need every kilowatt they produce. They will be clean and efficient. Gore`s fantasy energy sources may get to 4% of our total energy needs by 2030.

Are my eyes decieving me or are they showing most of califonia being above average for june. It was an abnormaly cool jusne in about 75% of the state and rest was about normal. actually around the bay area and norther inland of calif it the third coolest in 30 yrs. where the hell did they get this data. I live near sacramento and if this is global warming then keep it coming. Has been a very cool july also so far, and is expected to continue. Im sure it will also be warm in there eyes. wow what a scam

D Caldwell: Last week there were reports of the first identified case of Climate Change Delusion Syndrome. Now we're seeing the effects of Climate Change Stress Syndrome in fellow bloggers. Both problems are the result of shame brought on by a sham.

Ok, so reporting stations have dropped from 6000, to 2000. I wonder where the remaining 2000 stations are, and does this skew the average temperature enough to make a difference? Did more "cooler" reporting stations stop reporting as opposed to "warmer" reporting stations? or vice versa?

Steve, I wouldn't be surprised if many of the dropped stations were rural. I presume that That would have some some effect on positive anomalies if the UHI effect was as much as some claim. As you know, though, at least some of the UHI effect iscompensated for in statistical analysis. I'm really not sure if it's good enough, though.

Saly: I hope you don't laugh so hard that your teeth fall out again. My point is that if the USA was on the ball, we should be the one to corner the alternative energy market! Instead we have George and his stooges following blindly along not realiizing that the world is passing us by.We are still in deniel. By the way is laughing at other people your way of having fun. How French.
KIPP

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

D.Caldwell: I have a strong heart. I was just about to complement you on not going down so hard on our learning blogger. I thought it was decent of you.Blog after blog after blog, they came down on Paul. It said more about their decency then than their science. Emotional Intellegence is good.
KIPP

Wow... This global temperature chart looks very similar to the yearly distance movement of the north and south pole for the last century.. The north pole speed is increase in a similar fashion as the temperature lately...humm....

Kipp - you're looking at dated info; see this:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm

As time goes on, more and more legitimate scientists are jumping ship, and soon the AGW BS agenda will be revealed for the scam that it is and always has been.

I like the choice of 1961-1990 as a baseline on the NOAA scary red dot map. This reference time period was otherwise known as the global cooling scare because it had anomalously cold temperatures.

Of course NOAA had a very good scientific reason for using that time period - their printer is very low on blue ink.

Changing base periods only changes anomoly figures, not recorded temperatures. There is relatively strong co-relation between UAH, RSS, HadCRUT3v and GISTemp. However, even GISTemp, as ever adjusting and changing it is, is saying that this has been the coldest June since 1996. As well, only 4 Junes have been cooler since 1988. So for NOAA to say 8th warmest on record, well, they're out to lunch, off their rocker, etc. etc. etc.

Kipp July 17, 2008 5:29 PM:

"Who do these people represent. Strange dude.
Here is the position from the American Institute of physics.Isn't it strange the way reality always kills a lie."

I agree that the American Physical Society (APS) website says they haven't changed their position, but they are allowing debate to occur which everyone should be welcoming regardless of your stand on the issue. It just would have been nice if debate occurred before things were decreed to be settled. Better late than never!

See the forum editor statement at:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm

Mark,
Some higher resolution data from NOAA on California:

June shows it cooler than normal along the central and northern coast, warmer down south.

And so far in July, it looks quite warm according to their data.

Not saying they're "right" or "wrong" though I thought you could do with a little better view than the annoying world dot graph.

*Looks at finalized June data*

Ya know, I might actualy be concerned if I hadnt been sitting in 3 feet of snow for 4 months this winter, right Mark?

Think colder'n **** winters and hot as **** summers cancel eachother out?

GO DENVER!!!

Steve,

I wonder where the remaining 2000 are

I believe around 1200 are in the US and the rest scattered around the globe.

Climate Audit ran a thread on GISS coverage earlier this year

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2711

If you scroll down to the 2006 map you will see areas that GISS had no coverage included Canada, the Arctic and the Antarctic. Areas where there was sparse coverage included Africa (particularly), South America, large parts of Russia and Asia. And temps for Australia were all estimated.

So I'd say GISS has pretty well got the whole world covered, wouldn't you? :-)

Steve,

I wonder where the remaining 2000 are

I believe around 1200 are in the US and the rest scattered around the globe.

Climate Audit ran a thread on GISS coverage earlier this year

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2711

If you scroll down to the 2006 map you will see areas that GISS had no coverage included Canada, the Arctic and the Antarctic. Areas where there was sparse coverage included Africa (particularly), South America, large parts of Russia and Asia. And temps for Australia were all estimated.

So I'd say GISS has pretty well got the whole world covered, wouldn't you? :-)

Dennis: Before you accuse someone of falsifying data, check to make sure YOU'VE got the right source of data. You apparently didn't pause to think that when Joe D'Leo is referring to NASA satellite data, maybe he's referring to UAH MSU data, not RSS MSU data. He mentions to both in the preceding paragraph. If you go back and check the UAH data, you might find he's correct. Here are the first and last few years of UAH MSU data so you can compare to his chart:

Year UAH MSU Global Temperature (Deg C)
1979 -0.14
1980 0.1
1981 -0.02
1982 -0.1
1983 -0.08
1984 -0.22

2004 0.05
2005 0.26
2006 0.16
2007 0.21
2008 -0.11

They look spot on to me.

I may not agree with Joe D'Leo on many things, but I've never seen him make the error you've accused him of making...

And I've never seen him make the blatant blunder you've just made.

Regards

PH: "I like the choice of 1961-1990 as a baseline on the NOAA scary red dot map. This reference time period was otherwise known as the global cooling scare because it had anomalously cold temperatures."

1951-80 was colder, Patrick. Go figure.

This is my first post, but I am not new to reading the blog. It has been making interesting lunch time reading for me for the past few months.

With regards to the NOAA anomaly map, I live in the UK and I cannot believe that temperatures in June were above average by the 1 or 2 degC indicated. For the month of June the BBC weather website (read Met Office) has:

England 14C (0.3C above 1961 - 90 ave)
Wales 12.7C (equal to 1961 - 90 ave)
Scotland 11.3C (0.1C above 1961 90 ave)
N. Ireland 12.5C (equal to 1961 - 90 ave)

The coolest June since 2001.

If I have misunderstood the map I apologise for being a novice.

Brett, love the blog. Reply: Thanks David. Welcome to the comment section.

I posted this cynical comment on the July 13th thread, but it works just as well here:

Still hot and dry in New Hampshire. Another day to spend hopefully scanning the sky for a cumulous booming up, and then to try to wish the cloud in my direction.

Climate politics involves a lot of trying to wish things in certain directions, as well.

If temperatures move in the direction you wish, (doesn't matter if it is up or down,) you call it "A Long Term Trend." On the other hand, if they move in a disappointing way, you call it "A Short Term Fluctuation."

It is always possible to chose a time period which creates a "trend line" that supports your politics. If it is necessary to make temperatures drop, start your graph at the peak of the MWP. If it is necessary to make temperatures rise, start your graph at the bottom of the Little Ice Age.

Cast doubt on the other side's graph. If possible, "adjust" either the MWP or the Little Ice Age right out of existence.

I know; I know; I know. This isn't true science. But we are talking politics.

If you are truly passionate about your politics, it is like being in love with a bad person: Everyone tries to tell you the person is bad, but you are besotted with infatuation, and nothing anyone says can convince you that the bad person is anything other than a totally beautiful and perfect saint.

That is why we need a two-party-system. The two sides balance each other out, and the balance approaches a reality which neither side can see.

Of course, we could skip the politics, and instead embrace the discipline of science in an truly honest fashion.

Naw. It's much more fun to rave and storm and rip out our hair.

I propose a new position statement for APS to unify their seemingly contradictory stances.

"All scientists agree that global warming is going to lead us to a horrible fiery death, except for the large number of scientists who don't believe that man made global warming even exists, and the remainder who recognize that the "most likely" IPCC estimates of warming and sea level rise would barely be noticeable."

And further I propose an addendum in support of our former vice-president who was cheated out the presidency by an evil supreme court.

"Now that Al Gore has successfully invented the Internet, he should devote his attention to inventing a energy source which can free us from all our wordly troubles during the next ten years, and make everyone on earth happy - like from that lovely scene in Bambi where the skunks and fawns are all romping happily together in the sunshine."

North Pole - July 18, 2008 - still frozen solid
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?T082000745

The sun is now less than 19 degrees above the horizon at the pole, and dropping quickly towards darkness in eight weeks.

It's a bit too early to claim that APS has adopted a "skeptical" stance towards AGW. The letter from the editor clearly states that they are encouraging their members to read both a pro- and con- AGW article in this month's journal, and they invite comments and response papers to publish.

You should at least wait until the responses are published. Seeing the Monckton paper they chose as the skeptic argument has already been picked apart by organizations such as RealClimate, I think the overall reaction from the APS is going to dismay many skeptics here and elsewhere.

It's just their latest skeptic meme, just like underwater volcanoes was two weeks ago. This time next week, they'll have completely forgotten about it, and when the responses are published, they'll claim they never stated the APS had become climate skeptics.

Chris F,

From a previous thread . . .

Here is one of the most understandable theories of the climate that I have read to date:
http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1562

Point 1 is off. The surface of a planet is not necessarily warmer with an atmosphere.

Venus is the only one that I am aware of that gets warmer with an atmosphere than without. CO2's low specific heat means it gets hotter than other gases given the same amount of energy.

The Moon's surface gets much hotter than Earth's without an atmosphere, but it also gets much cooler.

The idea that Mars and Venus' temps are different because of the differences in atmospheric density is only partly correct. The distances from Sun and the differences in diameter play big roles as well. Mars gets 1/4 the radiation as Venus and has less surface area.

Points 2 and 3 are pretty obvious to me.

Point 4 could be considered correct but I think the author misses the huge point that convection plays a key role in delivering energy to the tropopause. Only some of the energy escapes directly to space at the speed of light.

Point 5 I think misses, again, how convection plays a role in cooling an air mass, warmer air rises and loses density as it rises.

Point 6. He hits the nail right on the head. There is not enough CO2 or CH4 to be responsible for the warming the Earth has experienced since it has emerged from the Little Ice Age.

Point 7. Humid air is not more dense than dry air, furthermore I think it is moot to describe Earth without oceans.

Point 8 is excellent as well is the Summary. One must include the oceans as part of the atmosphere. That is where nearly all the energy the Earth absorbs is contained. The density of air and it's much lower specific heat prevents it from warming the oceans, the oceans warm the air, not visa versa.

I think one of the biggest mistakes AGW Advocates make is thinking CO2, or any GHG for that matter, warms the atmosphere. That thinking is completely backward from the way it works.

Nearly all the energy in our thermodynamic system comes from the Sun. The Sun warms the surface, the surface radiates IR, CO2 captures some of what is in 3 narrow bands, then emits IR, half of which is directed downward, only very slightly slowly the cooling.

Thanks,

Steve

Veets,

Exactly. Temperatures have been on the decline.

What amuses me is that we are just beginning to understand our climate. Why all the hysteria? We have already used nearly 20% of the worlds fossil fuel reserves, yet we have record antarctic ice. Hello?? I think humanity will survive just fine after we use what's left in the ground.

The alarmists need pipe down and just keep learning about how the earth works. Stop with the apocolyptic guesses, ok increased hurricane fear mongers?

Are the poles shifting anyone? This effects our climate and has nothing to do with SUVs.

Welcome to the real world. NOW is the time to start drilling for Americas oil, NOT next decade.

APS editorial comment: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm?renderforprint=1

"Ok, so reporting stations have dropped from 6000, to 2000. I wonder where the remaining 2000 stations are, and does this skew the average temperature enough to make a difference? Did more "cooler" reporting stations stop reporting as opposed to "warmer" reporting stations? or vice versa?"

Nearly half of the global reporting stations are in North America -namely the US- which has the highest density of reporting stations (primairily through the CO-OP network)in the world. South America and Africa are very sparse, as is East Asia. Statistically, this creates a problem, as the US and NAmerica only make up 15% (the US about 6%) of the landmass combines, but provide almost 50% of the reporting stations. In effect, the global temperatures are really a reflection of the UHI poisoned NAmerican data sets.

Piltdown Man strikes again!

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html

This just goes to show that Consensus, Credentials, and Peer Review should only be considered a Litmus Test and it is necessary to ask more and better questions when attempting to explain a phenomena.

Finally a debate! Pretty cool that they are inviting everyone as well. Perhaps science is not going into another dark age after all.

Steve

Dennis:

Have you contacted Icecap and asked them about this? Here's the URL: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/contact-us

I'd like to see your comments to them and their response.

Thanks

Brett,

I am joining the debate being put on by APS, not sure if you're interested, but I will provide you with my rebuttal of David Hafemeister & Peter Schwartz's defense of AGW and the IPCC's position once it is complete if you want. Reply: OK, I will look at it when it comes in.

It will be somewhat lengthy so I don't want to post it here without your consent.

I am also preparing a hypothesis that shows that natural variability can account for the warming the Earth has experienced over the last 200 years to present to the APS. We'll see if professional AGW Advocates can break it.

Much thanks again to AccuWeather and yourself for providing an open forum on AGW,

Steve

Dennis:

Did you miss the peer-reviewed study that shows more than half the warming in Europe is due to the air being cleaner? There are less aerosals reflecting sunlight because there is less pollution. The increase in sunlight hitting the ground causes more warming.

It's peer-reviewed, so it must be correct, right? Wrong. Peer-reviewed v. non-peer-reviewed has always been a specious argument. The science is either sound or not, regardless of whether somebody else reviewed it.

How about somebody confront these gas bags and demand that real verifiable science be used. The numbers continue to be adjusted with no transparent procedures in place to validate the math, prevent fraud and assure the public that the science is real. Right now land temps belong in �The Journal of Irreproducible Results� right next to �Cold Fusion�, �Piltdown Man� and �Latrell� for cancer!

Hear hear!

Ted,

I believe the debate being conducted by the APS is the beginning of this "confrontation". One of the biggest issues, I believe, is that a coherent rebuttal has yet to be made.

Not faulting anyone, I think this has roots in that many folks had investments, tangible and intangible, in AGW and now that it is not standing up to scrutiny, those with the least invested are jumping ship and are now gathering and sharing notes.

Another is that "consensus" was created and the Advocates simply knew they were correct because of numbers not proof and we Skeptics were positioned to prove a negative as if the Advocates were defending a Scientific Law.

We Skeptics should have refused to attempt that proof and demanded "real verifiable science to be used" as you duly noted.

Piltdown is a similar event. Many folks had an idea of what Piltdown should be so they built it and it had many followers because it caught on quickly and a uneducated public also bought it. Piltdown was also sensationalized as AGW is. A French scientist correctly identified the Jaw as Orangutan and Skull as human one year after the "discovery" as was ignored by the Royal Society of London.

If they wish to continue to call it "Anthropogenic" GW, then they better come up with another anthropogenic source of warming because there is no possible way for CO2 to be responsible for the warming attributed to it. This is about to be shown once and for all.

I do however think that to completely trash this AGW movement would be a mistake. I think we should attempt to salvage much of the momentum it has garnered and use it to implement some real solutions related to Land Usage, water pollution, recycling, and the like.

I'd like to add that you often make excellent points here.

Thanks,

Steve

Dennis H.

The data that Dr. Joe uses for his graph in the reference article is the UAH dataset (http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt) not the RSS dataset.

mark-i live near you in benicia and was surprised at the data as well-remember though that we had a pretty good hot spell between the 18th and 24th of the month. temperatures probably averaged 20 degrees above normal. add an extra 120 degrees to the total for a month and you can see how you could be 3-4 degrees above normal(120 div by 30)for the month despite
it seeming cool mostr of the month

travis thanks for the depictions of jun and july
i was surprised to see that despite that heat wave my area was still in that 0-2 degree below area

Pete: I don't like my stand on the issue. If I was convinced otherwise,that would make me happy.
I don't want to envision a world without people, or the horror show that could come before the warming gets real bad. But global warming is here, and there are things we must do to insure the most peaceful transition. I am open minded, but most scientists have connected the dots and I just learn as much as I can. It's hard not being a scientist, but I have read the skeptics remarks and find them normally to be short term anomalies. I find your stance the right one, but must follow what there is to believe. Even the Pentagon has it's own plan. There are some real smart generals around.
KIPP

I guess my note from yesterday was spammed, but anyway how can we settle 8th warmest, shouldn't we with all this global warming be continuing to set new records each month?

Fred,

This is what Mr. D'Aleo said he used in reference to that graph: "The other NASA satellite source, RSS had June as the 13th coldest out of the last 30 years."

If he used UAH data then why did he say RSS in his remarks?

John Galt,

The science is only good if you provide data graphs that are based on correctly referenced data. Peer review and some sort of quality control of the data and charts provide a check so that everyone that reads that material can have confidence in the data and it represents what it says it does. Otherwise, people, like you, that simply look at that data without question will also come up with the wrong conclusions. If you have the gall to call that good science, then I have to wonder what credibility the skeptics wish to gain in this debate.

Also, Mr. D'Aleo will never return any of my questions to him since his cronies have put me on their "enemy" list and my email get junked before it ever gets to him. Shows you how open they are to critcism.

GW Steve, thanks for critiquing that article, it means a lot coming from you. I'll keep an eye out for your rebuttal at APS, looking forward to it.

GWSteve: Could you please back your statements that AGW is false. You also make intellegent points here and I would like to hear why you think the Earth isn't getting warmer, and why it is cooling or has returned to it's natural state.
KIPP

GW Steve: "I am also preparing a hypothesis that shows that natural variability can account for the warming the Earth has experienced over the last 200 years to present to the APS. We'll see if professional AGW Advocates can break it."

Th editors were clear that they would accept only *scientific* comments. This means that the material you submit, assuming it's along the lines of what you contribute on this blog, will be looked at precisely long enough to establish that it is *not* scientific, which is to say not very long at all.

Fred N.: "Dr. Joe"? Really? A doctorate in what and from where?

GW Steve,

I'm glad you found an opportunity for a debate with the "experts." Keep us apprised.

~Travis

Dennis Hlinka,

Could you explain what peer reviewed is? I think that most people misunderstand the true meaning, not saying you do, but I would like to know your view.

Last month, the big news story attributed to NSIDC was that the North Pole has a 50/50 chance of being ice free for "the first time in the history of mankind" this summer - which is interesting because a big story from last summer was about a guy who swam in seawater at the North Pole.
http://www.wwf.org.uk/annualreview/0607/high_0000004620.asp

Perhaps NSIDC has a short memory and a fairly limited understanding of Arctic climate?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

Dennis: The majority of the paragraph that preceded that graph dealt with UAH data. The RSS sentence reinforced it. Which is the subject of the paragraph? The UAH data.

Hi Bob Tisdale,

Going back and reading the paragraph again, yes you are right and I was wrong. My bad.

However, I did notice that Mr. D'Aleo has updated his article as of July 20 and got rid of his first graph and replaced it with another one. Apparently others found his wording and graph references a bit too confusing. He also probably wanted to re-emphasize the latest cooling trend since 1998 more and his earlier graph did not do that for him.

However, if you look at his second graph in his updated article, the cooling trend that he emphasizes in his first graph is a mere blip in his second graph and 5-year average temperatures are still above what they were back in the 1930's:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2HCNlongterm.jpg

Here is quote from his updated article:
"Though there has clearly been some cyclical warming in recent decades, the global surface station based data is seriously compromised by urbanization and other local factors (land-use /land-cover, improper siting, station dropout, instrument changes unaccounted for and missing data) and thus the data bases overestimate the warming."

While he and others on his site keep emphasizing the monitor siting issues, I still find relatively good correlation with the temperature increases in your SST graphs since 1900, which obviously do not have urban siting issues. So again his statements, while sounding nice to the skeptic crowd, do not address the similar temperature increases reported over the oceans for the past 100+ years.

Hi Mike,

Your question on peer review is a good one.

The following link provides a good discussion on my definition of what peer review really is:
http://www.aibs.org/position-statements/20040715_position_statem.html

Their emphasis is on peer review of government reports, but it is applicable for other scientific review processes.

Here are a few quotes from that link:

"Peer review is an integral component of scientific research and publishing. It allows the scientific community to maintain quality control of research through the review of research proposals, journal manuscripts and other reports. Academic peer review, although far from perfect, is the best tool scientists have to ensure high standards for their professional work."

"These types of reviews are critically important tools for policy makers. They allow experts from both inside and outside the federal government to provide technical advice and analysis, increasing public confidence in federal science, and ensuring that the best quality information is used in decision making."

"However, it is critical that scientific peer review programs be carefully designed to maintain objectivity, quality and thoroughness. While scientific peer review is an important tool for decision makers, a poorly designed process can do more harm than good."

They go on and list some of the important considerations for scientific peer review of agency-produced science and the body of science underlying management decisions:

(1) The first priority in choosing reviewers should be to engage the most competent scientists. Therefore, conflict of interest exclusions must be carefully designed to balance barring those with a direct conflict of interest and the reality of a finite pool of suitable reviewers. The key issue in selecting reviewers is whether they bring the necessary scientific knowledge and objectivity to reviewing the matter at hand.

(2) Scientific peer review should be insulated from politics as much as possible. Oversight of scientific peer review should be vested in scientists and science managers within the agencies. This adds assurance that the composition of panels is not being unduly influenced by politics and constitutes a representative subset of the scientists most competent to review and assess the topic. The agencies must be trusted to perform the task of constituting and overseeing fair and independent scientific peer review efforts, without interference from political entities.

(3) Even the best scientific peer review cannot give policy makers the ‘right’ answer. Scientific peer review can provide assurances that rigorous, transparent and respected methods were followed, that the data were reasonably interpreted, and that the stated conclusions logically follow from the results. However, often more than one interpretation of the data set can be made, and there may be no way to determine which interpretation is ‘best’. Where data are limited or other uncertainties abound, scientific peer review can point these problems out, but it cannot overcome them.

(4) Scientific peer review must maintain programmatic flexibility. While guidelines can help to ensure that certain standards are met and maintained, an overly rigid process, particularly for scientific peer review of the body of science underlying policy decisions, will result in inefficient use of time and resources. It may be overly prescriptive to stipulate the number of reviewers, the questions they must answer, or the type of report they must produce for the broad range of agency scientific work.

(5) All scientific peer review must be based upon an assumption of integrity. While commonsense measures can be taken to weed out direct conflicts of interest, an implementable system can never be fully cleared of all potential conflicts of interest. Instead, fair reviews are the product of professional standards of conduct that are a fundamental component of training in scientific research. Scientific peer review must ultimately rest on the presumed integrity of the reviewers.

My biggest problem in the issuance of government reports currently is in regards to the second point where politics has basically overtaken scientific data and conclusions. The policies of this administration and it's enforcers have been put into control positions of various governmental agencies where scientists are feeling their research is becoming irrelevant and not being taken seriously. The final public issuance of those reports are so watered down and do not reflect the scientific conclusions of the research scientists, that the public is not given the full information in order to make an informed decision. This type of review process is not in the public's interests, but only of this administration's.

Th editors were clear that they would accept only *scientific* comments. This means that the material you submit, assuming it's along the lines of what you contribute on this blog, will be looked at precisely long enough to establish that it is *not* scientific, which is to say not very long at all.

:) I've asked you more than once to provide an example of how my comments here are not scientific and you pulled some "it's over the top" crap.

If Brett posts my rebuttal and/or my hypothesis that the warming is natural then you will have yet another chance to critique my comments.

Assuming you still haven't learned thermodynamics, can I expect more of your crap comments/insults that hold no substance?

How about another "You don't even know elementary Physics!" without providing an example. That really helps, thank you.

My distaste for you and many like you stems from the arrogance that arises from y'all parroting someone else's work as if you understand the mechanisms that drew the original author to that conclusion.

CO2's role in GW is ALL conjecture, no proofs, not one. You simply believe what another person believes. You do not understand it, if you did you would also disagree with "Consensus".

In any event, I hope you do not disappoint us with some mediocre critique, I'm very much looking forward to a colourful one.

Till then, have a good one :)

Steve

Steve Bloom:
Fred N.: "Dr. Joe"? Really? A doctorate in what and from where?

Dr. Joseph D'Aleo is an elected Fellow of the American Meteorological Society and former Chief Meteorologist (and co-founder) of The Weather Channel, a position he held for seven years.

Dr. Joseph D'Aleo has 30 years experience in professional meteorology. He has BS and MS degrees in meteorology from the University of Wisconsin and did doctoral studies in meteorology at New York University. He taught meteorology at the college level for over eight years.

He joined Weather Services International (WSI) in 1989, where he was a marketing manager and chief meteorologist. Dr. Joe is also known as "Dr. Dewpoint" and the senior editor for WSI's Intellicast Web site.

Dr. D'Aleo is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist. He has authored, presented, and published numerous papers focused on advanced applications enabled by new technologies and how research into ENSO and other atmospheric and oceanic phenomena has made possible skillful seasonal forecasts.

http://community.myfoxphilly.com/blogs/David_Aldrich/2007/04/09/Global_Warming_Skeptic

Gee, Chris F, did he change his first name to "Doctor"? I see "doctoral studies" mentioned, but no degree beyond the MS noted.

FYI, D'Aleo's bio at his own site (ICECAP) is completely clear that he doesn't have a doctorate:

"Joseph D'Aleo was the first Director of Meteorology at the cable TV Weather Channel. He has over 30 years experience in professional meteorology. Mr. D'Aleo was Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International Corporation and Senior Editor of 'Dr. Dewpoint' for WSI's popular Intellicast.com web site. He is a former college professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State College. He has authored and presented a number of papers as well as published a book focused on advanced applications enabled by new technologies and how research into ENSO and other atmospheric and oceanic phenomena has made skillful seasonal forecasts possible. Mr. D'Aleo has also authored many articles and made numerous presentations on the roles cycles in the sun and oceans have played in climate change.

"Mr. D'Aleo is a Certified Consultant Meteorologist and was elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). He has served as a member and then chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, and has co-chaired national conferences for both the American Meteorological Society and the National Weather Association. Mr. D'Aleo was elected a Councilor for the AMS.

"Joseph D'Aleo is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin BS, MS and was in the doctoral program at NYU.

"Mr. D'Aleo's areas of expertise include climatology, natural factors involved in climate change, weather and climate prediction, and North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)."

Nice enough, but no PhD.

Brett, I had a reply to GW Steve from a couple of days ago that has yet to appear. Thanks.

Reply: Steve, I am not the only one posting the comments this week since I am on vacation. It would greatly help us find it if you can be more specific when you sent it in. Thank you. The moderator.

Brett, by a couple I meant two. Given the time GW Steve made his comment, it would it would have been later on Monday or possibly very early Tuesday. My comment included at least one hot link IIRC.

So, Steve Bloom, Joe D'Aleo in your eyes hasn't the qualifications to be giving his opinion on this matter in the public domain, or at least the public shouldn't take it seriously. What kind of qualifications does Al Gore have? Why should the public take what he says seriously? Why should the public take seriously his movie that is full of misrepresentation of facts and in some cases outright lies? I won't bother leaving the link to the British judges ruling, I'm sure you've read it already...

NASA temperature data continue to be the outlier and it's getting more public attention: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/27/do2708.xml