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