Gas flaring from Siberian oil fields dumps huge amounts of soot on the snow, and lumber companies burn the forests (generating lots more soot) so they can legally log them.

Which leads to the inescapable conclusion that Siberian warming must be due to CO2 from Arnie's Hummer.

Looks like global warming is being accurately referred to as Siberia warming!

Since global temps are based on an average of local temps across the globe, it would seem obvious that without Siberia, temps in the majority of places have decreased.

This would clearly account for the many colder zones throughout the year while warming is supposedly prevalent.

Now, the real issue is WHY Siberia is warming at such an alarming rate!

Seems to me that scientists would produce more beneficial work by studying real warming in a specific area instead of theorizing why warming exists in areas that temps have been forced by a generalized average analysis.

Maybe then we could be treated to a REAL theory instead of an (as yet) unreproducible hypothesis!

The image is consistan with other sources of information I usually check.
Speaking of warming, and this is to Oiznop -who has repeatedly said that Buenos Aires' lows are proof of the global warming fraud- people woke up in Buenos Aires with a comfortable temperature of... 17 C in Winter! Today, temps are supposed to reach 29 C... Summer-like!

The Northern Hemisphere is warming faster than the Southern. Could be because of more extensive melting of seasonal snow in the North. The South, with less land mass, has less seasonal snow to begin with so there is less effect from greenhouse gas warming.

This year is the 8th warmest January to June for Land, which includes places like Siberia. The Warmest Jan to June was last year was just last year in 2007.

See the following for details.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/jun/global.html#temp

Brett;

No urban areas in Siberia!

The polar regions are expected to warm more than the temperate and tropical zones, regardless of the cause of the warming.

Now how does this warming differ from the warming in the early part of the 20th century, the MWP or the Roman Warm Period? In none of those cases did the world climate reach a tipping point. Is there any reason to believe if global warming resumes, it will be any different?

It is an interesting point that there may likely be non-CO2 Anthropogenic effects on climate that would serve to warm locally and thus contribute globally.

But, everyone gets so enamored with CO2 which no one can show has any more than a fraction of a degree of warming effect, that they (media/public) lose sight of soot, aerosols, irrigation which causes increase in the #1 greenhouse gas (water vapor), land use changes to the radiative absorbance, etc.

The use of the acronym "AGW" has come to mean A-CO2-GW, and no one qualifies it...

PaulB: "Looks like global warming is being accurately referred to as Siberia warming!"

"Since global temps are based on an average of local temps across the globe, it would seem obvious that without Siberia, temps in the majority of places have decreased."

"This would clearly account for the many colder zones throughout the year while warming is supposedly prevalent."

Paul, Is there something in the 30-year RSS data that is not clear to you? Temperatures in all zones during that period have increased. This is not data manufactured by models, but is actually measured by satellites. You can refer back to my July 13 2:39pm posting if you need a refresher.

Paul B: "Now, the real issue is WHY Siberia is warming at such an alarming rate!"

"Seems to me that scientists would produce more beneficial work by studying real warming in a specific area instead of theorizing why warming exists in areas that temps have been forced by a generalized average analysis."

Paul, The fact that temperatures in the northern latitudes above 60N have increased by 1.2C and the tropical regions have increased by 0.33C is what global warming research has always stated would likely occur. A doubling or more in the temperature rate has always been predicted by those "terrible" climate models for the far northern latitudes compared to the lower latitudes. Seems to me that the climate research predictions are being proven correct by the actual data.

John Galt: "The polar regions are expected to warm more than the temperate and tropical zones, regardless of the cause of the warming."

"Now how does this warming differ from the warming in the early part of the 20th century, the MWP or the Roman Warm Period? In none of those cases did the world climate reach a tipping point. Is there any reason to believe if global warming resumes, it will be any different?"

Maybe the following chart can explain the differences between now and then:
http://www.esr.org/outreach/climate_change/mans_impact/co2_temp.jpg

Before everyone clamors to criticize the 0.8C temperature increase in the past 100 years in that chart, I refer you to the CRU temperature graph:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm
that shows an increase of 1C since 1910.

This also is in basic agreement with the southern Pacific ocean temperature plots by Bob Tisdale:
http://i35.tinypic.com/250s2t2.jpg
showing a 0.6-0.8C temperature increase during the same time period.

This lower temperature increase in the southern Pacific relative to the whole world is also verified through the RSS satellite data where the world temperatures have increased by 0.44C while the southern hemisphere only warmed by 0.24C in the last 30-years. So the fact that world temperatures increased by nearly 1C since 1910, the southern hemisphere ocean temperatures increasing around 0.6C-0.8C during that same time period is very consistent with that data.

Well since Greenland isn't melting, got to move on ... Surely we can find something that's melting.

I have reached the point where I don't believe a word of what is being said by these warmists.

So we have six people that call themselves scientists studying something else they know nothing about to base their predictions, that they know even less about.

Maybe it's just fermenting.

Dennis:

I'm not sure what those links you gave are supposed to show me. They do not show any cause-and-effect between global average estimated temps and CO2 and they do not show why the consequences or results of this warm period will be any different from any other.

I added the emphasis because it appears I didn't make myself clear in my earlier post. However, it is true that nobody has shown how the causes of the current warm period nor how the consequences of continued warming will be any different from any past warming.

The current warming is within the natural variation of previous warm periods and previous warm periods did not lead to any run-away greenhouse effect and past warm periods also show any climate tipping point is purely hypothetical and speculative.

Dennis:Temperatures in all zones during that period have increased.

If we are looking at a global increase of .7 degrees and Siberia alone represents an increase of 5 degrees, I do not understand that YOU do not understand that to obtain an average, values have to be assorted ......obviously!

You appear to be reluctant to concentrate on the area in question where possibly many factors are at play ..........not only CO2.

Is this part of what they call talking points?

Put me in the camp that's glad scientists are studying the Siberia warming 'anomaly'. When a specific section of the globe leads the pack significantly in warming, it's worth studying. We might actually LEARN something.

Dennis Hlinka said: Paul, The fact that temperatures in the northern latitudes above 60N have increased by 1.2C and the tropical regions have increased by 0.33C is what global warming research has always stated would likely occur. A doubling or more in the temperature rate has always been predicted by those "terrible" climate models for the far northern latitudes compared to the lower latitudes. Seems to me that the climate research predictions are being proven correct by the actual data.

Reply: We seem to have a pretty good handle on what temperatures were like thousands of years ago when the earth was both warmer and cooler than the present. Many different scientists working in different fields have come to the same conclusions. So in the past (before climatology), these studies could confirm that as warming occured, it got warmer at the higher latitudes than it did at the equator. That's not exactly rocket science now is it? We don't need a climatologist and a computer model to make that prediction. You make it sound as though without the models this never would have been found.

Dennis Hlinka,

"Before everyone clamors to criticize the 0.8C temperature increase in the past 100 years in that chart, I refer you to the CRU temperature graph:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm
that shows an increase of 1C since 1910."

Well so it does, but if you go back to 1850 when the graph begins the rise is much less than 1C. So obviously it all depends on the date you choose for your starting point.

Now what's really interesting is that the temperature apparently dropped between 1850 and 1910. What on earth could have caused that? Climate change of a natural variety perhaps?

I think that we are seeing a slow down in global temperature rise due to actions nations have been taking to reduce their carbon emissions.

In addition the recession we have been seeing in the US is probably contributing big time to the reduction of CO2 and therefore the temperature rise. (Reply: Actually, if there was a significant drop in CO2 it would take a very long time to see a cooling response according to what I heard at the Penn State global warming session I attended last year which included a few professors that co-authored a part of the IPCC report. )

In the last 1/4 alone the rush to swithch to smaller cars from SUV is definitely having an effect.

This is good news in terms of controlling the runaway effect of Climate Change due to human emissions. We are on the right track, we just need to keep going faster.

Dennis: Thanks for using one of my graphs, though I'm surprised the tinypic link made it past Brett's filter. Reply: It's not my filter, we use someone else's, but I can recover stuff that was wrongly junked.

What I see in that graph is a significant drop (0.35 to 0.45 deg C) then rebound in South Pacific SST at all latitudes from 1872 to 1935. There's a relatively flat to downward trend period from 1935 to 1990, after which time, SSTs rise 0.2 to 0.35 deg C. I think you're reading too much into my graph.

Two Big Questions: Why did South Pacific SSTs drop 0.4 deg C from 1870 to 1912? And why are you including that unexplained drop in your overall increase? It appears to be cherry picking.

I'll try to post a tinypic link of a South Pacific SST reconstruction in another comment. You of all people will enjoy this graph.

Sorry, but it may take an hour or two. I am so far behind in posting stuff on my blog. I'm having too much fun downloading and graphing and learning.

Regards

Meanwhile, back in Alaska-

The cool, gloomy weather is almost as hot a topic in town as steep gas prices....Normally, Anchorage has 14 or 15 days in the summer that reach the 70-degree mark, Albanese said.....This year, there have been two. And the city didn't see 70 at all until July 2. That threshold typically comes in early to mid-June, according to weather records.

http://www.adn.com/anchorage/story/464849.html

Dennis: Here's the South Pacific SST Anomaly graph I promised. Don't ya think it's great? It's from coral. No pesty, unreliable tree rings in this reconstruction. It shows that Southern Pacific SSTs dropped almost 2 deg C since 1750.
http://i25.tinypic.com/ru7ew1.jpg

Source:
Overview:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/linsley2000/linsley2000.html

Data:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/coral/east_pacific/rarotonga_sr-ca.txt

Regards

My "Tunnel" idea will actually cool Siberia off to those temperatures of 30+ years ago if we want them to. Computer modeling will verify this. The "Tunnels" can do a variety of good things for our planet.

Gas flaring from Siberian oil fields dumps huge amounts of soot on the snow, and lumber companies burn the forests (generating lots more soot) so they can legally log them.

If that is true, shouldn't the positive anomalies be smaller or non-existent in the summer when all the snow is usually melted anyway?

CU-Boulder Researchers Predict 59 Percent Chance Of Record Low Arctic Sea Ice In 2008

- April 30, 2008

http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/1fb96a0f5e60677e20ddafee67219e8d.html

We happened to be at a restaurant in Boulder across from CU on April 20, when one of my kids mentioned that there were hundreds of "zombies" walking away from the campus. Turns out it was National Marijuana Day and 10,000 staff and students had gotten stoned in public.

http://www.marijuana.com/drug-war-headline-news/98473-co-10-000-gather-cus-norlin-quad-4-20-a.html

Of course, there is no connection between these two Boulder news stories from late April.

Hold on, Hold on we can't base anything on a little localized area such as Siberia, we need to base it on the entire earth not Siberia. I believe thats what the AGWers preach we someone mentions its cold, like this morning, I had a low of 43 degrees but thats just here I know its not the worlds weather, I just can't figure out what world I live on because its never the one the GWers talk about. Back to the story, if true eventually the methane will lower as times moves on trees grow take in more co2 then it starts to go back the other way, wonderful how mother nature works isn't it.

Please don't forget to note the scale. That deep, deep red color is .6 degree. When was the last time you heard anyone say, "Gosh, it feels like it rose .6 degree; guess I'll take off my sweater."

HI John Galt,

Since I know a lot of the commenters here will give me a lot of h*** over using the "evil hockey stick" temperature graph (which I did on purpose to see what kind of reaction I would get), I want to present another bit of information that will still show how much warmer we are compared to the historical record for the past 2000 years.

Here is another historical temperature graph I copied from ICECAP web site that shows their temperature curve for the past 2000 years:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/loehle_fig3.jpg

You can use this ICECAP graph for your interpretation of the temperature variations over time that covers your periods of interest.

It shows a higher amount of temperature variation then my earlier graph that went back only 1000 years. They show a nice peak in temperatures around 800-1000 AD, which is about the beginning of my earlier graph. Then ICECAP's graph show a dramatic 1.0C decrease in temperatures to a minimum around the Little Ice Age period around 1500-1600 AD. My earlier graph only shows a 0.4C decrease in temperature near the same time.

However, I must caution you since I see a very big discrepancy in ICECAP's graph for the last 100 years compared to the data we know have from both the CRU data set and the highly detailed ocean sea surface temperature (SST) data sets collected by Bob Tisdale.

I point you specifically to the very small 0.2C temperature increase in the ICECAP is apparently showing in their temperature record since 1910. The CRU and Bob Tisdale's ocean SST data tell us that there has been a minimum of 0.6-1.0C temperature increase since about 1910. The bottom end of that temperature change occurs in the southern hemisphere based on the SST data.

So you have to wonder, if ICECAP's graph is not able to correctly address the latest known increase in temperatures that we now have through other independent sources, can you really place your trust their temperature record for the more distant past? You would think they would be able to more correctly show the latest temperature change since that record is most definable.

If you actually correct ICECAP's graph with the known 0.8-1.0C temperature change since 1910, their 3 graph lines would extend up to the range of 0.4C to 1.2C. This correction to their graph lines would place their two top graph lines well above the medieval warm period that occurred 800-1000AD.

So on a relative basis, if you want to assume that ICECAP's temperature record up to 1900 is accurate (even though they did not ge