A record that is drawn from surface temp stations that have varied over time, been moved, changed, dropped, etc. 2/3 of the surface stations have been shut down since 1990, forcing the NCDC folks to use ever more broad statistical methods to attempt to determine what the temp 'should' have been, sometimes projecting the temperature from 1200 miles away (like using statistical methods on the temperature in New York City to determine the temperature in Atlanta).

Why does the NCDC and NASA (NASA for crying out loud) refuse to use satellites?

15th warmest out of the last 30?

You could just say the "median" temp or something, 15th out of 30 just sounds re$%#$.

SKEPTICS!!!
The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity at the end of the 20th and at the beginning of the 21st century is no longer socialism," writes Klaus. "It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism."
The publication of Blue Planet in Green Shackles: What is Endangered: "Climate or Freedom? continues the Competitive Enterprise Instituter's history of fighting alarmist climate policies. CEI has long argued that whatever challenges future climate changes might bring, the worst possible response is to restrict human freedom and slow economic growth and innovation". I can believe that AGW is true, and I can also agree with these views. It is still a free country!
I conserve in every way possible. That doesn't make me Green, or stupid!!!What is being stated here are the real issues. Whatever happens on our world, this is the most sane approach. Being hysterical is weird, and brainwashing you own mind
is even stranger.
KIPP

Considering Watts' U.S. station survey, it would be interesting to investigate the quality of the stations in the ROW where most of the really warm anomalies are.

It is impossible for a member of a set to be fifth out of 128, and also be fifteenth out of 30 of a fully contained subset. The highest ranking it could possibly have in the full set would be 15.

The USHCN dataset is plagued with all kinds of problems, not the least of which is a severe lack of coverage of the earth's surface. The people who put these press releases out are agenda driven.

From the dot-map, Los Angeles was hot this past July. I live in Los Angeles,CA.I remember only two very hot days.I often hear that the weather forecast says that the temperature is "little below normal" or just "below normal" for the rest of the July. I did not feel that the weather was hot at all. I think July of 2008 is one of the coolest summer months in recent years.

(Reply: Based on our records, it looks like July temperatures around LA were close to normal.)

Now it is August. Most of the weather forecasts still state that the "temperature is below normal"

Anyone who lives in Los Angeles should have the same feeling about the weather.

warming for sure but is it man made?

I would change your last paragraph to
"By the way, the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for the globe was +0.06 C/ +0.11 F, making this past July the 15th coolest over the past 30 years based on this particular satellite measurement.

Reply: It's the same thing. The cup in half full or half empty. I was just relaying what what stated in the press release.

MSU data of the lower troposphere shows that this past July was the 15th warmest July on record out of roughly 30 years of satellite data. And the anomaly was only off 1/2 degree from the 1979-1998 mean.

ANyone have a link to the graph of the UAH data over the last 30 years?

Thanks!

~peace~
plish

The dot matrix map does not make sense with reality. I thought texas has one of the hottest Julys on record and the north east was by no means hot. The map says otherwise. Bogus map. Do not tell those who live in Denver about global warming, they might laugh at you.

data source: from
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KCQT/2008/7/16/MonthlyHistory.html#calendar

July Temperature
Actual (History)Average
High Low High Low
1 83 63 82 63
2 81 63 82 63
3 85 64 82 64
4 89 66 83 64
5 89 66 83 64
6 81 64 83 64
7 83 65 83 64
8 80 65 83 64
9 79 65 83 64
10 82 66 83 64
11 84 67 83 64
12 84 66 84 64
13 83 67 84 65
14 84 66 84 65
15 85 67 84 65
16 86 67 84 65
17 82 65 84 65
18 81 64 84 65
19 79 64 84 65
20 78 64 84 65
21 78 62 84 65
22 81 63 84 65
23 80 63 84 65
24 79 62 84 65
25 82 63 85 65
26 88 69 85 65
27 81 66 85 65
28 80 66 85 65
29 79 64 85 65
30 82 63 85 66
31 82 64 85 66
2550 2009 2597 2003
(divide by 31(days)and I have the Average :
82.26 64.81 83.77 64.6

Abnormality on Ave High -1.52
Abnormality on Ave. Low 0.19

When did G.W. people notice the earth was warming?
In the late 80s or early 90s during the collapse of the USSR when Russia shut down most of its weather monitoring stations...most of which were in Siberia.
Do the math without the Siberia data and the warming trend is almost not there.

Patrick Henry, everybody has an agenda!

Tony, very unlikely not to be AGW....
see here

Maxwell Mixmaster:
Global warming should been seen in decadal terms, not just because July was so cold. Perhaps you should study the difference between short term weather anomalies and the long term weather trends, however abnormal they are. The anomalies that deniers use are only short term. If you look at the Dow Jones from 1929, you will see that it always trends upward. Also, IPCC predictions are only that! People should forget about the IPCC computer modeling and how confident the IPCC think they are, and realize that global warming exists in spite of that sham! Just because Hansen has sold his soul does not negate observed realities. Or AGW.
KIPP

I'd heard via email from personal friends that there was blazing and even record-setting heat in California this July, in inland locations, but that it was cool at the coast where the Pacific influence slides in.

Therefore I checked Accuweather's "Past Weather Data," expecting to see some sort of reflection of this in the "departure from normal" column.

I did see records of blazing heat inland, but much to my surprise I saw these were balanced out by cooler spells, and Sacramento averaged out -0.2 for July, while San Jose averaged out -1.6.

You would think this ought earn at least a small blue dot on the "dot matrix map," but I see California portrayed as uniformly above normal.

I can only assume some sort of NCDC "adjustment" erased the reality of Sacramento's and San Jose's raw data.

I hope this explains why I don't take NCDC data as Gospel. In a better world, (and up to this time a year ago,) I would feel no need to double-check their data. However it is a sad truth that I now do feel compelled to go to Accuweather's "Past Weather Data," and check things out for myself.

The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity at the end of the 20th and at the beginning of the 21st century is no longer socialism," writes Klaus. "It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism."

REPLY: Vaclav Klaus. President of the ONLY EU nation that has it together. The Czech Republic. The man needs to be nominated for the Nobel Prize. But considering who has won the Nobel Prize in recent years, that may be considered an insult.

DE 'JA MOO! The Feeling I've Heard This BS Before!!!!!!

Kipp,
Do you have to use the word "denier"? It has always been used in a pejorative sense, even before the holocaust. This type of name calling does nothing for your point of view.
Thanks,
Mike Bryant

PH, you are wrong about comparing the data sets.

Remember the anomaly is based on averages. The average for trhe 128 year perios will be much different than the averages for the 30 year period. With that information, you cannot compare them at all. It does show how statistics can show pretty much everything. Though you oversimplify your argument as to why the numebers are bunk.

Look carefully and compare the dot maps for Land only: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/jul/map-land-sfc-mntp-200807-pg.gif and the Land/Sea dot map after Smith and Reynold's voodoo magic analysis: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/jul/map-blended-mntp-200807-pg.gif You will notice a lot of blue dots either reduced or magically changing to red. Hmmmm.

UAH temps for August appear to be below normal, so far.

Veets,

The baseline temperature makes no difference when creating relative rankings.

If you take a set of N numbers, and subtract a constant K from each of them, the ordering remains the same regardless of the value of K.

Oiz,

FYI, it is Deja. It is one word. It is French for already. Deja Dit is already said, deja vu already seen.

Veets,

Are the rankings based on ranking the anomalies? It seems so much simpler to just rank the absolute temperatures. That way, the tricky issue of defining the mean of a tim series can be avoided.

Anyway, even if the rankings were based on the absolute temps, UAH's methodology is different from NOAA, it's not a subset.

So, the surface sea and land temperatures are higher?

The satellite data says something entirely different: The overall surface and higher elevation temperatures are cooling. The 2007 overall world tmeperature decrease almost negated a century of supposed manmade gw.

Nice try, but this surface temeprature increase non-sense only tells half the story. The satellite data is the final arbitor. Live with it!

Patrick,

It is impossible for a member of a set to be fifth out of 128, and also be fifteenth out of 30 of a fully contained subset. The highest ranking it could possibly have in the full set would be 15.

NCDC's temperatures are not a subset of UAH, nor are UAH temps a subset of NCDC's temps. They both use different data and different analysis methods, so they not surprisingly each come up with different figures and different rankings. You know that.

And yes, I know your feelings about the accuracy of NCDC versus UAH, so you don't need to rehash them here.

Veets,

PH is right that the baseline period should not affect the rankings ASSUMING that the two analyses are using the same datasets in the first place. As I and cbmclean pointed out, they do not.

I think this is the same ones who had their temp measuring devices by a burn barrel and by a part of an airport where the jet engine exaust was hitting the device.

PH.

They are not relative too each other. The 128 years period is based on a different set of dats than the 30 year time. It makes a huge difference.

The average for the 128 year time is different than the average for the 30 year time. Thus the rankings will be different.

Lets say a football team wins the following amount of games over the past 10 seasons: 6,6,10,2,3,8,4,12,1,1. They won an average of 5.3 games.
Now we add the 10 years prior to that when they dmoinated: 12,12,13,9,11,8,8,12,14,7. We add all 20 years and they have an average now of 7.95.

Looking in to the future we see they will win 8 games in this upcoming season. That is a departure of +.05 from the 20 year average and 2.7 from the 10 year average.

Now lets compare their wins to the other seasons. In the 10 year average, they are tied for their 3rd most successful season. In the 20 year period, they would be tied for 10th best finish.

See how they are different even though the larger time frame includes the smaller. You add more data it changes things.

Lets look at your Constant K, I assume your constant is the period average. Your error would be applying the same constant to the 128 year period and the 30 year period. That is a rather large and simple mistake to make. In the 30 years period K=X, then you have N-K and rank them numerically. In the 128 year period, K=Y, and X does not equal Y. Do you need me to keep going with examples?

Unless you can prove that K's value is the same in both comparisons you are wrong. To do that, you would need to actually define K, show me the forumla to derive K, generically it would be the average of the data sets, right? Do you hoenstly think the data set containing over 4 times more data will be the same?

My point is that the comparison of 128 years and of 30 years is using a different baseline because the baseline used is using different data sets, one has 128 years of data, the other only 30. The source does not matter in what I am saying. In the grand scheme, yes the differing sources matters, but not for the point I am making. I am probably using horrible verbage to explain it.

The 30 year plot uses the 30 year average, and the 128 plot uses 128 year average, am I wrong? PH would be right if the standard used in the 30 year time frame was the same as in the 128 year standard, again, this is assuming the sources are the same.

A big point about UAH, is that it's a global average. Therefore, it makes no sense to compare July to other July's. July should be compared to all other months from 79-88.

A july-july comparison would make sense for NH only.

Denver doesn't have a dot. Are we excused from the debate?