Brett,

The headline implies that RSS is the only satellite data. Because RSS has almost no coverage of Antarctica, their numbers are higher than UAH - which may well come in below normal for August.

Reply: sorry if that implies it. PH, I know you follow UAH closely, let me know when the official numbers come in. I will cover it.

Gee. Those temperatures are really on the increase, aren't they? 2008 really looks hotter than 1998 and 1988, right? Mark? Are you there? Hello?

DENY DENY DENY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!!!

A pretty warm month.
However, noticeably colder here in Mid-southern South America than July.
It doesn't say much about climate, tho.

brett-none of these anomoly maps surprise me

aug 2008 i look at maps daily-even though this is not a daily phenomenom it still appeared to be the dominant pattern this summer high pressure over georgia-fla-offshore se coastal states and low pressure sentered over so canada above minnesota-the perfect engine to get gulf air to the arctic

aug 1998 remember the stong el nino well storms every 36 hours well spaced so no major flooding but i believe our 2nd greatest rainfall season ever-have photos i took of funnel cloud in bay area especially a rarity

aut 1988 remember reports of record 100 plus days throughout midwest i was trading commodities then watching trough and ridge patterns to see if drought and heat would break. as i recall things were looking optimistic that the drought and heat would break but then the pattern backed up for three days before continuing eastward and eventually rains came and the soybeans and corn returned to normal prices

thanks for the trip down memory lane brett

reply:thanks for your memories Lou.

ASU raw data shows August was .16 C cooler than August 2008. Not sure what adjustments are applied to those.

Emiliano
How ya doing. Have you read the new IPCC report. This is a Global problem. Not you, but some people always like to give their own weather report in their part of the country, and forget that we are living on a planet. There are a lot of problems on the Earth, like CO2 sequestration, Islands being flooded to extinction. No these Islands are not sinking. The water is rising due to Ice sheets melting, Glaciers melting, and for the first time in human History both passages, at the same time, in the Arctic are open. One has been open, but not both north and south at the same time. I care less about how cold it is in Pennsylvania this year. Look at the Cryosphere web site and see how much Ice has melted in the Arctic since 1980. Indigenous people of the Arctic have already planned to move out in two years. Thousands of scientists are working today on ways to deal with the excess CO2. Things are happening more rapidly then models predicted and that is the only problem with the IPCC. It's too conservative.
Thanks, KIPP

Chris B: Thanks for your comeback on our time lag.
The nature of blogs doesn't help. I'm sure if we actually got to talk, our differences would be small.
You mentioed the other question about water vapor. "Greenhouse gases do not "absorb" heat. They make the atmosphere less transparent to the infrared."
I think it perfectly acceptable to say that CO2 absorbs heat. Infrared radiation that would otherwise pass through an atmosphere goes in one side (here the bottom) and does not come out the top. It has been "absorbed". The energy of the IR is transferred to the CO2 molecules causing them to tumble faster, and this transfers some of the energy formerly in the IR radiation to the other gases in the atmosphere by the collisions. They then move faster. This is commonly called being warmer. If anyone thinks that the transfer of IR energy into the earth's atmosphere will not result in any change, they should explanation as to just what they think happens to that extra energy. Gas molecules absorb long IR and microwave energy when they tumble. CO2, does this. So does methane (CH4) and water vapor (H2O). These gases in the air adsorb IR energy that the earth would otherwise radiate into space. They act like a blanket. To answer your question, water vapor is the perfect absorber of heat. You said 80% of the troposphere is water vapor. Let me ask you. Where do you think water vapor goes. Warmer water vapor. Ask any Englishman this year, if they got any rain?
Thanks, KIPP

Oh No ....can it be? Something other than CO2?

Asia pollution may boost U.S. temperatures

Smog, soot and other particles like the kind often seen hanging over Beijing add to global warming and may raise summer temperatures in the American heartland by three degrees in about 50 years, says a new federal science report released Thursday

And I thought the science was settled!

Sorta makes ya think ...... doesn't it?

Brett,

I will you know about UAH. I do remember a lot about August, 1988 out west.

After getting 5 numbers correct in the Arizona lottery and collecting my $200 prize, I drove to West Texas where I camped in 30 degree weather. A freak cold front came through and left incredibly clear skies. The starlight was bright enough to read a book.

In September I was in Houston when category 5 Hurricane Gilbert was expected to hit. That was the second most intense hurricane on record and though it didn't make a direct hit, spawned about 30 tornadoes in Texas.

Here's some numbers for Jan-Aug for the past 30yrs using RSS global anomalies averaged for these months.Also ENSO during these months.

1979 -0.219* neutral
1980 +0.050 neutral
1981 +0.031* neutral
1982 -0.202* neutral to strong El Nino
1983 +0.059 very strong El Nino to neutral
1984 -0.207* neutral
1985 -0.309* moderate to weak La Nina
1986 -0.165* neutral to weak El Nino
1987 +0.087 moderate to strong El Nino
1988 +0.134 weak El Nino to moderate La Nina
1989 -0.174* strong La Nina to neutral
1990 +0.014* neutral
1991 +0.189 neutral to moderate El Nino
1992 -0.147* strong El Nino to neutral
1993 -0.134* neutral
1994 +0.037* neutral to weak El Nino
1995 +0.191 moderate El Nino to weak La Nina
1996 +0.050 weak La Nina to neutral
1997 +0.044 neutral to very strong El Nino
1998 +0.671 very strong El Nino to mod La Nina
1999 +0.096 moderate La Nina
2000 +0.071 strong La Nina to neutral
2001 +0.224 weak La Nina to neutral
2002 +0.380 neutral to moderate El Nino
2003 +0.321 moderate El Nino to neutral
2004 +0.258 neutral to weak El Nino
2005 +0.389 weak El Nino to neutral
2006 +0.278 neutral to weak El Nino
2007 +0.364 weak El Nino to weak La Nina
2008 +0.042 moderate La Nina to neutral

Reply: Wow! You really did your homework on this one.

You have to go back to 1997 to get a similiar average anomaly. Astericks indicate colder years(Jan-Aug) than this one.
Here's a nice graph of eruptions and their SO2 emissions from 1979-2003.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f2/TOMS_SO2_time_nov03.png/800px-TOMS_SO2_time_nov03.png

Here is why RSS data is too high. They miss almost all of the anomalous cold in Antarctica.
http://climate.uah.edu/august2008.htm

Chances are that UAH will come in below normal for August, and it also becomes clear why UAH is the best data source. They don't have the -90S to -70S latitude hole which RSS suffers from.

Brett, Patrick,

The UAH report for August has been released. The detailed numbers are not yet available as of yet, but should be soon. Do with it what you will.

http://climate.uah.edu/august2008.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7599810.stm

Another small voice in the wilderness. Looks like he just torpedoed his political career.

Check out the AO forecast!
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.shtml

Some of the forecasts have it headed down to -4 over the next two weeks. Hopefully Lewis Pugh will get his kayak out of the ice and back into a warm, safe place in Gordon Brown's office before that hits. He needs to save the Arctic from melting before it goes into the deep freeze.

Patrick: Isn't it time to put your rhetoric in the deep freeze. Over and over and over nothing=nada. KIPP

Brian D: Our Arctic is melting! Indigenous Peoples of the Arctic, are being evacuated,or are leaving within two years.Isn't science fun. The rss data about the SO is interesting. So are Bob Tisdale's graphs, as he has built his reputation on Smith Reynolds data, only to find out that they were wrong. Perhaps he can resurrect his reputation here, whatever his reputation was. I don't care. We stopped sulfur emissions because of acid rain, and there is no volcanic activity effecting our earth of any importance. Global warming is the increase in the average measured temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20Th century, and its projected continuation. The average global air temperature near the Earth's surface increased 0.74 to 0.18 �C 1.33F during the 100 years ending in 2005. The IPCC concludes "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations by an enhanced greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small COOLING EFFECT from 1950 onward. These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.
KIPP

PaulB: Could you please tell us what this means with global warming. The models must be adjusted.
What about our planet. Now emmisions are even more harmful.
KIPP

Travis: Thanks for your input. KIPP

Kipp,after looking at things the last couple of years this looks more like a northern hemisphere phenomenon than global.If it is global the southern hemisphere hasn't seemed to catch on yet.Time will tell.

If RSS has such a sizable gap in coverage, could we stop calling its average a GLOBAL average? Such a simple step would clear up much confusion in the AGW debate.

Kipp,

You said:
Indigenous people of the Arctic have already planned to move out in two years.

That is an absolute crock. Indigenous peoples have been moving from location to location for thousands of years, until recently, since they can now depend on environmentalist theory, news articles and folks like you, who seem to fall for these sorts of antics and force government to fund the move to the next location. They did not need you, or anyone elses help, when they had to re-locate in the last 10,000 years.

Seeing as you place all of your faith in the IPCC, do some homework and find out how many of the latest IPCC's 2,500 scientists do not agree with the IPCC conclusions that mankind is responsible for climate change. You will be totally surprised and may even make you look a little deeper, from a skeptic's point of view, instead of accepting everything at face value, from a few people.

With all the numbers floating around in the climate business, the opportunity exists to spin them anyway one wants. With that said, trends are the key thing to look at, and there has been no warming for more than 10 years and statistically significant cooling since 2001.
This was not predicted by climate models. But don't you worry, things will get really hot after we done with this temporary cooling 'burp.' Right.

Brett her is a topic for you.A new way to measure ice crsytals.down to microns. Scientiste can measure these for the amount of sun coming in and going out. A relevant topic for adressing Global temperatures. A topic that has not yet reached the relevant facts about Climate Change. This is a Global Warming blog. Great unbiased topic.I wish we could talk more about CO2,GHG's.
KIPP
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2008/split/870-1.html?source=rsspnu

Guys,

I just took a look at the UAH anomaly map linked by PH, and the cold anomalies in and around Antarctica are extremly impressive. One thing I would liek to note is the fact that while the warm anomalies over the arctic seem to have been fairly conssitant over the last 20 yeras or so, so they carry greater weight with me than these recent SH anomalies. However, if the arctic continues cool, thenI will be the first to say that something is amiss with our current understanding.

Kipp: You wrote, "So are Bob Tisdale's graphs, as he has built his reputation on Smith Reynolds data, only to find out that they were wrong. Perhaps he can resurrect his reputation here, whatever his reputation was. I don't care."

Your rantings have now degraded to nonsense.

Kipp:PaulB: Could you please tell us what this means with global warming. The models must be adjusted. What about our planet. Now emissions are even more harmful. KIPP

Kipp, again you are very unclear as to your comments.

If pollution affects temps by over 3 degrees in 50 years, what happens to CO2 which has been predicted to increase by less? Does this mean that CO2 is not the main driver of temps changes?

Adjust the models all you want .........when the basic premise is wrong the models will be wrong also!

You seem to believe that CO