Last year ranked in top 10 for heat

Wow .88F!!! I guess we should be alarmed by this figure. It seems that most of the difference is that the night temperatures are slightly warmer. It is well known that much of the difference in the USA can be attributed to the poor siting of the weather stations, and also the removal of many of the rural weather stations.

http://icecap.us/...st_year/

2008 ranked 14th coldest of the thirty years of records for the University of Alabama MSU based lower tropospheric temperatures (right in the middle of the pac) . It was the coldest year since 2000. It continues the downtrend of the last 7 years. This compares with the Hadley Center data which (together with the equally alarmist WMO) claims 2008 will rank 10th warmest since 1850. (159 years!). How can an "average year" in one data base appear be a "top 6%" warmest year in another?

Our ground based weather stations have many, many problems that have not been addressed. We are being played for fools by corrupt people. Many of my friends, colleagues and family have already realized that Anthropogenic Global Warming is not true.

This graph shows how the huge dropout of rural weather stations around, 1990, affected temperatures.

http://icecap.us/...pout.jpg

How can an "average year" in one data base appear be a "top 6%" warmest year in another?

Easily

The databases are of different lengths

In the series 1,2,3 the average is 2 and in 1,1,1,1,2,3 the average is 1.5 making 2 above average.

The fact that the person you quoted asked this question would make me question their intelligence.

Why wouldn't it be the hottest? Too bad for the bloodsuckers...they'd have gotten a sh*%load more grant money if it had been. Poor climacharlatans.

mikeB, university of alabama telemetry shows an increase in temperature http://en.wikiped...urements are you sure you haven't forgotten to wear your tinfoil hat today?

The ranking means that all of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1997.

What a coincidence!! Al Gore has been out of the White House for about the same time.

Ever notice that as his mouth gets bigger, his eyes get squinty-er?

Oh, really?

The links here tend to refute the psy-ops nonsense of "Global Warming"(tm) -
http://peswiki.co..._Cooling

Global warming deniers will have to work much harder to keep ahead of the increasing amount of data that supports the warming hypothesis.

Wow. What an impressive amount of well-researched and peer-reviewed commentary contradicting the concensus of qualified climate scientists. Typically impressive is Modernmystic with "Why wouldn't it be the hottest? Too bad for the bloodsuckers...they'd have gotten a sh*%load more grant money if it had been. Poor climacharlatans."

Must be becoming a bit embarassing to be among the sceptics these days....

Wow. What an impressive amount of well-researched and peer-reviewed commentary contradicting the concensus of qualified climate scientists. Typically impressive is Modernmystic with "Why wouldn't it be the hottest? Too bad for the bloodsuckers...they'd have gotten a sh*%load more grant money if it had been. Poor climacharlatans."

Must be becoming a bit embarassing to be among the sceptics these days....

Pfft...it's your fairy tale bud, that means you get to tell it however you want to...

SteveS,
2008 was in the top ten warmest since 1880, however, it is number fourteen in the thirty years of the satellite record. Something is still not adding up.
Mike

Only Luddites may deny global warming is occuring NOW & has been for a relatively short (human) timescale. Whether this is a natural event in the climatic timescale, produced by organic (including human activity) or a combination of both, GW is a real phenomalogical occurance that requires immediate attention as to its' short term meaning and consequence. No matter the source, the reality of global warming is here & response or remediation of this phenomena should be of utmost importance! Enough fingerpointing.

The idea is to make sure that we continue the perception that its warming until the research revenues decrease. Then we will be in a good position to launch the Global Cooling research as we add back rural weather stations and start publicizing record lows and censoring record highs.

Because we're starting at a perceived record warm planet, the Global Cooling thrust should be even greater than the Global Warming thrust. The temperature will cool off rapidly and we can then shift from CO2 to Ozone discussions to help support the flow of research dollars.

Now we want to actually make sure that we start the shift from Global Warming to Global Cooling during a really cold year. The Global Warming business was a background business until we had that unusually warm start to winter a few years back. Then it really took off and the funds rolled in. So the same goes for Global Cooling - if we time it right, the funds will roll in, and in even greater numbers because we're starting from a perception of warmth, rather than neutral.

One of the challenges when we do Global Cooling will be getting the media alarmed quickly, while at the same time discrediting the nay-sayers. Gore was a key figure and we're likely not going to get that high a level figure for Global Cooling.

However, if we really push Global Warming during the cool years prior to our Global Cooling push, we'll get a lot of credible voices saying: "It's more of a Global Cooling than GW". When the cry is just right, we can shift gears, and have the support of all of the credible scientists.

In the mean time, it is important to plant a few neutral-sounding, conservative-looking players in some key places and to help make them look neutral. Play them up with the press so that they're in the media files for reference. The Obama administration is a good time to do this, but the players must not have any public or recorded record of support for GW. Otherwise, the naysayers will claim flip-flop.

I think we should target the spring of 2010 for our GC launch, but if the spring is warm, let's just wait a year and enforce the GW side even more.

And we really need some support getting China and Russia signed up this time, as well as India. The best play in China and India is impending flooding - it works this way - the mountains will accumulate snow in the GC cycle, but if there happens to be a "normal" year, then we have massive flooding during the melt. Anyone got any ideas for Russia?

A key ploy will have to be the extension of the Arctic ice up to South America - we actually want to be able to claim that we'll lose that shipping route for most of the year, if not because of frozen passage, then at least because of the excess ice that makes navigation too dangerous.

From a food perspective, the US will have to lead the way here - so if we claim that the GC will result in less than half of the harvested food crops, we'll increase the panic level.

Note that once the GC plan is in full swing, we can then start to claim that it is being accelerated by the anti-GW measures that were taken. This will really put a sense of urgency in place.

The GCS (Global Cooling Society) will be the head financial organization and will do marketing. Recommend that 0.5% of research funds go into "hiring" a GCS consultant. That may not seem like much, but given that GC will be perceived bigger than GW, we're likely talking about Billions of $ for marketing and getting those propaganda movies going. Don't worry if 1/2 the GCS funds make it to Hollywood - the exposure will multiply the funds 10-fold.

Headline: Laughingstock Al Gore dumbfounded as he tries to explain record-breaking cold around the U.S.

http://directorbl...ing.html

I predict that the "Church of Global Warming(tm)" will begin to have a lot more apostates.

That explains why Seattle has been having very cold summers. Everywhere else is hogging our heat! GIVE IT BACK!!!

Mikeb

The UAHMSU lower troposphere data is the average temperature of the atmosphere between the surface and about 5km, whilst HADCRUT3 is the average temperature at the surface.

I would be very surprised if they were identical, that said they do have a correlation coefficient of about 0.9

Tragic to see physorg turn into a repository of dumbassery and climate septics. Yes, 95% of you really are too stupid to read graphs correctly. Sorry to burst any grandoise notions.

SteveS,
The satellite record is increasingly diverging cooler than GISS, however according to the GHG theory the lower troposphere should be warmer than the surface. There is still a discrepancy.

The REICH wing never ceases to amaze me.

Mike

With only thirty years data to go on I have no opinion on the divergence of the two datasets, but I think the differences in the measuring criteria explains the different rankings.

The REICH wing never ceases to amaze me.

Actually Nazis were socialists....that's the other wing...

Steve

The author of the GISS software and temperatature adjusting methods, James Hansen, has also recently stated that Obama has four years to save the planet. I'm wondering if you believe this statement. Isn't that statement just a tad bit alarmist? Also wondering why climate is so dependent on political timescales...

"We cannot now afford to put off change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead."

It doesn't look like he has much confidence in Obama getting a second term Mike.

However there is too strong a correlation between GISS, HADCRUT3, NOAASST, UBHMSU, HADSST, and Balloon data for the long term increase in global temperatures to be attributed to a conspiracy. They even show the recent cooling which would surely have been "adjusted" out if there was any dishonesty involved.

That's not to say that there haven't been plenty of articles on this site that reference global warming just to "sex up" their research. "Scientists find new creatures of Australian deep" http://www.physor...966.html is a fine example in my opinion.

I do believe that the world has warmed over the last century, but I'm still open to arguments as to the cause.

SteveS,
You didn't directly answer my question, however I will take that as a "yes" it is a tad alarmist...
I agree that the world has warmed a little over the last century. If my bedroom had also warmed by that same amount, I would undoubtedly sleep through it. The case for catastrophic consequences has not been made.
Perhaps there is no dishonesty involved, still no one has been able to duplicate Hansen's adjustments, which throws up a red flag in my book. Also very recently, Hansen's baby GISS, has begun to diverge from HADCRUT3 also.

For such a warm year, I find it surprising that the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center's review of satellite observations found that sea ice is now at the same level as it was 29 years ago. So... who to believe... a bunch of unreliable temperature stations next to buildings and parking lots, or photographic evidence spread over a large area? http://www.dailyt...id=13834

This is an interesting discussion of GISS and HADCRUT compared to IPCC predictions for the first decade of this century.

http://rankexploi...ce-2001/

NASA, which uses a slightly different method of calculating temperatures, has rated 2008 as the ninth warmest on record.

Ok

NASA, which uses a slightly different method of calculating temperatures

Ok

different method of calculating temperatures

Not ok.

mikeB, university of alabama telemetry shows an increase in temperature http://en.wikiped...urements are you sure you haven't forgotten to wear your tinfoil hat today?

I find it interesting that the graph ends in 2005. This means that you've got no data on 2006 through 2008 and can't see if there have been changes...

I would be very surprised if they were identical, that said they do have a correlation coefficient of about 0.9

A correlation of 0.9 isn't very good when comparing high quality measurements. (They should have a correlation of -1.0 or 1.0.) As a matter of practice, 0.9 is the lower limit of the correlation acceptable in this.

A correlation of 0.9 isn't very good when comparing high quality measurements. (They should have a correlation of -1.0 or 1.0.) As a matter of practice, 0.9 is the lower limit of the correlation acceptable in this.

If it were a case of high quality measurements of that same thing I would agree that the correlation should be closer to 1.0. However this is the correlation between surface temperatures and lower troposphere (0 to 5km)temperatures. To two decimal places the correlation is 0.91.

The differences are more interesting than the similarities; the 1998 high appears to have raised the lower troposphere temperatures more than the surface temperatures and the 2008 cooling lowered the troposphere more than the surface temperatures, but to a lesser degree. It's these differences that explain the discrepancies in ranking.

Steve,
You said, "The differences are more interesting than the similarities; the 1998 high appears to have raised the lower troposphere temperatures more than the surface temperatures and the 2008 cooling lowered the troposphere more than the surface temperatures, but to a lesser degree. It's these differences that explain the discrepancies in ranking."
That is very interesting. I've noted that before and didn't know what to make of it. Looking at it again with the benefit of your insight, it makes me again think that things are happening on this earth to moderate temperatures at the surface.
Also most of the warming is because of slightly higher daily lows, and slightly higher winter temperatures, which again, are moderating effects. In other words, the entire less than one degree rise in the last century has not been added to summer highs.
As you know, more deaths are attributable to cold temperatures than hot, so any slight warming in cooler climes, or in winter temperatures is mostly beneficial. However, given the tiny variances, this still looks like a tempest in a teapot.

I think that the smarter AGW deniers should spend more time publically debunking the crackpot AGW deniers. That way, the debate can be elevated

I think that the smarter AGW deniers should spend more time publically debunking the crackpot AGW deniers. That way, the debate can be elevated

I'd say the same thing about AGW believers, but unfortunately they're all crackpots.