Trend continues with second hottest July on record

Aug 14, 2010 By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID , AP Science Writer

(AP) -- The Earth continues to feel the heat. Last month was the second warmest July on record, and so far 2010 remains on track to be the hottest year.

Worldwide, the in July was 61.6 degrees Fahrenheit (16.5 Celsius), the National Climatic Data Center reported Friday. Only July 1998 was hotter since recordkeeping began more than a century ago.

And the January-July period was the warmest first seven months of any year on record, averaging 58.1 F (14.5 C). In second place was January-July of 1998.

The report comes after a month of worldwide extremes including floods, fires, and feverish heat. Atmospheric scientists have grown increasingly concerned about human-induced global warming in recent years, though political pressures and fierce arguments about have slowed efforts to develop solutions.

The climate center noted that a condition called La Nina developed during July as the waters of the central Pacific Ocean cooled. This is expected to last through the Northern Hemisphere winter 2010-2011.

That could be bad news for the as La Nina years tend to have more hurricanes, and such storms could interfere with the clean up of the oil spilled in that region.

For the United States the center noted that "intense heat either tied, or shattered, July monthly temperature records in several East Coast cities, including Washington, Atlantic City, N.J. and Hartford, Conn."

It was the hottest July on record for Delaware and Rhode Island and every East Coast state from Maine to Florida ranked in its top ten warmest.

Only Montana, Idaho, and Texas had average temperatures that were below-normal for the month.

Rainfall, averaged across the country, was much-above-normal in July, ranking in the 10 ten percent in the 1895-2010 period.

Much of the Plains and Upper Midwest experienced above normal wetness, the climate center noted. "Wisconsin had its second wettest July, while Texas had its fourth, Iowa its fifth and Missouri its eighth" wettest.

Explore further: Strong quake hits east Indonesia; no tsunami threat

More information: www.ncdc.noaa.gov

3.6 /5 (24 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Earth records 7th warmest July on record

Aug 15, 2007

Scientists said the month of July brought record and near-record warmth to the Western United States and was the seventh warmest July in recorded Earth history.

June Earth's hottest ever: US monitors

Jul 15, 2010

Last month was the hottest June ever recorded on Earth, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday, amid global climate warming worries.

Worlds oceans warmest on record this summer

Sep 16, 2009

(AP) -- The world's in hot water. Sea-surface temperatures worldwide have been the hottest on record over the last three months, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Wednesday.

July heat wave almost breaks record

Aug 08, 2006

July was the second hottest month, averaging 77.2 degrees in the 48 contiguous states of United States, just below the record of 77.5 set in 1936.

Analysis: July was cool this year

Aug 03, 2010

According to an analysis by Climate Central, July of 2010 will be remembered as a cool one, even in the northeast corridor.

Recommended for you

Strong quake hits east Indonesia; no tsunami threat

11 hours ago

A strong earthquake struck off the coast of eastern Indonesia on Sunday evening, but there were no immediate reports of injuries or damage, and authorities said there was no threat of a tsunami.

Scientists make strides in tsunami warning since 2004

Dec 19, 2014

The 2004 tsunami led to greater global cooperation and improved techniques for detecting waves that could reach faraway shores, even though scientists still cannot predict when an earthquake will strike.

Trade winds ventilate the tropical oceans

Dec 19, 2014

Long-term observations indicate that the oxygen minimum zones in the tropical oceans have expanded in recent decades. The reason is still unknown. Now scientists at the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research ...

User comments : 54

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Bob_Kob
1.7 / 5 (20) Aug 14, 2010
Humans thrive in warmer climates. Higher temps + co2 makes farm yields go up. Melting of ice makes land habitable where it was just tundra.
stealthc
1.5 / 5 (24) Aug 14, 2010
These global warming nut jobs are starting to really piss me off -- go scam some other people with your AGW and taxes.
marjon
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 14, 2010
Can anyone confirm that cooling is more efficient than heating?
I guess it is the delta T that is important. Cooling 40 deg F requires less energy than warming from 0F to 65F.
Plants grow much easier at 100F than 32F.
Xaero
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 14, 2010
The name of this article plays well with another one:

Analysis: July was cool this year http://www.physor...039.html
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (15) Aug 14, 2010
Interesting comments. Marjon - does this mean you have changed your position from observing that we are moving into a cooling period to now saying that heating is good? This article is just observing that this is a hot year. I have no idea why the comments above are now extolling the virtues of heat instead of attacking the concept of warming and claiming cooling (as they were in other articles). In reality, one year does not make a trend (warming or cooling). However, decades do.
Rev_Blair
Aug 14, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Musashi
5 / 5 (6) Aug 14, 2010
Great place to plug your book, "rev"... *sigh*
Parsec
4.7 / 5 (15) Aug 14, 2010
These global warming nut jobs are starting to really piss me off -- go scam some other people with your AGW and taxes.

I get it... any reports of high temperatures are 'stealth' attempts to promote AGW and increase your taxes. I am actually not surprised that people would get pissed off because a data report doesn't sanctify their ideology, but its a sad thing to see how deep idiocy is embedded in the human condition.
Parsec
4.7 / 5 (13) Aug 14, 2010
The name of this article plays well with another one:

Analysis: July was cool this year http://www.physor...039.html

You do realize that this article was talking about comparing this July to a July in 2050 right? Or do you just read the titles?
marjon
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 14, 2010
Interesting comments. Marjon - does this mean you have changed your position from observing that we are moving into a cooling period to now saying that heating is good? This article is just observing that this is a hot year. I have no idea why the comments above are now extolling the virtues of heat instead of attacking the concept of warming and claiming cooling (as they were in other articles). In reality, one year does not make a trend (warming or cooling). However, decades do.

When did I say we were moving into a cooling period?
I simply don't believe the AGW religion or their plan of forced offerings (cap and tax).
I think it is easier to adapt to a warmer climate than a colder one. Note how many choose to head to warmth when they don't have to stay in a cold place for a job.
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 14, 2010
Marjon: Let me try to get this straight so I don't get confused.

1) Are you agreeing that the earth is warming.

2) Do you believe it is less stressful and less expensive to adapt (or migrate) than to attempt to stop the warming trend?

Since you seem to be in agreement that the climate is warming then, correct me if I am wrong, your comment about: "I think it is easier to adapt to a warmer climate than a colder one." isn't valid since you are agreeing that the climate is not getting colder. Right?

Thanks for your clarification.
marjon
2 / 5 (14) Aug 14, 2010
Marjon: Let me try to get this straight so I don't get confused.

1) Are you agreeing that the earth is warming.

2) Do you believe it is less stressful and less expensive to adapt (or migrate) than to attempt to stop the warming trend?

Since you seem to be in agreement that the climate is warming then, correct me if I am wrong, your comment about: "I think it is easier to adapt to a warmer climate than a colder one." isn't valid since you are agreeing that the climate is not getting colder. Right?

Thanks for your clarification.

Given the fraud of AGWites, I can't be certain climate is warming. Surface temperature data is skewed with no correction for urbanization. Other remote surface data suggests no change.
What is certain is climate changes. Trends and causes are to be determined.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 14, 2010
Marjon:

So, are you saying is that all weather measurements that are used to determine the state of the planet are faked and so uncertain that you cannot tell what the actual physical state of the planet is?

If so, please explain to me how you can be certain that the MWP was hotter than today (which I have seen you express with certainty). From what I can tell you have more certainty in the temperatures 1000 years ago than today. Is that correct?

The "remote data" that you are saying "suggests" no change - is that something you will share so we can understand exactly which sources are to be trusted?
Ronan
2 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2010
Can anyone confirm that cooling is more efficient than heating?
I guess it is the delta T that is important. Cooling 40 deg F requires less energy than warming from 0F to 65F.

I don't quite understand your question; are you asking whether, in general, it's easier to cool something down than to warm it up, or are you talking about the Earth specifically? In the first case...well, the idealized maximum efficiency for heating and cooling are exactly the same. In the second case, depends on what the forcings are, how much temperature change you want, etc. I don't know if, all other things being equal, Earth is more likely to turn into an icebox or a hothouse. It's been both for long periods of its history. Just judging from the termination of the ice ages, though, warming may generally happen faster than cooling does. I don't suppose that's what you were asking about?
Xaero
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 15, 2010
The name of this article plays well with another one:

Analysis: July was cool this year http://www.physor...039.html

You do realize that this article was talking about comparing this July to a July in 2050 right?
This article says, "last month was the second warmest July on record", the previous one says " July of 2010 will be remembered as a cool one, even in the northeast corridor." No number 2050 is mentioned above.
SteveS
4 / 5 (8) Aug 15, 2010
This article says, "last month was the second warmest July on record", the previous one says " July of 2010 will be remembered as a cool one, even in the northeast corridor." No number 2050 is mentioned above.


@Xaero read the linked article

"July 2010 was also well above historical averages in northeast corridor cities, but about the same as temperatures projected for 2050."

Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 15, 2010
Can anyone confirm that cooling is more efficient than heating?
No one except the ignorant or liars.
I guess it is the delta T that is important.
Sometimes. If you ignore how refrigeration works and using magic for the job.
Cooling 40 deg F requires less energy than warming from 0F to 65F.
Yes if you ignore the realities of refrigeration.
Plants grow much easier at 100F than 32F.
Yes and they grow easier at 100F then at 100C also. Did you have a point?

Now to cover the OBVIOUS fallacy in your post.

Heating is always VERY efficient IF you generate the heat from the fuel at the point being heated. That is, burn the gas or whatever at the site instead of generate electricity off site, send electricity to the site and then warm it up.

Cooling is ALWAYS less efficient than heating. In all cases there is waste heat and that heat must be removed as well as the heat you wanted to remove in the first place.

The waste heat is the key.

Ethelred
Geoliebert
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 15, 2010
Global warming doesn't simply mean we mop a little more sweat from our brows. It means disappearance of crops, it means entire populations starving, it means cities going under water, it means floods and heat waves, it means oceans changing drastically. We all can't simply move a few hundred miles north. We can't really adapt to it-it will be too much. For anyone to be against some type of carbon limits is laughable and only indicates how George Bush politicized science and confused everyone of the dangers that we are facing. To have these silly arguments about whether it is happening or not is only damning our children and grandchildren to a life very unlike ours and very seriously difficult. Scientist don't really have a poltical agenda-they are alarmed and reporting what's going on. Ask the US military what they think. I can only refer you to a book called "Climate Wars" by Gwynne Dyer for a picture of what can happen if we do nothing.
marjon
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 15, 2010
"The real 15 hottest years are spread over seven decades. Eight occurred before the chief "greenhouse gas," atmospheric carbon dioxide, began its sharp rise; seven occurred afterwards."
""Many of the stations in China, Indonesia, Brazil and elsewhere are in urban areas (such as Shanghai or Beijing)," observes McIntyre. This can produce hotter temperatures, yet some of the major trackers of the data from these countries, including the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration, make no attempt to adjust for monitor placement errors."
"Yet the GISS did absolutely nothing to alert scientists or the public to the new figures."
http://spectator....-hacks/1
marjon
1 / 5 (9) Aug 15, 2010
From what I can tell you have more certainty in the temperatures 1000 years ago than today. Is that correct?

"Egede is a pioneer and exactly the kind of man Greenland's government, which has launched an ambitious program to develop agriculture on the island, likes to see working the land. Sheep and reindeer farmers have already been grazing their herds in southern Greenland for many years. As part of the new program, cattle will be added to the mix on the island's rocky meadows, part of a new dairy industry officials envision for Greenland. One day in the near future, the island's farmers could even be growing broccoli and Chinese cabbage."
http://www.spiege...,00.html
Explain how the Vikings did this 1000 years ago.
SteveS
5 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2010
Explain how the Vikings did this 1000 years ago.


It was not easy even at the best of times.

http://www.collec...2551.pdf

marjon
1 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2010
Explain how the Vikings did this 1000 years ago.


It was not easy even at the best of times.

http://www.collec...2551.pdf


Why was that 'the best of times' for Greenland?
If the cause of past warming events cannot be determined, what confidence can anyone have the any current warming has been determined?
SteveS
5 / 5 (8) Aug 15, 2010
If the cause of past warming events cannot be determined, what confidence can anyone have the any current warming has been determined?


Instrumental temperature records and global satellite coverage helps.
marjon
1 / 5 (8) Aug 15, 2010
If the cause of past warming events cannot be determined, what confidence can anyone have the any current warming has been determined?


Instrumental temperature records and global satellite coverage helps.

What caused MWP and why is that not the cause today?
SteveS
5 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2010
What caused MWP and why is that not the cause today?


Not a clue, but then again I've never pretended to know everything.

Tell me more about the vikings in greenland.

Explain how the Vikings did this 1000 years ago.


Enlighten me.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (9) Aug 15, 2010
marjon: Let me see if I have this correct. You have no trust in the instrument record for the past 100 years because you believe it has been tampered with and has poor measurement processes resulting in high uncertainty in the global measurements. However, you have no problem at all accepting that the MWP (which was 1000 years ago and is based on anecdotes and data that does not clearly point out how hot it was or if it was local or global) was as warm or warmer than today. Do I have that correct?

Let me point out that multiple data sets using high tech equipment have been getting more accurate and precise every decade for the past 100 years and are showing a trend upward in temperature.

The MWP is based on sparse data sets that do not show a clear global signal (the local signal can be related to ocean currents) and do not show that the temperature was as high or higher without large error bars.

Yet, you see the sparse data as valid and the modern data as tainted. Wow.
marjon
1 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2010

Yet, you see the sparse data as valid and the modern data as tainted.

The motivation for tainting the data is clear and Hansen and others have not demonstrated objectivity.
There are lies, damn lies and statistics.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (10) Aug 16, 2010
marjon:

Just so I am absolutely clear on this, you believe that the data that makes up the global temperature estimates are bogus and that we really do not know what the temperatures or enthalpies are due to falsification of the data.

Based on that, you rely on interpretation of others (to be named) than the government agencies and universities that are tainted by the funding from the UN and Governments.

Can you please tell us where to look for a data set that tells the truth about the global temperatures - or even regional temperatures and enthalpies?

I would sincerely like to know which data interpretations you consider to be acceptable. To start the ball rolling, I trust data from NOAA, Met Office, NASA, and NSIDC. Please share why these organizations are engaged in a conspiracy and which organizations are clean.
marjon
1 / 5 (7) Aug 16, 2010
the data that makes up the global temperature estimates are bogus and that we really do not know what the temperatures or enthalpies are due to falsification of the data.

Data is data. The issue is 1) quality of the data and 2) interpretation of the data, and 3)how the data is used in a computer model.
Quality of data has been subject to some scrutiny lately with corrections required for being too close to buildings or AC exhaust. Sounds rather sloppy.
NASA had to retract a recent claim after such corrections. Sloppy. Since computer models are so uncertain, 'fudge' factors to implicate CO2 were required to fit past observations, but fail to predict future.
I thought science was about questioning everything?
The track record of the Hansen, Mann and others lead to much doubt.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Aug 16, 2010
marjon: You keep telling me why all information from the sources we normally depend on (NASA, NOAA, NSIDC, Met office...) is bad (because they are data fudging lairs). However, you have not told me where to look for good information. Please enlighten me as to where I should be looking (or the other readers should be looking since I do trust the organizations mentioned above) for the more trusted data.
marjon
1 / 5 (7) Aug 16, 2010
marjon: You keep telling me why all information from the sources we normally depend on (NASA, NOAA, NSIDC, Met office...) is bad (because they are data fudging lairs). However, you have not told me where to look for good information. Please enlighten me as to where I should be looking (or the other readers should be looking since I do trust the organizations mentioned above) for the more trusted data.

Good question. Where can good data be found?
SteveS
5 / 5 (7) Aug 16, 2010
Good question. Where can good data be found?


Changes in biological systems?

I don't think birds, flowers, and insects are in on the conspiracy.
SteveS
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2010
Explain how the Vikings did this 1000 years ago.


I'm still waiting to hear you views on this
Ethelred
5 / 5 (7) Aug 16, 2010
Good question. Where can good data be found?


From the sources you call liars without cause or reason.

If YOU have no reliable data than you have no reason to call others liars since you based the claim on a total lack of reliable data.

Often, meaning almost all the time, you are unable to give rational reasons or evidence to support you. In those cases you either disappear, rare, or you evade the question by bringing up irrelevancies or just plain ignore it. For instance my recent question about at what point humans should do something about our expanding population.

Don't you ever notice that this should tell you that you might be wrong?

Do you ever think about it?

At all?

Otto wants to chase you away by trolling you. Me I want to get you to start thinking about those questions you find so hard to deal with that you start evading.

If you have to evade the question than you might just be wrong.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.8 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2010
I don't think birds, flowers, and insects are in on the conspiracy.


Of course they are. The Vast Liberal Conspiracy To Make the World Commie has large numbers of Orbiting Mind Control Lasers. Enough to control even the birds and the bees. We must give all the little creatures that God gave us dominion over Tin Foil Hats thus defeating the VLCTMWC.

I always wear MY Tin Foil Hat when I go outdoors.

Ethelred
marjon
1 / 5 (7) Aug 16, 2010
Me I want to get you to start thinking about those questions you find so hard to deal with that you start evading.

I do think about questions like why is the 'science' so politicized? Why is the 'only' solution to the 'crisis' a tax and more government power?
I might have more respect if the solutions were technical and supported economic growth, like nuclear energy.
When the AGW cheerleader is former senator's son who is making a fortune from a government created market, I ask questions. Why don't you?
marjon
1 / 5 (7) Aug 16, 2010
How many of you will support this consensus?
"Despite the continuing challenging conditions, 30 out of 48 economists … said the economy didn’t need any more fiscal or monetary stimulus."
"Had they heeded Robert Higgs’s advice 18 months ago, “Instead of Stimulus, Do Nothing—Seriously,” the $787 billion wasted by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 could have remained in the private sector, with vastly different outcomes than the negative multiplier of government spending. "

http://www.indepe...p?p=7433
This is what happens in science as well. One individual defies the consensus and is eventually proven to be correct.
That is why I don't trust the AGW 'consensus'.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (6) Aug 17, 2010
I do think about questions like why is the 'science' so politicized?
Evading the questions you don't like again, as usual.

EVERYTHING is politicized because that is what humans do. Now quit evading.
Why is the 'only' solution to the 'crisis' a tax and more government power?
Why is the only solution that you like is to let the people that caused the problem continue being a problem. Laws aren't passed to stop people from doing things they aren't doing or aren't bad. They are passed to stop them from doing things that are reprehensible. Like murder, theft and messing up the air we breath.
I might have more respect if the solutions were technical and supported economic growth, like nuclear energy.
Or you wouldn't because a government was involved.
, I ask questions. Why don't you?
I do ask questions. You evade them exactly you are doing with this post. Bringing up irrelevant things and lying about who is pointing out that Global Warming is real.

more
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Aug 17, 2010
That is why I don't trust the AGW 'consensus'.
Lets see, what was that? More evasion thats what. Economic problems caused by a bunch of businesses that were engaging in wild speculation that had nothing to do with the Global Warming.

What was being discussed just bit ago
If YOU have no reliable data than you have no reason to call others liars since you based the claim on a total lack of reliable data.
Where is the data?
For instance my recent question about at what point humans should do something about our expanding population.
Where is your answer? A real answer and not the usual evasion where you pretend that there is no problem and it will go away by magic anyway.

And yet again -
If you have to evade the question than you might just be wrong.

Ethelred
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2010
Laws aren't passed to stop people from doing things they aren't doing or aren't bad. They are passed to stop them from doing things that are reprehensible. Like murder, theft and messing up the air we breath.

Homosexual marriage is reprehensible? After all, laws are passed to define marriage as one man and one woman.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (6) Aug 17, 2010
Homosexual marriage is reprehensible?


Ask the people passing the laws. That question by the way was another evasion of yours. I already said I didn't really care one way or the other about legalizing same sex marriages.

After all, laws are passed to define marriage as one man and one woman.


No. ONE law was passed in California. Recently. Also some other states have passed similar laws. In many of those states the new laws are controversial and may be overturned in the near future.

So that post was quite typical. Total evasion.

Where is the data?
For instance my recent question about at what point humans should do something about our expanding population.


Where is the answer?

And yet again -
If you have to evade the question than you might just be wrong.

And do really think the questions will go away simply by asking irrelevant questions? AGAIN?

I do notice when you evade. So does everyone else.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Aug 17, 2010
Marjon,

Here's a little question to ask for the next time you call in to Alex Jones' Prison Planet.\

"Since people are notoriously bad at keeping secrets, what is the basis for any conspiracy theory? Nixon couldn't keep a two person operation quiet, what makes you think the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, invested in AGW science can keep secrets better than a paranoid world leader?"

That's the problem with all conspiracy theories marjon, they do not withstand scrutiny. If this was a scam, no one would be able to contain the evidence of scammery.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Aug 17, 2010
That question should take on significant importance to you since you believe that these people are wholly incompetant as well.

marjon
1 / 5 (5) Aug 17, 2010
That question should take on significant importance to you since you believe that these people are wholly incompetant as well.


The little 'secret' is the uncertainty in the climate model and correlation is not causation.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2010
The little 'secret' is the uncertainty in the climate model and correlation is not causation.
Both of which are more significant evidence than your statements of "I don't think it's happening, so it isn't happening." Eye witness testimony is the lowest form of evidence.
NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Aug 17, 2010
25 of the 50 US State Maximum Temperature records were set in the 1930's.

That was the hottest decade ever.

Only by continually adjusting old records downwards has the myth of "hottest ever xxxx" in recent times been created.

http://wattsupwit...ial-one/
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2010
25 of the 50 US State Maximum Temperature records were set in the 1930's.
Source please.

Your watts source only speaks to New Zealand, and erroneously at that.
yyz
5 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2010
"Your watts source only speaks to New Zealand, and erroneously at that."

Watt else would you expect? It's 'Watts Up With That', about as useless as Conservapedia for factual info and references on climate change.

Nartoon
1 / 5 (1) Aug 21, 2010
There are 4 major temperature tracking entities, of the four 3 agree that 2010 isn't much different than normal, only GISS (NOAA, Hansen) come in higher, and much higher actually.

Next you'll try to tell me that the wildfires and high temperatures in Russia are caused by global warming/climate change; when even NOAA says it's not!
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2010
Nartoon: I know I am going to regret this, but I have to bite. Which other 3 temperature tracking entities can you identify that say that 2010 isn't much different from normal? I am more than happy to be educated. Thanks in advance.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2010
Marjon: I asked you 4 days ago what sources of data we should be trusting. You have not answered.

Nartoon: I asked you a similar question above yesterday. Which entities are the 3 others that say 2010 is a normal year?

It seems like both of you are making your usual unsubstantiated claims. Did you just pull these opinions out of your @$$? Can you even substantiate what you have claimed? If not, please withdraw your comments as anyone caught making fraudulent claims is supposed to do.

My perspective is that every data set shows approximately the same trends. There are billions of dollars and thousands of researchers trying to make the measurements and predictions better. Your hollow unsubstantiated comments should be discounted by the casual reader so they are not confused by propaganda and they should stick with the generally accepted data that shows the earth is warming and this is a hot year so far.
marjon
not rated yet Aug 22, 2010
What should be trusted? Good question.
" No online photographic database existed of the USHCN stations, and despite repeated requests from Dr. Robert A. Peilke Senior at CIRES the project has not been undertaken. Given the lack of movement on the part of NOAA and NCDC, Dr. Peilke also made requests of state climatologists to perform photographic site surveys. A couple responded, such as Roger Taylor in Oregon, and Dev Nyogi in Indiana, but many cited "costs" of such work to thier meager budgets as a reason not to perform surveys.

Given such a massive failure of bureaucracy to perform something so simple as taking some photographs and making some measurements and notes of a few to a few dozen weather stations in each state, it seemed that a grass roots network of volunteers could easily accomplish this task."
http://surfacesta...bout.htm
Maybe after these volunteers finish, some sites may be trusted.
http://surfacesta...ites.htm
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2010
marjon: Thank you for clarifying your point of view. What I understand from your observations is that based on a few surface stations that may be reading incorrectly (even though they may have been adjusted for position) the entire record of measurements for the earth (including satellites, ocean buoys, thousands of surface stations, ships traversing the oceans, aircraft, weather balloons, radar, sounding rockets...) is uncertain enough that no trends can be observed.

That is very interesting since you have, in other posts suggested that the Earth is cooling. You have also pointed us at Watts pages to show his interpretation of the temperature data. Please let me know if the data are too uncertain or if you are certain we are cooling and that the MWP (based on sparse proxy data) was hotter than today (as you have stated before). I just want to know if you believe we can't say anything about the data or if you can only say that Watt is the only person whose data can be trusted.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (1) Aug 24, 2010
Nartoon: You said: "There are 4 major temperature tracking entities, of the four 3 agree that 2010 isn't much different than normal, only GISS (NOAA, Hansen) come in higher, and much higher actually."

I asked you to please tell who the 3 entities that are showing that 2010 temperature is not much different from normal.

I am still waiting for an answer. That was days ago and I assume you have been out researching your answer. If not, then I have to assume you were just pulling the answer out of some orifice (which shall not be named) and you were just trying to bluff - as usual.

Please be courteous enough to understand that the readers of these blogs like to have actual facts presented to them instead of some lie you cooked up or heard on FOX "news." And also understand that when it looks like you are blowing smoke those of us with science background will make sure the casual reader knows you are blowing smoke.

I am still waiting for the 3 data sources you trust.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Aug 24, 2010
I am still waiting for the 3 data sources you trust.


Apparently he only trusts his ass. And maybe Fox anti-news.

Ethelred

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.