25 replies to this topic

[maineman]

Warmest June on Record, Climate Scientists Say
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS



Filed at 5:06 p.m. ET
http://www.nytimes.c...nyt/Science.xml

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Last month was the warmest June on record, extending months of record-setting heat.

Worldwide, the average temperature in June was 61.1 degrees Fahrenheit (16.2 Celsius), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday. That was 1.22 degrees F (0.68 C) warmer than average for June.

This year has had the warmest average temperature for January-June on record -- 57.5 F (12.2 C).

Peru, the central and eastern regions of the United States, and eastern and western Asia were warmer than usual last month. Scandinavia, southern China and the northwestern United States were all cooler than normal.

NOAA also said that Arctic sea ice covered 4.2 million square miles (10.9 million square kilometers). This is the lowest June coverage since records began in 1979 and 10.6 percent below the 1979-2000 average. It is the 19th consecutive June with below average sea ice.

[OEXCHAOS]

The problem is that we know that the "climate scientists" are working with bad data that artificially adjusts old temperatures down and due to siting and data "smearing" issues, artificially shows higher temperatures currently.


Additionally, and more to the point, the Antarctic is showing more ice than ever.



Up in the Arctic, it sure doesn't seem like it's particularly warm, either.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/...meant80n.uk.php

This is inconsistent with global warming as asserted. The rational conclusion is that there are problems with the temperature record and that many of the conclusions based upon such are erroneous.


Mark

Warmest June on Record, Climate Scientists Say
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS



Filed at 5:06 p.m. ET
http://www.nytimes.c...nyt/Science.xml

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Last month was the warmest June on record, extending months of record-setting heat.

Worldwide, the average temperature in June was 61.1 degrees Fahrenheit (16.2 Celsius), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday. That was 1.22 degrees F (0.68 C) warmer than average for June.

This year has had the warmest average temperature for January-June on record -- 57.5 F (12.2 C).

Peru, the central and eastern regions of the United States, and eastern and western Asia were warmer than usual last month. Scandinavia, southern China and the northwestern United States were all cooler than normal.

NOAA also said that Arctic sea ice covered 4.2 million square miles (10.9 million square kilometers). This is the lowest June coverage since records began in 1979 and 10.6 percent below the 1979-2000 average. It is the 19th consecutive June with below average sea ice.

[maineman]

Seriously, How do I learn to discard NOAA data and trust your Boulder, CO data and your Artic data. How does one know if one of them is true and the other is false? What makes you trust or "believe" in one and not the other?

[OEXCHAOS]

MM, Two questions: Do you think this is arbitrary? Do you do ANY evaluation of the primary research on these matters? Land temperature record has HUGE problems. This is well documented in peer review literature. 80-90% of the temperature recording stations are non-compliant with NOAA's own standards! That's one way you learn to not trust an organization's conclusions when they claim record temperatures. The other way is to examine what has been done with the temperature database that they do have. Are you aware that you almost never see reference to the raw data (when it still exists), only "adjusted" and "homogenized" data? The NOAA claims of records in THIS context are not to be blindly accepted at face value. This is not to say that NOAA is totally unreliable, but there's a hint of an agenda there and enough real problems to make their conclusions regarding record temperatures unreliable at best. Meanwhile, if you have any problems with NSIDC or DMI, I'd like to hear about them. I've not heard any criticism of either that calls their data collection methods or their scientific approach into question. They both seem to be unbiased, warm or cold, and they are both very transparent. Bear in mind, I watch this stuff daily, and go to the NSIDC and the Danish site with some regularity, just to see what they're showing. This isn't cherry picking nor me regurgitating cherry picked data.

[maineman]

Well once again you dismiss me and talk down to me which is why I seldom post here anymore. You continue to have an agenda about anything I say or write. Your response is dripping with snootiness. That said, my question did not imply that NOAA was better and Boulder was worse. I simply asked how does the average guy reading an article from AP posted in the NY TImes, no less, know if the data presented is real? I assume you wrote to the Associated Press telling them that their article was false? That the data is erroneous? Thanks for your work in keeping the world free from fake climate data.

[OEXCHAOS]

One last bit.

Neither UAH nor RSS (satellite temperature measurement) agree with the record June.

http://www.woodfortr...t/uah/from:1998

You can look at the raw data from this site too.

This another reason why I have a problem with NOAA, it doesn't jibe with more reliable data sets.

Note, we were pretty darned warm this spring globally, though I think that was mostly El Nino related. If I'm right, we should cool hard over the next several months (globally, I predict hot and humid here in Cincinnati).

[OEXCHAOS]

Well once again you dismiss me and talk down to me which is why I seldom post here anymore. You continue to have an agenda about anything I say or write. Your response is dripping with snootiness. That said, my question did not imply that NOAA was better and Boulder was worse. I simply asked how does the average guy reading an article from AP posted in the NY TImes, no less, know if the data presented is real? I assume you wrote to the Associated Press telling them that their article was false? That the data is erroneous? Thanks for your work in keeping the world free from fake climate data.

I sure did a lot of work for you to be called "dismissive" (first, I moved your post from FF where it did not belong, to here. then I stripped out a bunch of code that you inadvertently pasted, in order to make your post readable, then I dig up credible sources to call the NOAA data and conclusions into question.). I sensed a snide remark implying that NOAA is credible but NSIDC or the DMI are not, and the vaguest hint that I might not be referencing credible data. If there was an edge to my post, that was why. The last comment above is consistent with that assessment. Forgive me if I'm wrong.

I did not feel like you were taking it seriously, too. If you had, you might have looked a bit deeper into the issues and the data problems before you responded, OR, asked me more pointed questions and let me give you what I've got (though I assume you do not believe me to be an honest or credible actor on this point). It seemed like a calculated, glib response, intended to cast doubt upon my critique/discount of the NOAA headline (btw, I find the NOAA to be incredibly self important given the quality of some of their work).

In any case, to clearly answer your question, neither you, nor anyone should rely upon the AP or NYT for reliable climate research. AP is not credible on anything and the NYT is generally unquestioning of any liberal "cause celebe", "climate change" being just one. Research the original data sources and the various critiques and explanations. Do they resonate? Do they make sense?

I particularly like to read comments in science blog posts that are critical of this stuff. A lot of insights are available there, often from folks actively involved in building the data sets. It pays to learn about who's building the data sets and how independent they and the data are.

You can ask me, too. I'll tell you why I like some data sets over others and you can double check them yourself to see if I'm off or missing something important.

[Rogerdodger]

I guess a lot of us Okies are skeptics because nearly ALL of our record high June temperatures were pre WWII, in 1911 and the "dust bowl" mid 1930's.
ALL record highs took place in the 1900's and only 3 records since the 1980's!:
LINK

Edited by Rogerdodger, 16 July 2010 - 08:29 AM.

[Rogerdodger]

NOAA: EARTH TEMPS 'HOTTEST ON RECORD'...

Meteorologist disputes: Weather stations placed in warmer urban areas...
June was cooler than average across Scandinavia, southeastern China, and the northwestern USA, according to NOAA's report.

Marc Morano, a global-warming skeptic who edits the Climate Depot website, says the government "is playing the climate fear card by hyping predictions and cherry-picking data."
Joe D'Aleo, a meteorologist who co-founded The Weather Channel, disagrees, too. He says oceans are entering a cooling cycle that will lower temperatures.
He says too many of the weather stations NOAA uses are in warmer urban areas.

"The only reliable data set right now is satellite," D'Aleo says.
He says NASA satellite data shows the average temperature in June was 0.43 degrees higher than normal. NOAA says it was 1.22 degrees higher.

Edited by Rogerdodger, 17 July 2010 - 11:47 AM.

[Rogerdodger]

I guess a more accurate title to this thread might be: Warmest June on Record is disputed by Climate Scientists.