But seriously, it would seem there is a technical reason for the discrepancy. I’ve seen many ideas around the web,.

Satellite measurements of the Lower Troposphere (what is being compared to surface record) is 8km deep to surface. Surface temps are just above the ground and SSTs. They’re measuring two different depths entirely, so the LT lag might have some influence.

GISS interpolates to include the poles – the whole globe. Hadley doesn’t. I don’t know about NCDC. UAH includes polar data, which are a bit buggered up by reading over the ice. This interference with spectral readings. RSS don’t do that (I think). They measure from ~82.5 north to ~70 south.

UAH has a large and persistent bump in their annual cycle – around June. This suggests a problem with algorithms rather than satellkite problems. We all know UAH has had massive adjustments in the past.

Neither the satellite nor the surface records are without problems. I think we can discount conspiracy theories and start thinking about technical reasons.

… Unusually cool July for Central Park…

For some perspective… here are the top ten coolest julys on record
since 1869 for Central Park in New York city:

coolest
avg. Temp. Year
70.7 1888
71.9 1884
72.1 1914
72.3 2000/1871
72.4 1891
72.6 1895
72.8 1902/1869
72.9 1956
73.1 1890
73.2 2001

Due to the unusually cool conditions thus far in July… here are
some interesting facts to note…

With an average daily temperature of 71.6… currently running 4.6
degrees below normal… this July is on track for the 2nd coolest
on record. Below average temperatures have occurred on 19 out of
21 days… with the other two days being normal. There have been
zero above normal days.

Central Park has only reached 85 degrees once this month… on the
17th… and has not yet reached 90 degrees this Summer. If this
continues through the end of the month… it will only be the
second time since 1869 that 90 degrees was not reached in June or
July. The only other time this occurred was 1996.

I believe this technique is how the warmists have managed to overawe non-scientists skeptics in politics and the media–with a barrage to canned “rebuttals of skeptical arguments.” The rebuttals to the rebuttals require deep involvement in the issue, so a skeptical scientist or two, or someone like Morano (sp?) should be present. Or Browner should consent to an eight-hour debate with such a skeptic, with the taped results made available online for senators to see.

The Sun has gone back to blank after having had just one sunspot group that caused otherwise rational people to go off their heads…

Here’s the magnetogram of the Sun showing precisely nothing that presages any sunspot formation:

As a comparison, here is the sun image from the Extreme ultraviolet Imaging Telescope at 304 ångstroms for today and near solar maximum in 2000 by way of comparison

Now its easy to see how quiet the Sun really is at the moment. The prominences are weak, the coronal holes are very small, the corona (the solar atmosphere) shrunken.

All of this can be seen to be normal behaviour for the Sun, except that this hiatus between Solar Cycle 23 finally winding down and the next cycle is unprecedented in nearly a hundred years. (By the way, the overuse of “unprecedented” by climate alarmists has me wincing at using it as a cliché)

Eventually the solar cycle must return. The question is whether solar scientists gain insight into the behaviour of the Sun by understanding why their models failed (see below). The result can only be better science.

http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/2009/07/17/this-quiet-sun/

“I do not know which baseline is used here, but it doesn´t look as NOAA SST “all red” anomaly at all:”

they say “raw data from: the United States’ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).”

..and it looks qutie different:

http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/SeasonalClimateOutlook/SeaSurfaceTemperature/index.html

I don’t know, if NOAA averages are ok, even if we neglect their usual warming bias, but their graphic is obviously wrong, it doesn’t match their own averages, doesn’t match above graphic or the graphic from the australian land mass (which uses the same reference period), and all NOAA temperatures appear to be elevated by about the same amount.

Flanagan (07:49:52) :

uruderra: they are in the Vosges, not in the Alps and it’s raining, not snowing.

Yeah, It was in The Vosges, but it was snowing. I was with my brother watching the TV and both of us made the same comment about the rain turning into snow when the riders were passing the summit.

Here is a link where they cite the snow at yesterday’s stage:

http://tour-de-france.velonews.com/article/95383/cavendish-relegated-for-dangerous-sprint

Yesterday, after battling through the cold and snow to Colmar to regain the green jersey, Hushovd roared at Peter Velits (Milram) for pipping him at the line.

The sciences are now like Russia after Glastnost: Everybody can see a massive disaster ahead, but nobody wants to say it out loud. We are in that moment of shocked silence just before the bare-naked emperor becomes a target of universal laughter and ridicule. Well, this emperor is buck naked, just like the fairy tale.

As I’ve talked with scientific colleagues in private, they are quietly nodding, yes, yes, of course it’s all BS. Pure model-driven fantasy. Really lousy, deceptive, and fraudulent selection of the data. A gigantic slap in the face for NASA. A thousand greedy grant swingers all over the world. The media chasing scare stories, and fake “scientists” chasing the media. They fed each other lie after lie after lie. It was a very profitable partnership.
…
…the media are full of phony superstitions and the worst kind of pseudo-science. If this is the best of times, it is also the worst of times — with a fetid plague of fraud whipped up by the likes of Al Gore, who helped to put fanatics like James Hansen into power. Hansen is not a scientist. He is a zealot who uses math models to push his personal crusade.
…
As Professor Fred Singer and others have shown, none of the climate models can “retrodict” the solid data of the past. How could any decent scientist therefore claim to predict global temps in the distant future? Global warming was always a flaming fraud, and at some level a lot of scientists knew it. They just kept their heads down — to their everlasting shame.

Everybody outside the climate game just assumed the frauds must be telling the truth. All that modeling seemed to be somebody’s specialty, and you don’t arrogantly invade somebody’s specialty, do you? So the mounting fraud went unpunished for years and years, while politicians like Al Gore made sure the money went to feed the fraud.
…
My question is, what shall we do with the science frauds once everybody gets it? The rules are very clear. Science organizations and universities have strict regulations against fraud. Proven liars are fired, and if they have stolen money by deception, they should be held legally responsible to pay it back or go to jail.

Bernie Madoff is a small operator compared to James Hansen. Madoff just got 150 years. Hansen is still ranting against the plain evidence.

There are honest mistakes in science. On the frontiers of science everything looks vague and debatable for a while. But you don’t drop your standards so low that any con artist can get away with fraud. That’s what’s happened in climate modeling. It is therefore crucial to re-establish the credibility of science. That means firing the guilty, and if necessary, prosecuting them.

We’ll know that the sciences are on the road to health again when the biggest crooks are exposed and fired. Don’t expect it soon. But honest scientists should speak out, as many of them are beginning to do. Climate modeling has become a rubble-strewn disaster area, and historically, tainted fields are simply choked off and allowed to lie fallow for a generation or so before the first green shoots can grow again. Choke off the money, and the climate game will wither. All that accumulated expertise can be put to do something useful — like predicting the stock market or trying to beat the house in Vegas.

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2009/07/don-miss-this-piece-by-james-lewis.html

In the mean time read on the web:

AGW/Climate Change, the World’s first cyberspace war.

And:

Common Sense is not so common (Voltaire)

First July 17 in 53 years to reach no higher than Friday’s 70 degrees
Hudson Bay still filled with ice…!!!
By Tom Skilling
on July 17, 2009 10:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
What a summer! Many Chicago area residents are just shaking their heads — some pleased by the lack of heat, others disappointed at the failure of hot weather to gain a foothold here. Extremely rare mid-summer lake-effect rains were pouring down on sections of La Porte and Berrien Counties in Indiana and Michigan Friday evening — just the latest meteorological twist in a summer of topsy-turvy weather across the region.
July has slipped to the coolest to date here in 42 years — its 68.7 degree average temperature running nearly 5 degrees behind the long-term (138-year) average. Friday’s 70-degree high was the first time in 53 years a July 17 temperature failed to rise above 70 — you’d have to travel back to a 64-degree high 85 years ago to find a July 17 that was cooler. In Rockford, Friday’s 67-degree high broke the record for the date, becoming the coolest July 17 high on the books. The reading was Rockford’s fourth record-low daytime maximum to fall since June 30.

July’s average Chicago highs rank among the two lowest in 50 years at O’Hare
The average high for July’s first 17 days has been 77.5 degrees — the second coolest in the 50 years of O’Hare Airport weather records dating back to 1959. Only 1967′s 76.2-degree tally has been cooler.

http://weblogs.wgntv.com/chicago-weather/tom-skilling-blog//

Apparently they have the same data disease James Hansen has:

For example, the Capital city of Ndjamena: June 15th was relatively chilly, but it’s average temp is inflated by 10F, a new high of 111F is also recorded (review the hourly data). June 14th, June 16th are also inflated.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/FTTJ/2009/6/15/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

In contrast, during the hotter part of the month June 1-8 the temperature recordings and averages at least match to a reasonable degree and seem to only be inflated by 1 to 2F.

The rest of the country has such poor temperature data it is really difficult to tell, with data being only taken in the morning, or afternoon, skipped, etc. however I can’t see the 8F increase when someone takes the time to record consistently. I think a +8F heat wave should be easy to spot. Does anyone know where the raw NOAA data comes from for the country of Chad?

REPLY: see the front page of WUWT for the latest paper on surface temp in Africa from Christy – Anthony