NYC may miss 90°F for second time in history

More from the “weather is not climate” department. While our economy cools, so do apparently our cities. Cincinnati has a similar problem, and does Traverse City, and the cool weather doesn’t “play in Peoria“.

Taken by themselves it doesn’t mean much, but it is interesting.

http://newyorkfun.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/central-park-picture.jpg?w=510&h=363

NYC's Central Park

NOUS41 KOKX 240847
PNSOKX
CTZ005>012-NJZ002>006-011-NYZ067>081-251000-

PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NEW YORK NY
444 AM EDT FRI JUL 24 2009

…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 4.7
DEGREES BELOW NORMAL…THIS JULY IS ON TRACK FOR THE 2ND COOLEST
ON RECORD. BELOW AVERAGE TEMPERATURES HAVE OCCURRED ON 21 OUT OF
23 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.

$$

About these ads

117 thoughts on “NYC may miss 90°F for second time in history

  1. NYC, Cincy, Peoria, to Traverse City: That’s a mighty big area to be having such pleasant weather. It almost sounds like they are complaining.
    Meanwhile, parts of the west are actually warm. It’s summer.

  2. While weather may not be Climate, if this had been the second Hottest July in New York it would have noised about as proof of Global Warming. This should get the attention it deserves, a blip on the radar screen as an interesting factoid and no more. But then so should the Warmest or coldest July’s. It is not proof of anything and I hope news Agencies will change their tunes soon.

  3. Lows in the mid-west and east – “3,000 Low Temp Records Set This July!”

    http://www.accuweather.com

    (Left side, Headlines box) good article, check it out.

    But hot early on the west coast, SF bay area, Portland, etc. so the snow (glaciers) of Mt Hood will probably be photographed again showing how little snow (ice) remains compared to 19xx all due to GW…….

    and here in Central FL the Crape Myrtles are finally in full bloom, about 2 months late, all due to GW…… Hmmm, how DO they know what the temperature is Sidney, Australia?

    The total of all weather is ……..

  4. “marek asked: However, at what point does the weather become a climate?”

    by definition – around 30 years – but such is subject to caveats

  5. We froze our weather asses off dining outdoors in Branson Mo. (Las Vegas of the puritanical) Last Fri/Sat nights. Our climate asses remained warm and toasty in Climate Cuckoo Land.

  6. While they chill out and get very wet in the East, on the west coast we are having a beautiful summer . . . next week has predictions for Vancouver in the low 90’s for a few days. To the Beach !!

    Bloody marvelous, although we know the 8 month rainy season is lurking around the corner.

  7. Why is it that RC prohibits responses to these?

    39.robert davies says:
    25 Jul 2009 at 8:38 am
    The text and signatories of Singer’s latest offering, petitioning the American Physical Society for a revised statement on climate change, is here:

    http://www.openletter-globalwarming.info/Site/open_letter.html

    Quoting in part:

    “…measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th-21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.”

    Having reviewed most of those records personally, and having reviewed the analyses of so many sincere and talented scientists, I’m simply at a loss to understand this statement. It’s simply laughable — or would be, were it not so bizarre.

  8. Yes, but globally, this month is a scorcher
    – and the arctic ice is disappearing quickly – nearing 2007 levels….

  9. “Taken by themselves it doesn’t mean much, but it is interesting.”

    Do you really find every piece of news about cold weather interesting? I find pieces like this about as interesting as if you wrote a report every time you found a dead leaf on an otherwise healthy tree.

    REPLY: Then don’t visit this blog. I’ll write what I want when I want. Don’t like it? Then tough noogies. Nobody is forcing you to read it “RW”. My job for 25 years was to report on interesting and odd weather events. The media trumpets warm records, so I’m providing some balance. I’ll continue to do that here despite your whining.- Anthony Watts

  10. Steadfast adherence to the facts that support your beliefs while ignoring those that cast doubt is a sign of either mental illness or religious conviction. It has no place in science.

    This is true no matter which side of the AGW/CO2 debate one chooses.

    During the 80’s and 90’s when warming was correlating well with temperature, it was reasonable to conclude that AGW/CO2 was plausible. It was also plausible that natural variation could explain both CO2 and temperature. Neither hypothesis was established as being correct, since both appeared plausible.

    The PDO flip (with or without solar effects) has provided good evidence that the natural hypothesis is better able to explain what we are experiencing wrt regional, and possibly global, cooling.

    While the AGW/CO2 hypothesis has not been completely overturned (there still remains some parts that have a basis in reality), what has become clear is that the claims of tipping points and catastrophic harm are nothing more than phantasms created by computers with bad input and assumptions.

    Some good people have invested a lot of honest effort into the AGW/CO2 study over the past 20 years. Charlatans have seized a political advantage on the backs of these good people.

    It is now imperative that more honest researchers speak out as a few have done. They need to do so now, before they retire, so it is clear they are willing to risk their livelihoods. They need to do so now, before we go any further down the road to economic ruin we have embarked upon as a society.

    Douglas H. Wood, M.Sc., FGAC, P.Geo., L.Hg.

  11. @Phil – If you look at the temperatures in the Arctic, they are below average for this time of year. (assuming the data is accurate) To me, that suggests, and it has been noted on this site before, that temperature is not the driving factor behind sea ice loss. Wind/Ocean currents seem to be the largest contributor to sea ice loss.

  12. Since the media hypes heat stories so much, this is good balancing with cold stories, shows this ‘warming’ planet still can have quite a few unseasonable cool areas.

    Plus the prospect this year could be a scorcher relative to the recent data could also mean a bigger than usual yearly rise of a certain plant food named CO2 when you look at the near-perfect corralation of the rate CO2 levels rise and temps. for that year, some leaves on our mulberry trees are jumbo-sized again compared to their size a few years ago if I remember right, then yesterday I went to my grandmother’s house and some of the leaves on her large mulberry tree were even bigger.

    Just to note current CO2 levels may have a part in doing that. Like there’s a vine she cut all the way down last year is apparently growing all the way up a pole this year alone to completely cover her bird hotel.

  13. Douglas H. Wood (11:04:47) :While the AGW/CO2 hypothesis has not been completely overturned
    In any chemistry/physics handbook you will find that the volumetric heat capacity of air is 0.001297 J cm-1 K-1, and water is 4.186, so air (atmosphere) can hold heat 3227 times less heat than water, then, how in the world could atmosphere alone, and less a trace gas(CO2) in it, being 3.8 per ten thousand,able to keep warm?
    That simple fact shows you that all this is nonsense.

  14. “I find pieces like this about as interesting as if you wrote a report every time you found a dead leaf on an otherwise healthy tree.” -RW

    I take this as progress since RW is comparing cold to death. the normal routine is to compare life-giving warmth to death…
    Also RW compares the rest of the warm earth to a “healthy tree”… we’re making progress here!!! :)

    BRAVO! RW…. You are coming around…. I have a new respect for you…
    Mike Bryant

  15. Phil (10:37:08) :

    “Yes, but globally, this month is a scorcher”

    Everywhere we look we see either unexceptional warm or else cool temps. But if we join them up we get scorching.

    Magic Math!

    A scorcher by definition!

  16. “Yes, but globally, this month is a scorcher
    – and the arctic ice is disappearing quickly – nearing 2007 levels…”

    hmmm click here:

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

    You seem to equate average earth temps with greater than average Arctic melt, while the Arctic is cooler than average…. What’s wrong with this picture? Please take a reasonable perspective… people are tired of the old alarmism… Get a grip.

  17. July has been cool and wet again this year in Northern Ontario, Canada. Here are some data for Sudbury

    1971-2000 Jun Jul
    Daily Avg °C 16.2 19
    Daily Max °C 22 24.8
    Daily Min °C 10.4 13.3
    Extreme Max °C 35.7 38.3
    Extreme Min °C -1.6 3.8
    Rainfall (mm) 77.7 76.6

    For 2009 Jun Jul
    Daily Avg °C 16.1 16.2
    Daily Max °C 21.6 21.3
    Daily Min °C 10.5 11
    Extreme Max °C 32.2 25.6
    Extreme Min °C 3.4 7.7
    Rainfall (mm) 68.3 74.7

    Oh, and Douglas said, “During the 80’s and 90’s when warming was correlating well with temperature,…” I must ask, when does warming not correlate well with temperature? :)

    John M Reynolds

  18. “Weather is not climate” from East Germany:

    I spend every summer in Germany and today the local paper run a half page article detailing the effects of the rubbish summer in Saxony-Anhalt:

    Wheat harvest average (-7%) but quality of the grain below average
    due to incessant rain

    visitor numbers to the entire outdoor pool industry: down 50%
    customer numbers in beergardens and the like: down 50%

    vintners: expecting harvest to be down 35-40%, as much as 50% for some grapes

    etc

    Of course, as far as I am concerned this is still just weather, even though the effects are felt all over Germany. While I have certainly experienced rubbish summers in Germany before, this one seems to have a lot more rain.

    For us the most striking element is the fact that the temperature keeps jumping about by about ten degrees from one day to the next and has done so for the past few weeks but night time temps are not significantly down from average. When the temperatures are up it still rains, just rains, like in Scotland where it also keeps on raining – as usual.

    P.S. My father, a nature enthusiast and environmentalist and (non-fanatic) AGW believer, has been faithfully recording the temperature and weather conditions in our garden for decades.

    He told me that the birds (several species of whom he has kept arrival logs on for 15+ years) returned late this year and last. But even more striking, the lowest winter temperature he recorded -20 degrees celsius was a 20 – 30 year record. Well, what he said was: “It’s never been this cold before, ever” but I’d be hard put to quantify that properly. (please note: thermometer fixed to building wall, so actual temperature probably lower)

    To RW (10:39:12) :

    Yes, I do actually find this interesting. I also like the hottest, rainiest, driest etc stuff, I just like weather phenomena, climate, science… and, honestly, this is a weather and climate blog – what did you expect?

    Keep them coming, Anthony – I love teasing my Dad with all this cold stuff!

  19. I think it is equally plausible that wind pressure is compacting ice into the Arctic as opposed to sending it out of the Arctic to its death in warmer waters and a steeper sunlight angle. The jet stream patterns were blamed for ice leaving the Arctic. Can they not be blamed for compacting it? I think there is less melt than we think and thicker ice than we think if this wind pattern continues.

  20. Sure, Anthony – you can write about every wiggle on every weather chart if you want. But your subtext – that cold weather, somewhere, at some point, somehow means that global warming is not happening – is just unbearably hackneyed.

    REPLY: This is your cockeyed view, not mine, and I have NEVER EVER said global warming is not happening. The only questions are the cause and the magnitude of the true signal. Don’t put your views in my mouth. I get this same stupid complaint from people like yourself every time I post an article on a record cold event.

    I’ll add that if I was posting on a record high, your confirmation bias would kick in and no complaints would be issued.

    Like I said, if you don’t like what I write about here, and you want alarmism 24/7 this is not the place, so please don’t visit. – Anthony Watts

  21. What a HORRIBLE way to run a catastrophic warming scare!

    “It’s only weather and doesn’t matter because everywhere else is burning up” is neither profound nor even accurate. Of course there are some areas warmer, but the same people excusing cool areas were viciously defending warm areas just a little while ago.

    This is shaping up to be one of the crappiest years for weather out here on the prairies, reminding me in some ways of 1992. I’ve been told the same by friends and co-workers in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, and Halifax, so it’s hardly local.

  22. My job for 25 years was to report on interesting and odd weather events. The media trumpets warm records, so I’m providing some balance. I’ll continue to do that here despite your whining.- Anthony Watts

    So I assume you will have a dedicated post to the highest recorded lower atmospheric temperatures? Now that is interesting so what’s up with that. http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps

    REPLY: Sorry Mary, we had a post on the record high AMSU temps earlier this month, perhaps you missed it. Try the search box. And of course, like every month, UAH’s month end will be reported here. – Anthony

  23. “While the AGW/CO2 hypothesis has not been completely overturned (there still remains some parts that have a basis in reality)”

    Not for much longer.

  24. Eastern Maine is having a similar very cool Summer. June was -3.5F off the “norm” and as of today, July has been running -5.1F with precip on 14 of 24 days. While it looks as though we will modify slightly for the final week, we are definitely in contention to beat out 2000’s -3.9 anomaly. This isn’t the “change” I was looking for.

  25. Definitely cool here in the Upper Midwest/Lakes region. Departures running 3 to as much as 8 degrees below normal.

  26. Sandy (13:00:09) :

    Not for much longer.

    You obviously have not digested the part of my earlier post in which I point out that ignoring facts which disagree with your hypothesis is not science. Please read it again.

  27. About the ice there is the plausible scenario that the wind is compacting it, but what do the latest ice animations look like, is the ice compacting like crazy or is it being blown out of the Arctic?

  28. “Not for much longer.

    You obviously have not digested the part of my earlier post in which I point out that ignoring facts which disagree with your hypothesis is not science. Please read it again.”

    I don’t ignore them, I evaluate them. When every ‘fact’ is supported by arrogance and no data they become suspect. As the warmist ‘facts’ become more and more transparent lies in the light of real world weather it becomes easier to pull apart each separate step of warmist logic. It is a tedious task and would be boring were it not for the billions of silly socialist taxes associated with it.
    If you really were a scientist yourself you would capable of the critical thinking required to understand and dismiss the alarmist hypothesis.

  29. What is of interest to this heat-hating weather-weenie is how often this summer computer-generated predictions of afternoon high temps, even from twelve hours out, have fallen significantly short at EWR (Newark Airport). Again today, the high of 88 predicted only this morning, will, unless there is a sudden jump, fall four degrees short. The reading at 1600 was 82F, down two degrees from 1500.

    This may very well turn out to be the coolest summer in the eastern U.S. since 1992, the ‘Pinitubo summer’. Perhaps this will be known as the ‘Sarychev summer’.

    Bought a new AC, haven’t used it once.

    Keep on rockin’, negative AO!

  30. @Douglas H. Wood
    How refreshing, thank you,,, exactly why we’re all here, isn’t it; Well said~

  31. Old men used to sit around the “cracker barrel,” and talk about the weather.

    Now, Old Men, and Women, go to weather/climate blogs, and “talk about the weather.” I’m an “Old Man,” and I enjoy it.

    However, if the government is going to spend a lot of money on it, it seems like someone should do a little research (other than promoting, or, on the other hand, ridiculing “Climate Models.”)

    The Warmeners exalt the “accuracy” of their models of CO2 forcing. Deniers ridicule the models as, “not, possibly, being correct.

    But, NO ONE does a simple experiment to ascertain the truth. It’s like both sides are afraid to know the truth. Back in the country we’d say, “One’s scared, and the other’s glad of it.”

    This way the fame, and fortune flows to all participants.

    First, you build two greenhouses . . . . .

  32. Mary Hinge (12:56:13) wrote:

    “My job for 25 years was to report on interesting and odd weather events. The media trumpets warm records, so I’m providing some balance. I’ll continue to do that here despite your whining.- Anthony Watts

    So I assume you will have a dedicated post to the highest recorded lower atmospheric temperatures? Now that is interesting so what’s up with that. http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps

    Her link shows Error! so you need to click on this link:

    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

    and then fill in a couple of details to arrive at the graph showing that average surface temperature 23 July was .85F higher than last year. This is only one day out of 365 but the graph does show that average global temperatures have been above last year since mid June and in fact most of the year. So is this heat released from the oceans making its way up or what? Should be lower than last year with a quiet sun?

    REPLY: We covered daily AMSU record high temps earlier this month, perhaps you missed it. – Anthony

  33. I live in the northeast (New Jersey) and Just got my utility bill for the July billing period. The statistics shown on the bill indicate that the average temperature in the utility service area during the last two billing periods (June, July, 2009) were both 5 degrees F cooler than the comparable billing period in 2008. Five degrees seems like a lot, stretched over 60 days, to call it just weather variability – but maybe it just is. We haven’t seen 90 degrees F yet this summer, and that is quite unusual.

  34. Being not too far from NYC, I have noted similar temperatures. In Central PA, we were having a string of nights in the 50’s, though in the past week or two we’ve been in the 60’s. Our days have been in the upper 70’s-lower 80’s. It’s made for nice sleeping weather, but it’s been disaster for many of the crops I grow. Tomatoes won’t ripen, corn isn’t sweet, and fungal diseases are rampant. It’s expected to finally (perhaps) warm up this coming week, which would be very good for business.

  35. Douglas H Wood

    “Some good people have invested a lot of honest effort into the AGW/CO2 study over the past 20 years. Charlatans have seized a political advantage on the backs of these good people. ”

    I like what you say, but I fear it may be idealistic.
    The charlatans are better at the politics than the good guys, and they are intent on stopping the honest from being heard; we have an uphill task.

    Scientists are just human. Most are honest and dedicated to the method; but some have agendas and ideologies, some can be bought, a few are malign.

    This business has been about politics from the start:

    “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
    Christine Stewart
    Canadian Environment Minister
    Calgary Herald
    14 Dec 1998

    “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources”
    Emma Brindal
    Friends of the Earth
    Bali
    2007-12

    “The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now.”
    Louis Proyect
    Columbia University

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
    Maurice Strong
    Head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro

    “Self-evidently, dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking.”
    Mike Hulme
    University of East Anglia
    The Guardian
    2007-03-14

    and also the most stunning hubris:

    “The coming week in The Hague may prove to be one of the most important in the three-and-a-half-billion year history of life on earth.”
    Tony Juniper
    Friends of the Earth
    19 Nov 2000
    (Tony clearly fails to understand that his part in the history of life on Earth is one of breathtaking insignificance)

  36. @Mary Hinge (12:56:13) :

    “[...] the highest recorded lower atmospheric temperatures? Now that is interesting so what’s up with that. http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps.”

    Yup. That is interesting, at least to me. I’m bummed out, though. Your link doesn’t seem to work properly. I got to the site but got only bupkiss for information. WWW? (What Went Wrong?)

  37. Folks,

    right now I am in Northern Territory Gulf country, Borroloola, approx 16S, 132E, and I am shivering my butt off at 0630 hours (1/2 ahour before sunrise). This is supposed to be the near tropics, and it’s a stone throw away from the ocean, but it’s this cold at this time of the year?

    So those of you feeling the cold in the northern hemisphere right now, take heart, we are also feeling down-under.

  38. marek (09:59:12) asked:
    “However, at what point does the weather become a climate?”

    As was stated, normally about 30 years.

    Or in the case of Climate Scientists, whever a new hottest record is set. Then, that one month/year/decade is representative of AGW (or climate change, whichever) and warns us of certain disaster.

    New coolest records, well, that’s just weather…

  39. I live 50 miles from Cincy…..been telling you guys it’s the coolest July in history here in Ky. No 90’s at all this July, that’s a record as well.

  40. “During the 80’s and 90’s when warming was correlating well with temperature”

    equates well with:

    “During the 90’s and 00’s when Al Gore was correlating well with hypocrisy and political vanity”

  41. While the Eastern US is experiencing a lack of summer, and the west currently has one, there is the gnawing lack of records being broken out here.
    2 weeks of high pressure over the 4 corners area and we should be busting the chops of alltime highs. Summer was late here.
    Forecast is for a big cooldown in about a week.
    Very long range is for even more cooling and rains in Sept.
    Hope the crops make it.

  42. Kum Dollison (13:50:54) :

    I do the best experiment money can buy: Talk to folks. All my relatives and inlaws scattered about the country. People have been talking about the weather since time immemorial. Only 2 stories come back: Either summer was late or never made it.

  43. Horticultural up-date from West Sussex, UK.

    Courgettes have failed miserably, flower-end rot and mildew have ruined the crop. Runner beans should be in harvest right now. They have only just begun to flower. Arran Pilot potatoes should have been lifted a month ago. The caulms are still in flower, indicating that the tubers below are still being formed.

    I live in one of the warmest areas of England, Selsey Bill. We are in the lee of the Isle of Wight and enjoy an acknowledged micro-climate of some clemency.

    Doesn’t seem to have helped this year.

  44. Douglas H. Wood :

    “ignoring facts which disagree with your hypothesis is not science.”

    If you’re going to adopt that tone of voice, Douglas, then you are going to have to define your meaning of the word “plausible”. As per your first post “conclude that AGW/CO2 was plausible”. An apparent correlation for 30 years out of the last 4,600,000,000 years, and that makes it “plausible”? No, sorry Douglas, the facts indicate that it has never been plausible (according to my usual understanding of the meaning of the word).

  45. lulo (13:39:51) :

    Here’s a great opinion piece on the same topic in Toronto, Canada

    I spent two weeks in Ontario last summer when the same kind of weather was happening. The temps were in the mid to low 20’s (70 to 80F) last year, but still 5 to 10C cooler than usual for Ontario in July.

    I would crack jokes like “where’s the global warming when you need it”, etc. and folks were clearly a bit uncomfortable.

    I suspect more than a few of them are now a bit less convinced about the truth of AGW now that they have had cool summers in a row, but that’s still a long way from demanding their elected officials drop the matter.

    We’ll see this coming winter how many are wavering, when the Canadian Government commits their economy to oblivion in Denmark.

  46. Here is another way of looking at the temperature trend.
    This is the scary Hadley Graph, from 1997 to the present. Although the Warmists don’t blame US for boiling the world until 1940.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1917/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1917/trend

    There was a definite “universally accepted” uptrend, from 1920 to 1935, but then temperatures leveled out.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1950/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1920/to:1935/trend

    After 1935, temperatures leveled out, FOR 45 YEARS until 1980, all the while man was getting more affluent and the world more populated because of the use of ENERGY from fossil fuels. Goodbye horse and goodbye candles.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1935/to:1980/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1935/to:1980/trend

    Now in 1979 satellites started measuring temperatures and Hadley and his crew began to ponder. Anthony Watts proved how unreliable surface temps are so let’s use high tech Satellites . As you can see from 1980 until 1997 temperatures were PRETTY WELL FLAT! The trend show a slight uptick which is not even large enough to be a trend.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1980/to:1997/plot/uah/from:1980/to:1997/trend

    Now, no doubt about it, 1998 was a hot year. Temperatures jacked right with the very strong El Nino. But overall the trend is still flat.
    Let’s just look at what has happened since 1997, which includes the El Nino.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2009/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2009/trend

    So basically temperatures are FLATO if we use Hadley from 1935-1980 and then satellites from 1980-1997. That is 62 years of man trying his hardest to heat up the planet. A very crazy thing happened in 1998. Some “brains got boiled” by the heat for sure.
    Now there is a little “slight of hand” I’m doing. Because the 1997-Present period was on average warmed than prior period, temps have jumped up and you can see on the left we are .2C above, which I assume is compared to prior years?
    Now one reason the temps surface temps from 1935-1980 are flat or downward a bit, is because our cooks in the kitchen were “cooking the books” a bit, to make the uptrend from 1980 onward look steeper.

  47. Kum Dollison (13:56:01) : A good paper. Funny that some people believe CO2 non sense. If they should know that plants are made of carbohydrates, sugar, cotton…Just imagine, if they are convinced believers they should walk naked, clothes are made of chains of glucose=cotton=CO2.
    This the most stupid conspiracy ever concocted, perhaps based on the fact that a lot of people in the “first and developed world” are by far more ignorants than the third world poor people.

  48. Steve Schapel (15:30:02) :

    . . . you are going to have to define your meaning of the word “plausible”.

    (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

    plau·si·ble
    Pronunciation: \ˈplȯ-zə-bəl\
    Function: adjective

    1 : superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious.
    2 : superficially pleasing or persuasive.
    3 : appearing worthy of belief.

    I’m a little baffled that you seem to take offense.

  49. While I have always enjoyed fall weather, it belongs in the fall. I’m not exactly complaining but I have acclimated to the lower temps. I went out today and felt hot so I checked the temperature and it was 76. That is not hot for July, I am beginning to sound like my aunt from Canada.

  50. H.R. (14:05:00) :
    “[...] the highest recorded lower atmospheric temperatures? Now that is interesting so what’s up with that. http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps.“
    Yup. That is interesting, at least to me. I’m bummed out, though. Your link doesn’t seem to work properly. I got to the site but got only bupkiss for information. WWW? (What Went Wrong?)

    FIIK! try this link H.R.

    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps

    REPLY: We also have the AMSU daily temps as a link on the right hand side of WUWT, see “Tools”….Anthony

  51. “This the most stupid conspiracy ever concocted”

    Just wait, the next big concocted environmental disaster will be a water shortage on a planet that is 70% covered with that stuff.

  52. from Mark Steyn at NRO “The Corner”

    For the last century, we’ve had ever so slight warming trends and ever so slight cooling trends every 30 years or so, and I don’t think either are anything worth collapsing the global economy over.

    Things warmed up a bit in the decades before the late Thirties. Why? I dunno. The Versailles Treaty? The Charleston?

    Then from 1940 to 1970 there was a slight cooling trend. In its wake, Lowell Ponte (who I believe is an expert climatologist and, therefore, should have been heeded) wrote his bestseller, The Cooling: Has the new ice age already begun? Can we survive?

    From 1970 to 1998 there was a slight warming trend, and now there’s a slight cooling trend again. And I’m not fussed about it either way. But here’s how Media Matters corrects me:

    In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, annual global average temperatures have both risen and fallen over the past 11 years, and while there have been some relatively cooler years during that period — including a decline in each of the past three years relative to the year before — climate scientists reject the idea that those temperatures are any indication that global warming is slowing or does not exist.

    Gotcha. Those scientists “reject” the cooling trend of the last decade and think it’s part of the “long-term” warming trend of the previous three decades. Just as, presumably, when he published his book on “the new ice age” in 1976, Lowell Ponte thought the warming trend of the 1970s was part of the “long-term” cooling trend of the previous three decades.

    If you dig that jive, I’m happy for you. Glad you’re a satisfied customer – like the lady who went to see the fortune teller and was told she’d meet a tall dark stranger the following Wednesday, and on Thursday met a blond midget! Amazing! But I like the way Professor Ian Plimer puts it:

    I’m a natural scientist. I’m out there every day, buried up to my neck in sh**, collecting raw data. And that’s why I’m so sceptical of these models, which have nothing to do with science or empiricism but are about torturing the data till it finally confesses. None of them predicted this current period we’re in of global cooling. There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase.

    In the mid-nineties, which climatologist and which model predicted the cooling trend of the turn of the century and the oughts? And, if they didn’t, on what basis do you trust their claims for 2050 or 2100?

  53. “Average temperatures in Illinois are about 6 degrees below normal, he said. If current patterns continue, the summer could be among the five coolest on record.”

    The warmers would call that the 95th warmest on record.

  54. Louis Hissink (14:08:55) :

    Folks,

    right now I am in Northern Territory Gulf country, Borroloola, approx 16S, 132E, and I am shivering my butt off at 0630 hours (1/2 ahour before sunrise). This is supposed to be the near tropics, and it’s a stone throw away from the ocean, but it’s this cold at this time of the year?

    Kind of makes one REALLY, REALLY wonder if this wonder-gas CO2 being at the all-time high concentration of 380 ppm (or whatever) is performing its ‘miracle act’ of keeping LWIR from radiating from the earf’s (no mispelling) surface into space.

    One has GOT to REALLY wonder …
    .
    .
    .

  55. @ Kum Dollison (13:56:01) : A good paper. Funny that some people believe CO2 non sense. If they should know that plants are made of carbohydrates, sugar, cotton…Just imagine, if they are convinced believers they should walk naked, clothes are made of chains of glucose=cotton=CO2.

    Actually I’d expect them to wear polyester. Oh, wait. Did that back in the ’60’s I think it was. But they probably wouldn’t anyway, since poly is made from that evil black stuff.

  56. A hot day = proof of AGW
    Record cold = weather

    Hot weather + Record cold weather = Record hot weather!

  57. When does weather become climate, you say 30 years, is that because we have roughly a bit over 30 years on some of the climate sets? Yet those same climate sets were valuable when they only had 5, 10 , 20, 30 years of data? By my estimation climate should be measured over 100’s of years, otherwise ITS ALL WEATHER. We have aprox 30 year ocean cycles, we have known about them for way longer than the 30 year data sets we have now, yet we seem to have forgotten that in mother nature time 30 years is only half of a sine wave.

    We also used to know that climates were different depending on area. But now seem content to stick up a few thermometers, add them up and do whatever magic we do on them and announce the CLIMATE of the WORLD in one big package with a pretty red bow. To that I cry foul. If our northern hemisphere is losing ice but our southern hemisphere is gaining ice, when you add them together and divide by two, we have more ice in caps now then we did over that weird adverage line they made up from the older data.. So where exactly is the disaster.

    Instead of learning why these things work.. we have just stomped our foot like a two year old and proclaimed, “we dont need no stinkin science. We know how everything works”. In responce Mother nature laughed and the Sun laughed, even the oceans laughed and whispered, “dream on pal”.

  58. Anthony every once in a while I come across a post that makes me want to stand up and cheer. Your response to RW was one of those.

  59. Douglas H Wood: plausible

    I owe you an apology, sir. I normally regard myself as having a good grasp of the English language. But I thought you were saying something different from what you were. You have assisted to expand my vocabulary :-) for which I am grateful, and I agree that “plausible” is an accurate description for the historical AGW arguments.

  60. @ Douglas H. Wood (11:04:47) :

    “Steadfast adherence to the facts that support your beliefs while ignoring those that cast doubt is a sign of either mental illness or religious conviction. It has no place in science.

    This is true no matter which side of the AGW/CO2 debate one chooses.

    During the 80’s and 90’s when warming was correlating well with temperature, it was reasonable to conclude that AGW/CO2 was plausible. It was also plausible that natural variation could explain both CO2 and temperature. Neither hypothesis was established as being correct, since both appeared plausible.”

    There can be no reason to conclude that AGW/CO2 was (or is) plausible, even if warming appeared to be correlating well with temperature in the 1980’s and 1990’s. As I routinely show in my speeches on Global Warming laws in California, the atmospheric CO2 increases regularly, while global temperature increases at times, decreases at times, and remains fairly constant at times. There is zero possibility that global temperatures can be controlled by adjusting atmospheric CO2. The lack of consistent response is the proof. (see second link below)

    My audiences are usually chemical engineers, who are well aware of process control theory and practice. Not a one of them has ever challenged my conclusion that CO2 in the atmosphere has no bearing on global temperatures. These are not timid men and women, but politely but firmly challenge false conclusions. (see first link below)

    This speech was so well-received that I have been invited to make this into a formal paper and present it at the annual meeting of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers to be held in November in Nashville, Tennessee, and several other venues.

    “It is now imperative that more honest researchers speak out as a few have done. They need to do so now, before they retire, so it is clear they are willing to risk their livelihoods. They need to do so now, before we go any further down the road to economic ruin we have embarked upon as a society.”

    I completely agree that more people, including engineers, should make their voices heard and point out the false premises and false conclusions of the AGW proponents. I take action myself in this, not just urging others on from the sidelines.

    Science, by definition, deals with much uncertainty and a few things that are certain. Engineering, in contrast, deals much more with certainty. Engineers know with absolute certainty that CO2 has zero to do with air temperatures, even allowing for thermal absorption in certain narrow ranges of infrared radiation. This concept of CO2 and water vapor thermal absorption is well-known to engineers (and has been for many decades) because it plays a key role in radiative heat transfer calculations in fired furnaces that burn oil or natural gas as fuel. As an aside, engineers who design fired furnaces deal with CO2 and water vapor with very short residence times in the radiative zone, not at all like the very long residence times of atmospheric CO2. The molecules absorb and re-radiate their energy very quickly.

    The proof is, as I wrote just above, that air temperatures do not exhibit a consistent response to increasing CO2 concentrations. That fact, by definition, violates fundamental process control principles. It is no surprise to any in my audiences that the globe is cooling. What causes great dismay is the draconian laws that were passed (see AB 32 in California and some other states) and that may be passed (see Waxman-Markey in the U.S. House, and a similar bill in the U.S. Senate) to punish business and industry in a futile effort to cool the planet by reducing low-cost fossil fuel consumption.

    see http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/speech-to-aiche-on-june-16-2009.html

    and http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/chemical-engineer-takes-on-global.html

    REPLY: Roger check your email please. – Anthony

  61. “What we have here is failure to communicate.” ( The Captain to Luke )

    The real issue for real people is the impact that various upcoming legislation will have on their lives, not whether it’s cooler this year than last or whether CO2 is good or bad. The most well known piece of legislation is HR 2454 commonly known as the “Climate Bill” (although there are over 200 other related bills in work ). According to the EPA, if this becomes law approx. 78 million acres of cropland will be taken out of use and turned into forest by 2050. That is nearly 20 percent of total cropland in the United States. http://www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/common/link.do?symbolicName=/ag/blogs/template1&blogHandle=policy&blogEntryId=8a82c0bc22ad9a120122b23492cd0032&showCommentsOverride=false . That means 78,000,000 fewer acres to grow food on for a lot more people (~ 415million by 2050 in the USA ). This does not include land that may be devoted to growing junk crops for ethanol.

    Nobody gives a rats patootie about CO2 or a couple degrees of temp up or down when they are starving.

  62. On topic — the weather forecast for New York, NY averages near 77. If accurate (and holds for Central Park), the average for the month will rise significantly. Looks like it’ll stay in the top ten though.

  63. Here in the opposite corner of the country we’re having a decidedly average summer so far. Which, in the case of San Diego anyway, it’s about as perfect as it gets. So far the high temp is running 0.2F below average. Several days below average and several above average – in other words, just what you would expect.

    The weirdest weather we’ve had so far this year was back in January when we had usually warm weather – with above average temps for SUMMER in mid-January. Now that was very unusual!

  64. a ps

    Heres some cherry picking at its finest : http://www.knmi.nl/cms/content/10723/hittegolf_en_vervuiling_groot_brittannie_vanuit_de_ruimte

    Translated the first line on google translator :
    During a period of persistent stable summer weather from July 15-19, the temperature rose to record heights in Great Britain.

    Now lets go to the bbc article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5211592.stm
    and

    http://www2.le.ac.uk/ebulletin/news/press-releases/2000-2009/2006/07/nparticle.2006-07-24.4533859192

    Both of whom equate this week long weather event to climate change. So next time someone gets ticky about Anthony posting a weather event, remember we do not come close to the spin these folks are putting on warm weather.

  65. Phil (10:37:08) :

    Might be exaggerating.

    Regardless of that, the earth is in a cooling trend. What you speak of is ‘weather’.

  66. Curiousgeorge (17:06:31) :

    I know what they are going to try to do, and what will happen instead.
    I also know that there are readers of this page who have a say in that decision.
    Don’t let them say I was silent when the decision was being considered to swing the hammer at the kneecaps of the West.

  67. This means nothing, what-so-ever. It’s just the usual trick of banding about the “average” to make a biased point. We all feel comfortable with the vague idea that an ‘average’ represents a sort of general tendency. However, it depends on the data whether the mean or median actually gives you a more accurate reflection of an ‘average’ value. So there.

  68. Actually, my take on:

    “During the 80’s and 90’s when warming was correlating well with temperature”

    is more like:

    During the 80s and 90s when warming alarmists roamed the world unchallenged, while the people who actually know better were attending to actual matters of science and industry and didn’t have time to waste teaching agenda-bearing non-science people the folly of their little hypothesis.

    Really. Seriously.

    On the other hand, the 70s gave us “Chariots of the Gods”, the name of Erich von Daniken will go down in history (for those few who even remember anymore) as a flim-flam artist. Our era will have al-Gore and “An Inconvenient Truth”, a second rate production not NEARLY as entertaining or plausible as Chariots.

  69. crystal paperweight (18:37:35) :

    Data shows the earth is in a cooling trend for years.

  70. Roger Sowell (17:02:15) :

    Excellent post Roger. I’ve had look at your blog too. I think you can make a major contribution to the debate. I especially liked:

    ” ‘Measurable’ means that whatever we are to control, we must be able to somehow measure that, so we know where we started, where we are at any point in time, and when we have reached our desired goal. If we cannot measure it, we cannot control it. This is a fundamental requirement of control theory and is not subject to debate. Period.”

  71. There is a heatwave in Bulgaria right now. Meanwhile western Europe summer is quite crappy. Regardless, it is warmer somewhere and cooler somewhere else. The key point is to figure out why.
    As for weather is not climate, this is the usual mantra of those who would not want a proper meteorological assessment to ruin their crafty, expensive models results. As Leroux wrote, “climate is the sum of weathers” and thus there is no artificial boundary betwwen the two.

  72. I know why Anthony likes these “Weather is not Climate” reports.

    I’ve been reading “Forbidden Knowledge – 101 Things Some People Shouldn’t Know”. Under “How to Gaslight your Wife”:

    Step 1 – Say mean ugly things and make her cry.
    Step 2 – Suggest she seek treatment for her depression.
    etc.

    Anthony’s trying to “gaslight” rw, Mary, Phil, Flanigan, et. al.

    Other “useful” knowledge: How to Rob a Bank, How to Escape from Prison, How to Pass a Lie Detector Test, etc. A humorous and informative book.

  73. Sorry I do not have time to read the entire thread. I offer a hypothesis (tough to do after my second glass of wine this evening):
    — There is a correlation between cooler than normal Atlantic maritime climates and larger than normal Arctic melts that are largely due to warm Atlantic water pushing north into the Arctic Ocean

  74. And here in Windsor, Ont across from Detroit it may well be the coldest recorded July, unless the month ends very warm.

  75. Mary Hinge (et al):
    ” FIIK! try this link H.R.

    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps

    Thank you.

    Anthony:
    “REPLY: We also have the AMSU daily temps as a link on the right hand side of WUWT, see “Tools”….Anthony

    And I’ll be checking it regurlarly. I can actually absorb that graph, thanks to the data pointer! I don’t mean to whine but I have problems reading graphs since a fair proportion of my central vision has been burned out in both eyes. Text is hard enough and most of the maps & graphs are generally beyond my visual abilities.

    The way Mary Hinge threw that out, I just had to take a look and, surprise! Finally! A climate-related graph I can work with.

    It’s worked out to be a good day for me. Thanks, all.

  76. Roger Sowell (17:02:15)

    I’ve been reading more from your blog and the links there. I recommend your blog to everyone here. The following is the clincher for me:

    “There is zero possibility that global temperatures can be controlled by adjusting atmospheric CO2. The lack of consistent response is the proof. “

  77. Douglas H. Wood (11:04:47) :

    . . . While the AGW/CO2 hypothesis has not been completely overturned (there still remains some parts that have a basis in reality). . .

    Forgive my ignorance, but aside from obviously spurious correlations between estimated global temperatures and CO2 concentration (remembering that correlation is not causation), just what parts of the AGW/CO2 hypothesis have any “basis in reality” (by which I assume you mean empirical evidence in favor)?

    /Mr Lynn

  78. @Jimmy Haigh (19:06:58) :

    “Excellent post Roger. I’ve had look at your blog too. I think you can make a major contribution to the debate. I especially liked:

    ” ‘Measurable’ means that whatever we are to control, we must be able to somehow measure that, so we know where we started, where we are at any point in time, and when we have reached our desired goal. If we cannot measure it, we cannot control it. This is a fundamental requirement of control theory and is not subject to debate. Period.” “

    Thank you, Jimmy. As poor as the temperature measurements are (as Anthony’s surfacestations.org work shows), the Controllability requirement is even more devastating to the CO2-causes-global-warming argument.

    I wrote “Controllable means that a change in the manipulated variable [in this case, CO2] has an observable, measurable, and consistent effect on the control variable [in this case, global temperature]. Stated another way, and using an electric kitchen oven as an example, when the power flows to the heating element, the oven temperature increases. Not only does it increase, it always increases, each and every time. This is one point on which CO2 fails as a means to control global temperature.”

    Therefore, as Dr. Latour wrote, making changes to CO2 is doomed to failure if one is hoping to reduce global temperatures.

    There are several thousand chemical engineers in the U.S., and many more thousands around the world. It is likely that 4000 to 5000 from all over the world will attend the annual meeting in Nashville. My hope is that they will all become outspoken and carry the message forward.

    Also, I do not intend to disparage any other science/engineering disciplines by my focus on chemical engineers. Many others are keenly aware of the requirements for process control. In fact, I will be speaking to a general audience comprised of many engineering disciplines in September in Ventura, California.

    Regarding another recent thread on WUWT, on the Apollo moon program, it was fundamental that the rocket and various space capsules must be properly controlled. It would have been idiotic to choose a nonsense variable to control the rocket’s speed and direction. Those guys knew what they were doing, and Dr. Pierre Latour was one of them.

  79. Eyeballing the 10 coolest July chart in Central Park, a majority (60%) were set back in the 1800s.

    Besides the natural oscillations, a reasonable or partial explanation for this is that back then, there was much less of an urban heat island effect.

    Which makes this year’s low numbers all the more interesting…

    CHRIS
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  80. Roger Sowell (20:34:39)

    I think you have it cracked (to use a catalytical metaphor)! Chemical/physical engineers are just the right kind of people to get to the bottom of AGW. The climate, after all, is just a physical process albeit an extremely complex one. Spread the word! ‘Climate science’ is not rocket science! (Those rocket scientists sure did know what they were doing.)

    (I’m a geologist myself. I’ve been anti-AGW right from the start having seen geological evidence of climate change recorded in rocks. It’s what’s called a ‘no brainer’.)

  81. Is it fair to say that weather is the manifestation of climate? If the climate is cooling,then the weather will act in response and vice versa.

  82. There seems to be many climates around the world, regions where there are markedly different climates. it is folly to try to make it a global average. I am in agreement with the poster stated that our short time of recorded temps (about 150 years) is but a speck in the history of the earth. My belief is that we are in a time of cooling. How long it will last is yet to be determined but it will eventually start to warm again. That is the nature of the chaotic environment where climate is concerned. It is time that we begin again to use empirical measurement to build a historical reference understanding that it is not a long moment in history. Predicting trends with any accuracy out beyond 5 days is mostly something to be hoped for. Our dependence on models with many of the “facts” being assumptions is not fact. Until we have a better understanding of just what drives our climate we will not be able to predict future events with any degree of accuracy. I wonder what would be said if we were to enter a Maunder minimum with the resultant drop in temperatures.

    It is time to reopen the books and begin a true study of the worlds regional climate with well sited surface stations and the use of modern up to date satellite measurement systems. The manipulation of the records to attempt to correct for the use of poorly sited measurement stations is useless. Our data collection must become a professional process. The siting of surface stations must be standardized with less than CRn 2 to be unacceptable. What we are currently using with the poor siting is nearly worthless. All data must be open sources and available to all. All methodology must be open and available for replication. Then and only then will we be using science to understand our climate. Much is yet to be learned about our planet. It is up to us to learn it.

    Bill Derryberry

  83. Roger Sowell:

    Like Mr. Haigh I am a geologist, but unlike him I initially trusted my colleagues in the other sciences. It was not until I looked into AGW myself that I realized the depth of the deception.

    More scientists and engineers need to not only hear the truth but to pass it through their own BS filters.

    I wish you well at the Nashville meeting.

  84. I know where New York’s heat is: it’s in Northern Cal/Southern Oregon. Redding/Shasta Lake will get up to 106 this week, with 5 straight days of 100+ weather. I know because I’m going up there on thursday, not looking forward to the heat.

  85. Phil wrote:

    “Yes, but globally, this month is a scorcher
    – and the arctic ice is disappearing quickly – nearing 2007 levels…”

    Mike Bryant replied:

    “You seem to equate average earth temps with greater than average Arctic melt, while the Arctic is cooler than average…. ”

    However, the picture ‘Sea Ice Extent’ does show that the extent of arctic ice is indeed nearing 2007 levels, as Phil wrote.

  86. “Douglas H. Wood :

    “ignoring facts which disagree with your hypothesis is not science.” ”

    Douglas H. Wood HAD you been a true science believer well educated in Theories of Science you would have known that corrected (manipulated) data never ever are FACTS!

    Please look at Theories of Science: Definitions

  87. There was an old Broadway show called “Kiss Me Kate” that included a song called “Too Damn (Darn) Hot”. This was about Baltimore summer weather. Having lived a near 50 year period in the same area, I can tell you that the song is appropriate. Except for this year. We’ve had only 2 days this summer with temperatures of 90 degrees (f). In my youth, almost ALL the days could be described as such.

    This has been an incredibly mild summer as far as high temperatures go.

  88. norah4you (23:50:46)

    The thing is Norah, science is NOT my religion, so belief does not come into my understanding of it.

    Climate science is not my area of study. As an earth scientist there is some overlap, but science is quite specialized beyond the undergrad level. As I mentioned above, we depend upon the honesty of of scientists and of the system to keep them honest.

    What has happened in climate science is that the system has become corrupt and dishonest brokers have used that to create a fear based belief system that now infects the worlds of politics and the media.

  89. Nogw (15:49:08) :

    “This the most stupid conspiracy ever concocted, perhaps based on the fact that a lot of people in the “first and developed world” are by far more ignorants than the third world poor people.”

    As Dick Lindzen said on radio recently:

    “Ordinary people see through this but educated people are very vulnerable.”

    (on WRKO Boston)

  90. Allan M (02:52:28) :

    As Dick Lindzen said on radio recently:

    “Ordinary people see through this but educated people are very vulnerable.”

    One of my quotes of the week.

  91. Phil wrote:

    “Yes, but globally, this month is a scorcher
    – and the arctic ice is disappearing quickly – nearing 2007 levels…”

    Mike Bryant replied:

    “You seem to equate average earth temps with greater than average Arctic melt, while the Arctic is cooler than average…. ”

    However, the picture ‘Sea Ice Extent’ does show that the extent of arctic ice is indeed nearing 2007 levels, as Phil wrote.
    -Jean

    Since the Arctic is cooler than normal, Sea Ice extent is probably more driven by wind, as NASA has stated, than temperatures… You’re following a dead end, my friend…

  92. Douglas H. Wood (22:57:02) :

    “I wish you well at the Nashville meeting.”

    Thank you.

    For any who are interested, below is a link to the presentations on Climate Change Legislation, where I will present my paper. They are giving this cowboy from Texas, now living in California, a microphone and media presentation system, then allowing me to hold forth for 30 minutes on the idiocy in California known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. I’m batting clean-up, and very much looking forward to this. I will also participate in the Panel Discussion immediately following.

    http://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2009/webprogram/Session10396.html

  93. The thing Douglas H. Wood, is that the neither the weather nor the climate has been corrupted! The exact, give or take 0,1 degree Celcius, change was predicted back in 1920’s and is to be read about in a science essay from 1931 written by a Swedish geologist, a Swedish Meterologist and a Swedish Oceanographer!!! But of course it was predicted to have reach today’s levels in 1995 :-)

    The thing Douglas H. Wood, is that my father, died last year, was one of this world’s first persons working with environmental questions (officially from 1954 but partly from 1935/36) and that I participated in survey measuring temperatures in water and air as well as measuring chemical and biologic factors from 1957 to 1971, after that I had moved to Gothenburg I didn’t participate on regular basis but I had access to all information and I still have but now from other persons. Real specialists.

    What we do have, and that’s the only problem but a hugh problem that IF the politicians took that to their heart would cost approximate a quadruple of the some now spent on the so called scholars and their suggested needs of change etc. That problem is pollution in air and water which here and now, in real time not in an imaginary supposed future 50 to 200 years from now, directly cause deaths and damage on male reproductive organs. Not only humans but together with mercury enrichment up the lines from ‘krill’ to Ice Bear causes changes that’s that some now tries to make believe they are due to Climate Change, no matter that the real scientists in this questions, the old ones who had read and experienced more than any of the so called scholars of today, knew of this from 1971 on forward. Chemistry industry was well aware in 1970’s of the effects of many chemical substances passing into rivers, lakes and sea in many differrent ways.

    So please don’t try that attitude of yours towards me. I participated in media and political debates in this type of questions back in mid 70’s and while I am disabled I still can read and use Theories of Science on so called Hypothesis using an unproven assumption as a true fact in order to prove their thesis!

  94. There wont be any possible predictions in close future because of the increase of heat out of contorl. I believe that we will contunie to see such diffrent climate changings in a while

  95. I can tell it has been cooler here in New York this month. It is strange though, because in the winter, we no longer get big snowstorms like we did in the 1970s and 1980s. Seems the summers are getting cooler and the winters are getting warmer.

  96. The 10-day forecast, starting from today (7/27/09) shows that today’s temp has the closest chance of reaching 90 (88 is the predicted high).

    If it doesn’t happen today, it looks like it won’t happen for the remainder of the month (predicted highs are only in mid-80’s).

  97. “I have NEVER EVER said global warming is not happening”

    What a strange claim. So what did you mean, on 2 March this year, when you said “It appears that global cooling recognition may be starting to make headway in the scientific community”? What about on 15 August 2008 when you said “Hadley Climate Center HadAT2 Data shows global cooling”? 20 July 2008: “Shifting of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from its warm mode to cool mode assures global cooling for the next three decades”? 12 July 2008: “Four scientists: Global Warming Out, Global Cooling In”?

    And by the way, if you prefer people not to comment on what you write, then why publish a blog?

    REPLY: For the record. The last 100 years is what I’m referring to. The global temperature trend has been positive for the last 100 years, no dispute there and I never have disputed it. However for the last few years, the trend has not maintained itself, and yes for recent times the trend has shown a cooling. If you want to take that and spin it into “Watts denies global warming” then you’d of course be wrong.

    I’m happy to have real people comment on what I write, in fact I have 150,000 comments on this blog thus far, more than any other, so puhleeze, don’t lecture me about commentary. But you are just another anonymous coward, and RW it is clear what your intent is. – Anthony

  98. Anthony: “However for the last few years, the trend has not maintained itself, and yes for recent times the trend has shown a cooling”. This is utterly untrue. Surely you must know that not every wiggle in the temperature record is a “trend”? You can only talk about a trend if it’s statistically significant. There is no statistically significant cooling trend, and there has not been for several decades. The last decade has been the warmest in the instrumental record, and the rate of warming is increasing. Choose a sensible value of X, and calculate the trend from X-1998, and then X-2008. You’ll find that the latter is larger.

    How am I any more or less anonymous than anyone else? And just what is my intent?

Comments are closed.