2012 Hottest Year on Record

Why examine only the elephants tail and try to determine how long of a snake it must be.
Examine the entire elephant and you can see its not a snake.
Unless your agenda is to prove big snakes .

 

I am still inclined to use the various records of the past according to their particular strengths. Because they all have weaknesses. Have suggested the periods that look strongest for most of them so no need to repeat.

The coral record of sea level has not shown interesting 'excursions' since the Younger-Dryas ended about 7000 years ago. Of course it would have, if global temperatures had taken big bumps. It's not like heated water can decide not to expand! As I've suggested before, this places some limits on detailed interpretation of ice core stable isotopes over this time scale. Especially as this is the time scale over which ocean circulations change, and the ocean surface is where those isotopes come from. This is all 'in the literature', I wish you'd all look, and I'd completely agree that not all the related topics have been judiciously reviewed (strengths and weaknesses) in forms that the average citizen will appreciate.

So, it is something like choosing the right tool for the job. For the 100 to 150 year time scales, thermometers are hard to beat. Perhaps if the OP has put such a time scale on this thread title, we would not be having this discussion. Again.

But we could run it all the other way. We could posit that there have been large temperature increases in recent millenia. And excuse ourselves for having no mechanism, and excuse that it has not shown up in the most appropriate global records for that time scale. I mean, we could, so let's do.

This would suggest that a new such excursion could happen again, at any time. How large shall it be; 2 oC perhaps? If it comes in this 21st century, then it would come on top of the 1, 2, 3 (or choose your number) that the infrared absorbers will bring by themselves. Talk about a gloomy prediction! Let's not make it after all - at least not w/o a plausible mechanism.

Because 'with mechanism' (y'know, like science) is the way to study metaphorical elephants.

 

BTW, Roy Spencer for one, is inclined to reject the 2012 NOAA top ranking on account of adjustments made to T records. I am sure his objection can be found in detail on the web.

I don't know if BEST will continue their reanalyses of T going forward, but their techniques to remove suspect data from the record are different from NOAA's.

I've probably said this before, but all of the original observations from NCDC 'cooperative observers' is available. In the past, those things cost money; perhaps they still do. But the point is that anybody with sufficient interest ($) could get it all, or a subset of (say) consistently rural stations, and just DIY. Maybe just compare 1934, 1936, and 2012. Whatever. The point is that if there is a T-adjustment hoax, it is entirely uncoverable and correctable. ClimateAudit could do it. YOU could do it.

A bit OT, the NAS/NRC had a meeting in 2011 to consider solar effects on climate. The resulting report can be read online:

The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate: A Workshop Report

 

So elephants must be really big snakes.

 

We measure temperatures to look at the climate This year was the hottest over NA land, since they have been collecting records over 100 years ago.

I'm not sure what this has to do with Snakes and Elephants. We do know ENSO variation has a great deal to do with the record heat, but even a blind man looking at the long term record will see that temperatures have been slowly rising.

 

In WI we say "More warming please !!" Canada is also loving it.

 

Not all of us in Canada are "lovein' it"! (that is a pretty ignorant statement!)

Just a one example, we depend on Ice roads and in 3 of the last 5 winters we have been "melted off the ice over a month early!

Icarus

 

Soft there, Icarus, there are wide swaths of territory where warmer is all to the local good. Where people depend upon ice or permafrost it may not be, can we agree?

 

My broaderpoint is anyone who "lovein'', global warming is ignorant of the (much) broader consequences, my dependence in ice roads not with standing. "lovein" climate change is fundamentally ignornant, (almost to the point of even in jest, as it is such a serious issue)

Icarus

 

If you are driving on ICE roads, you are contributing ghg! You must be part of the problem.

The climate changes. It always has. [sarcasm on]I'm sure like your love of cold and ice roads, some will shake their tiny fist when the sun goes down, and complain that its unfair. Its dark. We need to sacrifice a virgin to appease the sun god not to leave the sky.[sarcasm off].

There are some that are helped by the changes, some are hurt. Its not all bad. Its not all catastrophic. Now we could propose a $1M fee to use ice roads, and it might drop ghg about as significantly as California's AB32. I don't know, but I would say that just being angry about climate change, or doing something no matter how stupid, is not productive.

There are some fairly straight forward things we can do also. I'm in favor of those. But some people are helped by climate change. I can understand why they don't want to be taxed much higher to fight it in a way that won't do any good.

 

Some people were helped by slavery too!

The point is, IMHO, human caused climate Hangs has The very real potential or massive disruptions of human populations within a generation or two. The fact that "some might BR better off" as a result is no argument for not recognizing the problem(s) working toward a solution, as well as understanding that doing nothing, or not doing enough is going to be far more expensive both in treasure and human suffering. To glibly point out that my heat bill is likely to be less as a result, as if that somehow balances the equation, is pretty short sighted, selfish, and IMHO ignorant.

Do I have any or all the solutions? Of course not but I do know that we ought to be doing more than we are as a human civilization, and a calling out ignorance is part of that.

Icarus

 

Wow! Really? Is that your opinion of those making the best of a bad situation. That by not buying all the false promises of politicians its like they are keeping slaves? Please be less vitriolic.

Whether climate change is caused by humans or nature, man should be able to adapt to it. Really we know its a combination of both. The fact that many problems are worse than say the ghg that spiderman releases from his prius, and that more moderate weather for him is not a bad thing, should not be ridiculed.

Absolutely, we need to mitigate both man made and natural climate change. That will require that some move out of harms way. Often this will be less expensive than the alternative. I don't think going to war with China to get them to burn less coal is a very good solution, but if China continues on their current path, ghg will greatly rise in the future.

There are some simple things that I have pointed out that will help america to speed up ghg reduction. These don't even require that people believe ghg are a problem. I would say as far as mitigation though, if you live in a coastal low lying area, I would like goverment flood insurance to get very expenesive and for people to move. In NYC we need a sea wall. For those requireing ice roads, either build other transportation or move. Even if the US and Canada reduced ghg emissions by 80% in 2020, the seas would continue to rise, and the ice will be thin in many future years.

 

First, I wasn't ridiculing Spiderman, but "Big Dude" for the moronic statement that those in WI were "loven'" it!

Second, I see nothing wrong with subjecting such people to "vitriol" when their demonstrated ignorance is of such major proportions

Third, I am in no way "buying into the false promises of politicians". (at least not on this subject!). What I am say is simple; global warming is real, it is human caused (as evidenced but he vast preponderance of scientific opinion on the subject, which is by the way, under a well orchestrated attack from varied moneyed quarters in a well funded "denial attempt"). Further I feel it is therefore very important to call out "denial statements" especially that are not backed up by the slightest "fact" (like those that say Wisconsonites and Canadians love global warming) and do every thing we can with in reason to both reduce our own foot print, and to stop the spread of misinformation on, deliberate or other wise.

Wishing you a nice day,

Icarus

PS, to be clear, I am not perfect. I do too many things that perhaps I ought not to regarding my own carbon foot print. Tht said, I ( and my immediate family ) are way better than the average American family. we drive less using smaller more efficient vehicles, we heat with passive solar and renewables, we have super insulated our house as we could given it's age, we heat our water with solar, and we buy 100% renewable power from our power company. We don't buy "stuff" much, and what we do buy, we make last, we reuse, recycle, are cognizant of packaging etc.

but we do drive, we occasionally fly, eat meat etc!

 

BTW, 2012 in reality is actually the 2nd warmest year in the US .
Hansen has "adjusted" the temp record to make the 1930s cooler than
than they were.

 

Hansen is NASA GISS, this was from NOAA. NCDC did their adjustments and measures independent of NASA other than peer review. You can also look at B.E.S.T. You can see on water temperature NOAA adjusted the 30s hotter. Over land they changed the time thermometers were read, and applied a warming bias to correct the cooling bias. You can read about adjustments here.
Monitoring Global and U.S. Temperatures At NOAA's National Climatic Data Center

BEST, NCDC, and GISS should show the hottest temperatures in the US. I don't know your source for adjustments, but I wager they don't have anyone looking at their methods if they end up with the 30s being hotter in the US for a full year than 2012.

 

Did I hear my name in vain?

Ironically, starting Friday, our temps rose to a whopping 46F with rain! Massive Low coming in from the tropics, allowed to proceed up this way because of the big shift in the Jet Stream. We actually have flood watches out as the water can not seep into the ground (frozen). Pretty darn odd for Jan

 

I went to the BEST website (now magically unblocked for me) and saw that they are up to 2012 July. So it looks like they will continue to examine new T records.

Based on 7 months from 2012, this year is strongly #1 by BEST. Let's not make too much of that until they finish the year. Other global records have put it at 9 or 11. 9 or 11 under weak ENSO- and low solar is not a small thing!

Whether the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation can cool this thing down, and whether that will be misunderstood by folks who want it to, remains to be seen. Personally I favor the next decade being 'not too much warmer', because we continue to increase the IR-absorbing gases. It's our way of balancing short- and long-term costs and benefits.

Hey lookat this! we can burn things!. It's our way. Mojo's elephant very much appears to be in the room. I hope he does more to help you understand it. I have tried...

 

I just asked the author of a new paper in 'Nature Climate Change' to send. From the abstract it is a total buzzkill (if we wait longer to limit CO2, the adaptation impacts and costs will be higher). But y'know, it is based on those pesky global models that suck at ocean thermal dynamics. So, I'm still hoping.

 

The key thing about BEST is that it has very easy to access open data and algorithms, that are in the process of true peer review. Watts is free to modify the adjustment algorithms and see if his changes actually change the trend. The temperatures in 2012 aren't really in dispute, but Watts disputes is the adjustments to past temperatures. Everyone agrees adjustments because of time of recording and changes of stations are necessary. The large difference in temperature gives it statistical significance even if you use different adjustment methods. GISS, NCDC, and BEST all seem to give todays temperatures in the US a record beyond uncertainty in adjustments.

I thought over the US the IR-absorbing gasses were locally decreasing. I could be wrong 2012 was not a global record, 2010 is the record, in a statistical dead heat with some other years.

We, man I mean has been burning coal for more than 5000 years. Finding oil, probably saved the whales from extinction Without coal we would have likely chopped down all the rain forests by now. Those on Easter island, didn't have fossil fuel and killed all their big trees.

If Mojos elephant is nature, well that does not change the record. That is a different discussion and global not US regional temperatures should be used.