It's Getting Hot In Here: 2012 Hottest Year On Record

Tyler Durden's picture




 

2012 was a historic year for extreme weather that included drought, wildfires, hurricanes and storms. But, as NOAA reported yesterday, 2012 marked the warmest year on record for the contiguous United States. The average temperature for 2012 was 55.3°F, 3.2°F above the 20th century average, and 1.0°F above 1998, the previous warmest year. Rainfall was dismal also at 26.57 inches, 2.57 inches below average, making it the 15th driest year on record for the nation. NOAA also adds that the U.S. Climate Extremes Index indicated that 2012 was the second most extreme year on record for the nation, nearly twice the average value and second only to 1998. 2012 saw 11 disasters that reached the $1 billion threshold in losses. Climate Central also confirms that fully two-thirds of the lower 48 states recorded their first-, second- or third-hottest years, and 43 states had one of their top 10 warmest years ever recorded. Globally, 2012 appears to be the eight warmest on record.

 

Hottest Year on Record

 

And one of the driest (least precipitation) on record...

 

With very significant events everywhere...

 

but it's not just the US, the world saw extreme weather everywhere...

 

Source: NOAA and Climate Central

0
Your rating: None
 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 01/09/2013 - 10:26 | 3136084 Fukushima Sam
Fukushima Sam's picture

I'm sure everything is just fine on planet Earth.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 10:33 | 3136128 trav777
trav777's picture

cue up the moonbats in 3...2...1....

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 10:41 | 3136185 Comay Mierda
Comay Mierda's picture

From National Geographic:

“Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

From MIT on Pluto

“the average surface temperature of the nitrogen ice on Pluto has increased slightly less than2 degrees Celsius over the past 14 years.”

Since Pluto is moving further away from the Sun and continuing to warm despite that fact, it indicates that something doesn’t fit into “Solar Constant” dismissal theories.

From Space.com on Jupiter:

“The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe.”

From MIT on Triton:

“At least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming. Percentage-wise, it’s a very large increase,” said Elliot, professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences and director of the Wallace Astrophysical Observatory. The 5 percent increase on the absolute temperature scale from about minus-392 degrees Fahrenheit to about minus-389 degrees Fahrenheit would be like the Earth experiencing a jump of about 22 degrees Fahrenheit.”

So there is Global Warming on at least 4 other bodies in our Solar System that co-insides with the recent warming on Earth. Doesn’t this point strongly towards the Sun or some other Cosmic force as the cause?

On the origin of the runaway global warming theory of CO2 Feedback and Venus (PDF):

“Why is the albedo of Venus important? When the albedo is at 0.80, the Global Warming Theory falls apart. . .

The carbon dioxide levels on Earth have risen from approximately 0.028% to 0.036% in the last few decades. It is a major stretch to compare this with Venus at a 96.500% carbon dioxide level and promote an uncontrollable runaway condition. Earth in its early history, 385 million years ago, had an atmosphere with 10 times the present carbon dioxide levels. Those elevated levels did not produce runaway global warming then, so why should we theorize that it would today?”

Pre-conceived agendas and a scorched earth policy of accusing any critics of complicity with Big Oil or the Republican Party impedes the scientific process. Likening people who do not agree with doomsday Anthropogenic Global Warming theories to Holocaust Deniers does not get us closer to the truth. In Science, when did “Skeptic” become such a bad word?

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change:

“The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That leveling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulfuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.”

Open Letter of Resignation to the IPCC from Chris Landsea:

“I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence:

“But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.”

– MIT Professor Richard Lindzen

 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 10:46 | 3136207 buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

too much truthiness. if it weren't for all the smut in the air earth would be even hotter and they know it.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 10:58 | 3136272 tmosley
tmosley's picture

I'm fairly certain that the globe contains more than the continental US.  What does the temperature for the rest of the world show?

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:04 | 3136301 Flakmeister
Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:10 | 3136340 Vagabond
Vagabond's picture

There is a clear correlation between debt levels and temperature.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:15 | 3136372 yrbmegr
yrbmegr's picture

They may have a common cause.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:38 | 3136505 dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

One large volcanic eruption and people will be begging for global warming while they starve to death due to global crop failures.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:42 | 3136522 yrbmegr
yrbmegr's picture

In that scenario, I would expect the relationiship between debt levels and temperature to break down.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:12 | 3136651 Arthor Bearing
Arthor Bearing's picture

The Earth's climate is too complicated for us to establish clear causation for temperature increases using current technology, but our industry will eventually kill everyone, whether through stripping arable land until there's no food, or through poisoning fresh water and rainfall, or some other unforeseen consequence of our technological society.

I don't think you can fairly disqualify an idea just because liberals are behind it.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:20 | 3136678 laozi
laozi's picture

Of course you can. Remember: only a terrorist would measure temperature and gather data.

Also: scientists look like geeks with their glasses on. More chicks for me. BO-YAH

/sarc

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:37 | 3138028 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Hottest year on record?

C'mon, they say that every year.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:43 | 3138062 Thomas
Thomas's picture

That was very clever. BTW-This may be the scariest heatmap, not the other one.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:21 | 3136681 dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

"I don't think you can fairly disqualify an idea just because liberals are behind it."

You can't... but rest assured they haven't pondered too deeply about it. That is, what's actually causing the problem and what solutions (if any) and sacrifices would be necessary to correct the problem.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:48 | 3136807 SilverDOG
SilverDOG's picture

yrbmegr

 

No trees, same result.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:46 | 3136793 SilverDOG
SilverDOG's picture

yrbmegr,

 

Trees = paper.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:15 | 3136375 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yes, there is a relationship and there is a very good reason why...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:33 | 3136736 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” - Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” - Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:55 | 3136823 Toxicosis
Toxicosis's picture

Concerning your last three quotes, are any of these individuals climate scientists involved with the assessment of scientific journals and their related articles?  Do you perceive that opinions are science especially opinions of non-scientists?  A great book called Idiot America expounds on the war on expertise, by none other than well......idiots.  If everybody thinks their an expert than virtually no-one is.  Flakmeister is asking people to think and analyze for themselves, scoffing and mocking and ludricous assertions did not bring us cars, planes, computers or polymers.  Science did, and people's ability to use and apply science by educating themselves in the facts, might there be a lesson or two for you in there.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:10 | 3136882 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

Global warming is a NWO scam for global control and redistribution of resources.  The U.N. is using the false threat of global warming to assert its power over sovereign nations.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:17 | 3136904 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

Big government and big corporations lie about everything and every subject. Your argument means nothing. Stick to the evidence and the science. Are you saying the UN is the only vested interest here? Big energy can only move presidents and wars.  

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:02 | 3137431 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

Big energy can only move presidents and wars. 

You imply energy companies and presidents are not on the same team. You are still watching the puppets and not the strings.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:18 | 3137855 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

"only" was sarcastic. Let's see peak oil, the wars that result, the effects of burning it and reasons for skewing the evidence and motivations are in the interest of both players. Like debt and the crazy criminal financial system, both players need each other more than ever to keep moving forward. If you think the puppet show does not work in both directions, you're no Jim Henson 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:19 | 3136915 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I suppose you believe that because you are too ignorant to understand the science? Because otherwise you could point to credible evidence to suggest that GW is wrong...  And since you cannot perform the latter we are left with the the conclusion that you are a simplistic fool that that is incapable of grasping the concept and have no credibility on the matter...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:45 | 3137031 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

I've recently given up on thinking these people are simple fools. I'm moving toward the dark side and thinking now they are here specifically to spread propaganda. The level of denial and hysteria is too comical to be anything but a deliberate theatre of the strange.

I'm not entirely sure what I think about that. But I think it's creepy, mostly.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:08 | 3137123 Bob
Bob's picture

Freud posited two basic drives, eros and thanatos.  So much for lovers . . . as the unhappily married women who are the bread and butter of psychotherapy practices so monotomously complain, they are not the guys who make the money and run the show. 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:42 | 3137694 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

ahh, if only those "unhappily married women" would unpack the baggage of their adopted labels, they might find themselves free to choose otherwise. . .

but like the scientists who can only get attention publishing what funding pays for, unhappy + marriage + gender role-playing (works for "men" too) is a booming business to unravel, whether on the psych couch or the lawyer's courts.

so unnecessary, but a feature of the system, mmHmm. . .

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:15 | 3138233 Bob
Bob's picture

How's that make you feel?

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 18:19 | 3138589 SDShack
SDShack's picture

"Hide the decline."

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:20 | 3136919 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

AGW is an emotional issue, not a scientific one. Both sides have their confirmation biases turned up.

How well does AGW, pro and con, correlate with political beliefs?

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:46 | 3137035 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

Climate study is a science.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:56 | 3137073 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

At least 31,487 American scientists disagree with the man made Global warming theory and have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:08 | 3137121 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

And how many of them are climate scientists?

You are easily fooled or a hapless unwitting shill...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:19 | 3137164 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

Maybe you took your social science classes too seriously.  I know you're probably a young smart guy who did well in school.  Those are the hardest to convince because they learned the misinformation too well.  It's hard to admit to themselves that maybe what they learned is wrong.  You'll get over it.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:26 | 3137191 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Sorry, never took a social science class in my life, I preferred heavy lifting...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:03 | 3137437 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

How much can your ego bench?

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:01 | 3138161 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Sorry if you were'nt up to it when you were younger....

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:22 | 3137473 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

are those the same PhDs we read about in that article the other day?

There's quite a few folks with fancy letters after their name. We deal with that in court every day. It really depends on what they do, who pays them and whether they've done anything with the evidence 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:47 | 3137321 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

But not climate predictions.

That is a belief.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:24 | 3137934 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

Climate predictions are statistical mathematics based on climate science. Mathematics is not a science, but it is a useful tool.

Predictions are possibilites. like the possibility that you will end up with lung cancer if you smoke a lot of cigarettes. Maybe you will and maybe you won't. Maybe you'll give up smoking in the off-chance it will save you from dying early and painfully of lung cancer. Lots of people gave up smoking on the probability alone because the likely outcome of cancer was far more horrific than the minimal pleasure of smoking.

Maybe you wouldn't and didn't. Maybe you never smoked.

Nobody cares what you think about it either way. Or what you do. Everyone knows the risks and does what they think is correct for themselves.

That is why climate prediction is important.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 20:36 | 3139043 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

well said.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 22:14 | 3139384 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

It's based on models that have already failed to predict the last fourteen years.

And you want to extend that out to 100 years?

That's incredibly stupid.

 

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 05:27 | 3140057 ForTheWorld
ForTheWorld's picture

The same can be said for economics.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 18:26 | 3138616 SDShack
SDShack's picture

AGW is a money, influence, political power issue. Just read the Climategate Emails that exposed all the fraud in the AGW fanaticsm and you will see the believers are nothing more than religious zealots clinging to their "scientific" religion that cannot be proven with any repeatable Scientific Method. What's even more ridiculous is that these same so called "scientists" that believe in AGW also believe in evolution, yet cannot seem to understand how that same evolution that only results in higher level life, is somehow threatened by the very higher order life (humans) that evolution created. Their circular logic is even a greater affront to any scientific method that they choose to either ignore or falsify.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 19:01 | 3138730 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

That is some pretty tortured reasoning...

PS As for Climategate, that dog don't hunt anymore.... (not that it ever did)

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:05 | 3137454 silverserfer
silverserfer's picture

the excess heat given off by the overworked printing presses is clearly the cause

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:28 | 3136443 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Thanks.

From the first link, I took in the maximum amount of data available from GISTEMP, from what I assume is 1880 to what I assume is 2012 (not marked very well on the chart).  What I see is an increase of ~0.9 degrees C from 1880 to present.

Looking from 1990 to present, though it shows an upward sloping trend, the start and end temperature is only different by about 0.1 degrees, though the number from 1990 is at the top of a peak, while 2012 (?) is at the bottom of a trough.

Very interesting is the trend since 1970.  There seems to be a clear change that happens right there.  Of course, the time period right around 1970 sets off alarms for anyone who is knowledgeable about the history of gold as money.  Something strange seems to be going on there.

Do you have any similar data sets on CO2 emissions?  Did those also spike around that time?

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:50 | 3136563 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

In ~1970, we started cut back on emitting S02 a powerful aerosol....

Don't be a lazy prick, you can google atmospheric c02 concentrations yourself... You do claim to  understand the most rudimentary basics of research, don't you?

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:51 | 3137052 squib
squib's picture

He will go do some DD (he does it for a living)...and then he'll want to compare with what you found. Settle down now flakky-poo.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!