This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
It's Getting Hot In Here: 2012 Hottest Year On Record
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
»
- 17422 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
It's not about money, it's about consolidating power. Money is the conduit. The higher order drug is the ability to ration freedom. That is the agenda behind the green agenda and the reason why the "argument" about climate change/global warming is nothing but a ruse.
Yes, yes and yes - certainly. Except I would add this imprtant point, in the first instance, it was and it is the systematic undermining and denial of any contrary real physical scientific observation, and for that reason alone, it is completely beyond the pale, and an outrade against all of earth science studies. The political-finance-socialising-propaganda control mechanism came along after they tried to pull the wool over geoscience's eyes.
That was never going to work and it sure hasn't.
I don't think anyone (any state, any leader, any government) has installed any new taxes or created any significant regulatory burdens due to climate change predictions. Not a single one anywhere in the world.
The pattern of failure in this regard is utterly astonishing.
I believe carbon taxes have been implemented in some juristictions.
But my point is that all the proposals are statist and are being pushed for that reason alone. More power to the state.
Earth weather conditions vary a lot. Right now it's horrific LOWS in China and horrific HIGHS in Australia.
Ah yes, now someone is getting the picture.
Stick with "horrific" and you've just about got it summed up.
One of the interesting things that is overlooked about temperature measurement over time is where the temperature USED to be measured, versus where it is measured today. Or, the environment of where it is measured from years ago versus the environment of where it is measured today. Locations for "official" measurement have changed and change frequently. As cities have grown, and the heat island effect and microclimates have become established, the major urban areas are so removed from the climate of even ten years ago, that correlated historic temperature measurement has become a steaming pile of bullshit.
When you take the measurement from a grassy area of airport infield to an airport parking lot, or triple the amount of taxiway and ramp pavement surrounding the temperature measurement on an airport infield, you have bullshit. Many airports are the "official measurement" locations. When you move the temperature measurement, there is no asterix, simply a new official measurement ditifully recorded for bullshit charts and stats. There is no continuity, only the wink and nod of all involved to disregard the scientific method. Because, shut up.
So, bullshit weather smoke and mirrors and general NOAA fuckery. It's in the best of hands.
All of the above is simple nonsense.
Today, it's about 10degrees F warmer than normal for my neck of the woods and has been for about the last 10 days. Forecast for next 5 days calls for more of the same.
Last winter was similarly warmer than the historical norm.
The year before that had about 3 weeks of average to below average cold temps. The rest of that winter has above average temps.
I make no claims about this. I do hope the state of the art of climate science may be able to provide a well founded explanation for the phenomena here reported and cogent recommendations for any action or forbearance from action that would alleviate preventable adverse future effects.
That is one of the benefits of a scientific approach.
Do posters agree?
"That is one of the benefits of a scientific approach."
Not really. Climate science isn't going to be able to say much if anything about goings on in your neck of the woods.
And climate science does not formulate policy recommendations. We have governments for that.
The only benefit of the scientific approach is to provide a testable, unbiased assessment of the physical world, including changes in global atmospheric conditions among others. What anyone makes of that assessment or does with it is entirely outside the scope of science.
Thus you start to see why we are truly and resolutely fucked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEo3PBaVha8&feature=youtu.be
They Should Tell Youhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xcm9qsVaf0o&feature=youtu.be
+1 for the suspicious observers links
On climate change ...these comments were sent to me two days ago. They were recently posted on a UK weather forum by a very recently retired Met Officer in the UK Met Office ... ... ...
"I used to love the institution of the Met Office and their once oh so British calm staid approach. Now they have become a propaganda machine for AGW... The staff themselves are, and used to be the best, but political officers moved in with strategic appointments made and there is a party line to be adhered to."
...and...
"Any staff who raise doubts in internal bulletin boards etc are stamped on pretty quickly. Internal seminars ensure that the right "message" gets across and staff are encouraged to promulgate said message in schools and other outlets."
Background: The current bossman at the UK Met Office was parachuted into place by Tony Blair when he was Prime Minister. (Blair also secretly fully funded the setting up and running of the UN IPCC section for some while with taxpayers money). The Met bossman was tasked to bring together all the global warming evidence to push the AGW agenda. That's why he got into bed with so-called climatologists at the UK East Anglia University and they produced all the discredited AGW charts from data provided by the Met Office etc. These people are overwhelmingly Lefties and car-haters who want us all to get back on buses/bicycles. Blair wanted some new "politics of fear" policies to hit people with to justify more control and more taxes. The venal Gordon Brown took over from Blair 2006 and peddled the same garbage, describing AGW non-believers as "flat earthers".
Politics. Ugly business. Of course this has nothing whatever to do with the work of legitimate climate scientists, almost none of whom work in the field of meterology, that being just weather and uninteresting.
"Of course this has nothing whatever to do with the work of legitimate climate scientists"
It has everything to do with their work. Virtually every climate scientist and other scientists in that sphere rely on State funding for their jobs and their scientific projects. That is the major reason why they sold out lock stock and barrel to the political agenda on anthropogenic global warming (now deviously renamed to climate change when AGW failed). No support = no funding.
It really is that simple. The other reason is that that discipline is stuffed full of Lefties and bicycle-riding hug-a-tree environmentalists (at least it is in the UK and I'd guess elsewhere too). The chief propaganda climate scientist at East Anglia University is a paid up member of Friends of The Earth; a well known Lefty pressure group.
There are reports in the public domain that tell of scientists who disagreed with the "required findings" of the IPCC having their input altered, left out, deleted or being pushed out of their jobs or funding being cut.
This whole farce has been one of the greatest cons perped onto populations by slimeball politicians. I speak as someone who welcomes all efforts to clean up our living environment and to get ourselves off fossil fuels in favour of new, clean, cheap energies.
Ironically, Obama promised in his presidential campaign of 2008 to get America off oil. Since he was elected, he has done very little about that and is now supporting fracking.
Who comes up with such silly random stuff? Seriously.
My coments above are well evidenced....there's been a tonnage of stuff published about the role of climatologists/scientists in AGW over the years.
Whatever your view is about the need to reduce human pollution, AGW was always another socialist scam, originally advocated by the ex-British PM Tony Blair and propagated by gravytrainers at the UN-IPCC. The great sadness is that it has undermined efforts to develop new energies, get ourselves off fossil fuels, genuinely clean up our environment and take mitigation measures against climate change. IOW: it's backfired, but has - and still is - costing taxpayers $billions in phony new taxes. It has given the "greens" (who are simply unripe reds) an importance in policy-making they are not entitled to.
There was a time many years ago when the Zerohedge audience was a bit more refined. Then Alex Jones and a few other wingnuts started linking to this site, and now this is a haven for climate change and peak oil denialism.
http://guymcpherson.com/2013/01/climate-change-summary-and-update/
"The climate situation is much worse than I’ve led you to believe, and is accelerating far more rapidly than accounted for by models. Ice sheet loss continues to increase at both poles, and warming of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is twice the earlier scientific estimate. Arctic ice at all-time low, half that of 1980, and the Arctic lost enough sea ice to cover Canada and Alaska in 2012 alone. In short,summer ice in the Arctic is nearly gone. Furthermore, the Arctic could well be free of ice by summer 2015, an event that last occurred some three million years ago, before the genus Homo walked the planet. In a turn surprising only to mainstream climate scientists, Greenland ice is melting rapidly.
Ocean acidification associated with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is proceeding at an unprecedented rate and could trigger mass extinction by itself. Already, half the Great Barrier Reef has died during the last three decades. And ocean acidification is hardly the only threat on the climate-change front. As one little-discussed example, atmospheric oxygen levels are dropping to levels considered dangerous for humans.
An increasing number of scientists agree that warming of 4 to 6 C causes a dead planet. And, they go on to say, we’ll be there by 2060. The ultra-conservative International Energy Agency, on the other hand, concludes that, “coal will nearly overtake oil as the dominant energy source by 2017 … without a major shift away from coal, average global temperatures could rise by 6 degrees Celsius by 2050, leading to devastating climate change.”
LOL You complete dumbshit!
I live on the great barrier reef, it's right here bud, it's all here. It's been here all my life. I've come and gone and come back - same. It is in virtually pristine condition. The Australian Institute of Marine Science's Long-Term Monitoring Project has been visiting about 52 reefs up an down the length of the great barrier reef since about 1990, and takes extensive systematic video transect footage at every reef that they visit, then spend months identifying and counting coral species present, and percent coral cover, at all of those sites. It's a mammoth survey and undertaking, and happens every year.
Guess what? The AIMS annual monitoring reports all consistently show the Great Barrier Reef is in rude-health. I know as I've actually read several of them cover to cover, and even been shown the raw data.
But here you are posting utterly a-scientific bogus lying crap and telling us that its 30% dead!
Ha! You're a fucking ridiculous clown, your just spreading disinformation and rumors dressed-up as a science summary. Fuck off!
Australian Institute of Marine Science's Long-Term Monitoring Project
http://www.aims.gov.au/docs/research/monitoring/monitoring.html
So you know more than the scientists who have been diving the reef and measuring it for the last thirty years?
"Katharina Fabricius, a coral reef ecologist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science andstudy co-author, told LiveScience that she has been diving and working on the reef since 1988 — and has watched the decline. "I hear of the changes anecdotally, but this is the first long-term look at the overall status of the reef. There are still a lot of fish, and you can see giant clams, but not the same color and diversity as in the past."
To get their data, Fabricius and her colleagues surveyed 214 different reefs around the Great Barrier Reef, compiling information from 2,258 surveys to determine the rate of decline between 1985 and 2012."
Standing on the beach enjoying the sunset is the only real science. Everything else is voodoo.
Absolute horseshit! I personally have closely known several people who worked on that project for years, the data is recorded in the annual long-term monitoring reports, and it is very clear on the fact that the great barrier reef has not NET degraded at all in the period of those detailed systematic studies. You are propagating hyperbolic bullshit and talking errant nonsense.
For you to claim it is "30% dead already" is straight-up greenish-propaganda lying horseshit of the worst kind.
That's all it is, bitch.
There are several instances in the monitoring data where reefs were hit by cat 3 and cat 4 cyclones and the reef was smashed to bits and the coral-cover percent dramatically plunged to very low levels, and very poor condition. Guess what, when they came back to those same reef every year, after only 4 years, not only had the reef recovered, it now had the highest diversity, most intense colors and by far the most lush and most coral-cover of all the reefs within the ENTIRE long-term reef survey data set!
As I remember Pandora Reef was a particularly good example of this phenomenal rate of coral regeneration, recovery and regrowth, during the early 1990s after a severe cyclone passed over it, and this is the time when it was first realized, from actual observations, just how incredibly quickly the reef could repair itself from almost complete destruction.
No one even realized a coral reef could recover so amazingly quickly until this was observed and discovered in the field with real-world systematic observations, by that monitoring program.
That's what really happens, bitch. It acts just like the rain forest does if hit by a Cat 4, the jungle is stripped bare of all canopy and branches, the core log survives, but come back in five years, and you can barely detect that the canopy was completely gone just 5 years prior! I've seen that happen several times, not just that, but several times in the very same location!
And surprise surprise - WE NOW KNOW THE GREAT BARRIER REEF DOES EXACTLY THE SAME THING - and does it just as fast!
Well how about that. And the same thing occured with the 2002 mass-coral bleaching event! So for some dumb-arse to say the reef is "30% already dead" is the height of utter stupidiy, ignorance and a total lack of understanding of the actual environment of the great barrier reef, or of the real world observations of science, and of natural processes.
So piss-off with your uninformed, non-observationally consistent, ignorant lies and nonsense 'links' to brainless errant greenish-propaganda sites.
You can scream all the oppressive language you have in your arsenal. Smart people can read the papers:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5857/1737.short
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5910/116.short
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/45/17442.short
Plenty more where that came from
you're out of your avatar.
You contribute noting but a dopey opinions and quips.
You're right, Australia is having "summer[s] with no heat"
and that's why no one connected with these reef studies are concerned right? Cause there's no risk, no concern?
http://marinesciencetoday.com/2012/09/27/the-great-barrier-reef-is-changing/
yup, that's the stuff
and guess what, the climate changes too!
EGAD!
-1
Davey's quips are very often insightful. I don't always agree with him, but for me he brings texture and perspective that some of us ranters lose from time to time. (He also has one of the best avatars, just below Sudden Debt of course)
Do you have the foggiest notion of the rate global temperatures would need to rise by 4-6 degrees C by 2060?
Even Met O has had to adjust their models because the predictions for the last 20+ years have been so dismal, and by their own admission global temperatures will be flat out to 2017.
The rest of your post is the same nonsense we've been hearing for 25 years.
Ahem...
Please understand what the fuck you are talking about before opening your mouth...
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022
Care to provide a link to the Met O or will you admit that you just make shit up on the fly?
A 4 degrees C increase mid-century is not at all out of reach. If the world manages to come out of its current economic stuper I'd say +4C would be a reasonable expectation.
every time they remeasure and analyze things are accelerating and worse than they predicted before. Everytime. Hard to believe it huh with a rapidly growing population and a rapidly growing number of folks burning fossil fuels.
People bitch about the model outputs. It's turning out those are being shown consistently down-playing the trends, which are tending toward the worse case scenarios. I think the IPCC mentioned the Arctiv being ice-free in summers sometime in the middle of this century, but recent analysis suggests that could happen as so as 2015.
two years from now. Ice-free at the pole.
Day-um
Global warming does not exist. The tooth fairy, easter bunny and santa told me so.
Thats far too subtle for this crowd....
Wait. Should I up-arrow on sarcasm or down-arrow him for believing in the Easter Bunny?
I get so confused.
There is a strong correlation to North Atlantic OHC and global temperatures. Global temperatures are not going up, they will go down. By the end of 2013, only the boneheaded useful idiots will still believe the unSkeptical Science morons slight of hand. And no, the IPCC predictions were not correct and no amount of hiding the pea under the cup will help.
North Atlantic OHC
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/inodc_heat700_-80-0E_20-70N_n.png
Mark Serreze, "expert" at NSIDC said the Bering Sea freeze-up in 2010 was just a fluke. It is now 3 years running with more record early and extent ice in that region. The Bering Strait is important to Arctic ice melt as it receives 1/3 of the heat through the Strait.
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is firmly negative most likely for the next 2-3 decades (on average(, so say bye bye to Alaska burning to crisp. Oh darn, another Warmology FAIL>
North Pacific OHC is cooling rapidly
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/inodc_heat700_-90-100E_20-65N_n.png
data available here: http://climexp.knmi.nl/start.cgi?id=someone@somewhere
Now for the Arctic doomsters, there is nothing unusual or outside of natural variation with respect to the Arctic ice for the last few decades. 2012 "record" melt was due to heavy storms breaking up the ice and carrying out to the Atlantic. What it did do is release heat to the surface causing a spike in SST, which is then released to space. In the coming year there will be a steep drop in OHC in the Arctic region.
Arctic 65-90N OHC
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/inodc_heat700_0-360E_65-90N_n.png
Finally, in the entire Arctic region, only the Central Arctic has lower ice extent than previous years for reasons stated above. Virtually all bodies of water surrounding the Arctic froze earlier and are at the highest extent since 2008 (when the records for this instrument began).The Barents Sea is the other exception, east of the the Greenland Sea.
Here are the data charts. The claims of there being "tipping points" are BS.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/%3Cbr/%3E
Bullshit...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html
Nature advocates.
Ha ha! Whistling past the graveyard!
Ice-free in the summer is gonna really put your undies in a bunch , ain't it?
Start measuring the temperature yourself. Don't believe me, don't believe them, collect your own data. Otherwise you're just uninformed and opinionated.
That doesn't count.
Collect your own temperatures and get your results published in a major peer-reviewed journal.
That's the level we're operatiing at. Anything short of that is playing in the sandbox.
I'm not going to correct them, all their failures are tactical victories for me. Be sure that I wouldn't teach these parasites how to tie their own shoes. I didn't declare war on them, I didn't demand they give me anything without compensation, I didn't deceive them, I just got out of their way so they can crash and burn - without me. Do what you want, but if you're looking to these fools for validation, you're going the wrong way.
I am going in the right direction, I am pushing as hard as I can, it is the correct thing to do, and I will do it until I can no longer work up the interest.
Which I keep telling myself, is today.
But I'll probably be back. The minuscule chance of any success is more than worth the vast losses.
Non servium bichez
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/12/new-paper-finds-only-1-weather...
Now can you guess what fraudster James Hansen has done with Arctic data, particularly in Iceland? You mean you didn't know that?
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/hansen-covering-his-tracks...
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/iceland-2.gif?w=640
Fortunately there are those who keep track of what these crooks are doing. I'm sure you're also not aware Hansen deletes Arctic ocean data and extrapolates inflated land data out to 1200km.
Wow.... Goddard better publish this analysis before someone else gets his Nobel Prize....
The GISS data reported for Iceland was severaly adjusted with no justification. Goddard archived it before it was mutilated by Hansen; there are several other references other than Goddard. The Iceland Met bureau has stated they did not authorize any such adjustments.
Maybe Hansen should publish his reasons for cooling the past.
I keep telling people, get it into a respected peer-review journal and you'll have a lucrative new carreer in speaking engagements.
I keep telling them, and they just keep not doing it. What, does money for being proven right not mean anything anymore?
I wish I knew what the problem was here. Rigorously disproving the entire body of work of 3,000 climate scientists performed over 50 years would be worth two Nobel Prizes and an honory doctoral degree at a dozen universities, at least.
What, does money for being proven right not mean anything anymore?
That's exactly right. You don't get money for proving anything. Any scientist who finds results that are contrary to the "global tax climate" do not get funding. So the problem here is advocacy, and those who don't advocate don't get published in major peer-reviewed journals.
Not quite, people that advocate bad science don't get funding...
Flakmeister, I previously posted data from NODC on OHC in the North Pacific, North Atlantic and Arctic clearly showing it is dropping quite rapidly. Have you nothing to say about that? The AMO is still in its warm phase, and in the next few years will be transitioning to the cold phase. The Bering Sea is already frozen solid. Last year plans for drilling were halted because the ice was still there in the summer. You actually believe CO2 is going to overpower ocean processes?
Have you ever questioned why there are still Viking settlements frozen in permafrost in Greenland?
There is zero direct evidence CO2 has any measureable effect on Arctic climate.
Go ahead and keep deluding yourself with that bullshit...
Here is the most recent global OHC data:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960112010389
"There is zero direct evidence CO2 has any measureable effect on Arctic climate."
Quite true, there is no evidence at all for this assertion. But nobody is asserting that.
The assertion is that CO2 levels impact global radiative forcings. That is quite well accepted. The rest, as they say, is weather though regards weather in the Arctic there seems to be some evidence on the ground that the Arctic is having the shit beat out of it by its weather.
Not sure how that impacts any place else on the world, though I think there are some folks in NY and NJ that might be interested in why Sandy made that hard left-hook on the approach to Greenland.
there you go again with that thing called science.
Deep Purple in the Outback...
And they ain't playing Smoke on the Water..
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/temperatures-off-the-charts-as-australia-turns-deep-purple-20130108-2ce33.html#ixzz2HVOUKD52
Well played.
I don't know about you but 122 degrees F just sounds really fucked up to me.
I was in Death Valley once, Stove Pipe Wells, 122 F in the shade... It was nothing like anything I had every experienced, the heat was like having weights tied to your wrists and ankles...
If anyone is still watching
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_0JZRIHFtk&feature=player_embedded
This should put to rest that 16 year bullshit...
"This should put to rest"
You crazy dreamer you.
Note I said should and not will...
I am under no false illusions....
Let's get this straight. You criticized Steve Goddard and will probably any blog you don't like, yet rely on a self-employed cartoonist admittedly not a climatologist or scientist and assume because he put out a video supporting your POV that it must be right? Wow you folks are gettin desperate.
I'll watch the video, study it a bit and come back to give you the bad news. In the meantime, ask yourself why 90% of glacier melt occurred prior to 1960.
Edit: Ok I watched it. John Cook doesn't know what effects the sun has on climate, does not include anything about clouds and certainly hasn't a clue about ENSO; it is just more parlor games. How can people fall for such drivel?
Clouds can account for 100% of all global warming and cooling regardless of all other forcings, yet they are the least understood even by IPCC's statements.
Making shit up I see.... 100% eh? Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence or so they say...
So you think the TSI they used was wrong? Or is it something else?
If it is the gov did it not me so they can fix it without me or drop dead and I'll take a look and see if it's a problem.
A-a-a-a-a-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h. Drill, baby, drill. Ah!
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=22716&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
Well, we started measuring temperatures just as the Earth left the little ice age so no wonder. It's like measuring temperatures in January and coming to the conclusion that it is warmer in August.
Except for the fact the the local maxima was passed and the underlying trend for the past few thousand years has been cooling until recently...
Get your facts straight buddy....
Edit: For completeness the temperature proxies for the last 40,000 years (note that time is right to left)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Epica-vostok-grip-40kyr.png