backtop


Print 118 comment(s) - last by christojojo.. on Jan 30 at 7:49 PM

James Hansen puts an interesting spin on reports of the ninth warmest year on record

2012 was a kind of glass-half full, glass half-empty year in terms of global temperature.  

I. Climate Chief: Don't Worry, We're Still Doomed

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) in-depth analysis of satellite and other forms of climate data ruled the year was the ninth warmest on record.  The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) independent analysis of ground and sea-based climate stations reported that the year was the tenth warmest on record.

The NASA report states that the average global temperature was 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit (14.6 Celsius), which is 1.0 F (0.6 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline, or 1.4 F (0.6 C) warmer than the earliest comprehensive observations from the 1880s.

Still, the year marks the fifth year of a relative flatline in global temperatures after a decade in which the record was regularly broken.

Global warming proponents like James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, blame this deviation from their "doomsday" calculations on a specialized cooling phenomenon called "La Nina", which lowers temperatures in the Eastern Pacific.

Surface temperatures
Despite flat-lining surface temperatures over the last five years, some climate researchers insist we're headed to doomsday warming and should keep our fingers on the panic button.
[Image Source: GISS]

The climate official claims that aerosols, which reflect solar radiation, also had a cooling affect on temperatures.

Mr. Hansen argues that the public shouldn't just look at the numbers, but look at more nebulous and abstract observations, which he sees as supporting his beliefs of runaway warming.  He writes, "The observant person who is willing to look at the past over several seasons and several years, should notice that the frequency of unusual warm anomalies has increased and the extreme anomalies."

He and other global warming advocates have pointed to the summer's drought in central North America and high temperatures in the Rocky Mountains as such "extreme anomalies".  

II. A Hot Year for the U.S., Arctic, but a Cool One Elsewhere

2012, according to a separate NOAA report, was the hottest year on record for the U.S. The year did mark a new low for summer Arctic sea ice, according to NASA.  However, that could bring some benefits for mankind, such as opening up oil resources.

NOAA map
Parts of the globe cooled, others warmed in 2012. [Image Source: NOAA]

And temperatures for the year were actually cooler than average in several regions -- Alaska, far western Canada, central Asia, parts of the eastern and equatorial Pacific and parts of the Southern Ocean.

California meteorologist Anthony Watts, a known critic of doomsday predictions from folks like James Hansen, casts the U.S.'s record year in a different light, commenting, "If anything, U.S. temperatures are warming at a slower rate in recent decades compared to the early warming period, even with all of that lovely warm weather last year."

He points out that the recent increase (1980-2012) in U.S. surface temperatures was dwarfed by a sharp rise between 1919-1934, which was followed by a period of cooling.

In a follow-up piece, he argues the overall flatline may indicate that natural forces (including in a cooling direction) have a greater impact on global temperatures than human ones, based on his independent analysis over the last half decade.

Sources: NASA, NOAA, Jame Hansen [note]



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Mint on 1/19/2013 8:33:43 PM , Rating: 2
Good God, how much misinformation can you put in one post?

1, 2) So why do surface measurements almost match satellite measurements for 34 years if the former is so flawed and corrupt as you allege?

3) Please, you can use this lame argument to discredit any scientist in any field.

4) Just because some fools think local records are evidence of GW doesn't mean you disprove the theory by disproving that strawman.

5) BS. There is nothing more hidden here than elsewhere. The tree-ring hockey stick was discredited through availability of the data and algorithms.

6) Nothing significant has been proven about cosmic radiation:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-detailed-look-at...
Svensmark's theory has been debunked with data since he published it.

Cosmic radiation has gone up in the last 25 years, which is supposed to increase cloud cover and cause cooling. It's rather telling that you chose this "specifically" as your best debunk of AGW, because it failed hard.

7) The one thing I agree on. I think rare earths and birds are the least of the problems with solar and wind. Their intermittence means they do not reduce the fossil fuel capacity we need. Moreover, they make that backup power ramp up and down, making efficient CCGT operation difficult and increasing maintenance costs. That results in higher costs and CO2 per kWh from the backup power. Until we figure out cheap energy storage, solar and wind are bad ideas.

To all AGW advocates, go nuclear or go home. Even Patrick Moore (cofounder of GreenPeace) knows that, which is why he left.

8, 9, 11, 12) Irrelevent. See #4 above.

10) Uhh, what? Sea ice coverage after each summer melt has been receding even faster than projected. In the winter, its been getting thinner. What on earth are you talking about?

You guys are all focusing on the wrong part. All predictions going against AGW have been proven wrong in the last decade. The science there is highly unlikely to be wrong.

The weakpoint in the AGW argument is with the cost-benefit analysis of taking action. You can use the IPCC's own figures to show that it costs $1 trillion per 0.02 deg of prevented warming even if you only spend 2 cents extra per kWh for CO2 free energy (e.g. the wind production credit), and that's under the generous assumption that we figure out how to efficiently run CCGT plants while ramping them up and down.


By TheEinstein on 1/22/2013 7:58:04 AM , Rating: 3
Oh no you didn't!

Time to pull my can of woop ass out. Prepare for link hell.

1) So why do surface measurements almost match satellite measurements for 34 years if the former is so flawed and corrupt as you allege?</> First I want you to provide proof of a satellite in 1978 which accurately measures ground temperatures. Then show continous recordings. Then show margins of error. Why do I demand this? Because if we had such satelites in the Cold War the Russians would have gone coockoo for cocoa puffs right then. This specious, unbacked, claim of yours dies here and now.

3) Please, you can use this lame argument to discredit any scientist in any field. I was not aware all scientists used flawed mathematical formula's, based on errenous sample data, with failed modeling past a single year. Why thank you for your broad assertion.

4) Just because some fools think local records are evidence of GW doesn't mean you disprove the theory by disproving that strawman. AGW is premised upon all local region's having a temperature. Ergo all local issues are relevent since they also contribute to the whole. Your claim of a strawman is in fact a strawman argument.

5) BS. There is nothing more hidden here than elsewhere. The tree-ring hockey stick was discredited through availability of the data and algorithms.
First I end the consensus lie: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968
Second I prove my point: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/chri...
For those wary of links the first shows that scientists reviewing the IPCC Report often disagreed but were edited out by those in control. The product included reviews and dissents but only what the Editors wanted got in the final report.

The 2nd link shows how the worlds best expert on Polar Bears was excluded from International AGW conferences about Polar Bears.

6) Nothing significant has been proven about cosmic radiation:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-detailed-look-at...
Svensmark's theory has been debunked with data since he published it.</>
CERN validated his work with their CLOUD unit. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/breaking-new...
Not only are your wrong, your way wrong.

7) The one thing I agree on. I think rare earths and birds are the least of the problems with solar and wind. {Snip}
Ignore the pork,make a politicql statement of your own. Nice...

8, 9, 11, 12) Irrelevent. See #4 above.
Aka ignored cause you cannot reply

10) Uhh, what? Sea ice coverage after each summer melt has been receding even faster than projected. {Snip}
Actually this is a misdirection fallacy. http://m.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?i... The ice, paraphrasing, was at the largest known levels ever recorded. This was in 2011. The problem is more complex than 'it melted fast' or it melted more. In fact you did not specify a time limit but I will not take it to mean 100,000 years. The commonly quoted number is usually 8 years on awkward claims such as this. We suffer two equations, quicker and stronger. You chose quicker alone which makes this easier. Nominally a 2^8 outcome for quicker would result. This wouod normally be a once in 256 year result. However we also know about the 1910 to1920 temperature highs, which would indicate a 80-100 year cycle. Knowing of the past and that it is cyclical in nature allows us to refine our result to approximately 2^3.5 for any given 8 year period.

You guys are all focusing on the wrong part. All predictions going against AGW have been proven wrong in the last decade. The science there {snip} It is far more correct to say all AGW predictions have not come true.

I highlighted the best funniest ones. Child let us who do science lead, you stay quiet. I just knocked ALLof your statements down. Ifyou wish to learn, to become better... http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/inde...

The truth will set you free


By TheEinstein on 1/22/2013 8:03:55 AM , Rating: 2
Wow posting while sick.

Italics and bold not closed properly, lol


"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki