2012 Global Temperatures

[Harry]

I thought global warming was a bad thing?

You sound pretty excited at the prospect of it.

Kinda sick.

1. Most on this board live for weather extremes.

2. There IS those who think it would be a good thing especially in the north with the potential of a longer growing season.

3. Friv is passionate about this stuff and i see nothing wrong with that. See below..

In fairness to Friv the last comment was uncalled for. I also don't think he is pulling for a catastrophe. I think he is excited about the subject not the outcome he sees in the future.

This.. me and Friv have our disagreements but i know he is not pulling for a catastrophe or anything of the sort. jesse is way off with those comments.

[Jonger]

Thanks.

It is going to be fun tracking this as the EL Nino or positive index ratings take place.

I think if we hit even by May and are .5 to 1.0 for most of the rest of the year, 2012 will be at the top of the global temp anomaly by mid to late summer.

the colder start in Jan/Feb will make it hard to come close to 2010's record. But 2011 will be blown out.

This is solid proof to the very idea I have always assumed many of the AGW folks live for. This is no different then those who like tornados and ice storms, disruption and chaos.

[TerryM]

This is solid proof to the very idea I have always assumed many of the AGW folks live for. This is no different then those who like tornados and ice storms, disruption and chaos.

Beats Boredom - I don't think it's 'likes' so much as it's fascinated by, kind of like watching a train wreck - in slow motion.

Last year I commented on the final bifurcation of Ward-Hunt, one day before it was 'officially' noted. No big thing, but it was a rush. Patrick who sometimes posts over at Neven's was the first to see and post that Petermann Glacier had calved a few years back - that was huge.

This year I'll again be watching the Humboldt on a daily basis, probably to no avail, as well as Foxe Basin and the ESAS. Petermann may have had enough gestation time to come up with another calf. I think that Nares Strait flows South to North on some occasions when high pressure in Baffin Bay forces a jet of water under the ice causing melt in the Lincoln Sea. Probably fanciful on my part, but I do keep an eye out for signs that it's happening.

It's a terrible thing that we're watching - but closing our eyes won't make it go away.

[Jesse]

Members of the church of AGW root for chaos because in their minds it supports their ideology. It's as simple as that. A record warm year would almost be a victory in their minds.

There's nothing wrong with healthy scientific curiosity. Talking about the possibility of a record warm year with such glowing, almost hopeful sounding language is in bad taste though, IMO. Especially if such things really will cause all the death and destruction some of you assure it will.

[Jesse]

Beats Boredom - I don't think it's 'likes' so much as it's fascinated by, kind of like watching a train wreck - in slow motion.

Last year I commented on the final bifurcation of Ward-Hunt, one day before it was 'officially' noted. No big thing, but it was a rush. Patrick who sometimes posts over at Neven's was the first to see and post that Petermann Glacier had calved a few years back - that was huge.

This year I'll again be watching the Humboldt on a daily basis, probably to no avail, as well as Foxe Basin and the ESAS. Petermann may have had enough gestation time to come up with another calf. I think that Nares Strait flows South to North on some occasions when high pressure in Baffin Bay forces a jet of water under the ice causing melt in the Lincoln Sea. Probably fanciful on my part, but I do keep an eye out for signs that it's happening.

It's a terrible thing that we're watching - but closing our eyes won't make it go away.

You'll be watching all of these things hoping the ice sticks around, right?

Something tells me no. A low melt year would be politically unfavorable for your cause.

[skierinvermont]

Members of the church of AGW root for chaos because in their minds it supports their ideology. It's as simple as that. A record warm year would almost be a victory in their minds.

There's nothing wrong with healthy scientific curiosity. Talking about the possibility of a record warm year with such glowing, almost hopeful sounding language is in bad taste though, IMO. Especially if such things really will cause all the death and destruction some of you assure it will.

You'll be watching all of these things hoping the ice sticks around, right?

Something tells me no. A low melt year would be politically unfavorable for your cause.

Take your politics elsewhere. There are many reasons to be interested, even excited by, a record warm year. AGW is a foregone conclusion at this point. There will be serious consequences associated with AGW whether next year is record warm or not. This conclusion is supported by a large body of evidence and remains unchanged by next year's global temperatures. The only thing that might be changed by next year's temperatures is the use of short-term trends by deniers to attempt to disprove or manipulate the facts of AGW. Although now that we have seen the deniers switch from starting trends in the 1998 El Nino to starting in the 2002 El Nino (because starting in 1998 yielded too positive a trend for their liking), no doubt after this next El Nino they will begin starting trends in even more recent El Ninos like 2005 or 2011.

The only way being 'excited' by record warm temperatures is sadistic is if you are stupid enough to think that record warm temperatures in 2012 somehow proves AGW.

[The_Global_Warmer]

This is solid proof to the very idea I have always assumed many of the AGW folks live for. This is no different then those who like tornados and ice storms, disruption and chaos.

Its not surprising to see you back door in on Jesse's trolling to take some more shots at people.

But you forgot to mention cold and snow. Its a sure bet you wanted the euro/asia cold and snow out break. which was a tradgic weather event.

does that mean you like death and starvation,? Not likely.

[PhillipS]

I think much of the recent noise on this forum attributing base motives to posters who accept mainstream AGW science is part of a larger movement to reframe positions so that pseudo-skeptics can claim that they are the moderates and that the science-based community are the ones on the fringe. You can see their efforts in claims that we are 'sick' if we predict continuing arctic sea ice melting, that we are hoping for record heat this summer, that we are 'Pro-AGW', that we are hoping for the downfall of civilization, and so forth. This is not a new movement - remember all of the claims that climatologists are in it for the money? (That claim evaporated as soon as you follow the money and see it leads to the fossil fuel industries, who make more profit in a single week than climatologists earn in their whole careers.) Even the term Catastrophic AGW (CAGW) is part of this effort. Have you ever seen the term CAGW in a research paper? Me neither.

This 'rebranding' movement reminds me of the tobacco industry trying to change the issue of cigarettes from a health issue to 'smokers rights'. As if the Constitution grants smokers the right to contaminate the air others breath at work and in public.

My opinion on the reason for this reframing movement is that as plausible deniability of climate change has (literally) melted under them the pseudo-skeptics are finding themselves lumped on the fringe with the tin-foil hat contingent. Which is not surprising - when you have various groups rejecting the climate research findings and chanting "It's not happening!" does it really matter whether Heartland is cheerleading the chanting, or whether it is based on a belief in the astrological influence of Jupiter (see the recent Scarfetta paper)? By reframing themselves as the moderate center the pseudo-skeptics may hope to increase their influence in future efforts to deal with climate change.

[TerryM]

I think much of the recent noise on this forum attributing base motives to posters who accept mainstream AGW science is part of a larger movement to reframe positions so that pseudo-skeptics can claim that they are the moderates and that the science-based community are the ones on the fringe. You can see their efforts in claims that we are 'sick' if we predict continuing arctic sea ice melting, that we are hoping for record heat this summer, that we are 'Pro-AGW', that we are hoping for the downfall of civilization, and so forth. This is not a new movement - remember all of the claims that climatologists are in it for the money? (That claim evaporated as soon as you follow the money and see it leads to the fossil fuel industries, who make more profit in a single week than climatologists earn in their whole careers.) Even the term Catastrophic AGW (CAGW) is part of this effort. Have you ever seen the term CAGW in a research paper? Me neither.

This 'rebranding' movement reminds me of the tobacco industry trying to change the issue of cigarettes from a health issue to 'smokers rights'. As if the Constitution grants smokers the right to contaminate the air others breath at work and in public.

My opinion on the reason for this reframing movement is that as plausible deniability of climate change has (literally) melted under them the pseudo-skeptics are finding themselves lumped on the fringe with the tin-foil hat contingent. Which is not surprising - when you have various groups rejecting the climate research findings and chanting "It's not happening!" does it really matter whether Heartland is cheerleading the chanting, or whether it is based on a belief in the astrological influence of Jupiter (see the recent Scarfetta paper)? By reframing themselves as the moderate center the pseudo-skeptics may hope to increase their influence in future efforts to deal with climate change.

Nice post!

The most successful propagandist of our generation, and probably in history, is Frank Luntz, his position is that "80 percent of our life is emotion, and only 20 percent is intellect" and his expertise is taking intellectual (rational) decision making, and making it more emotional. He advised the Bush administration to never use the words 'Global Warming' and to always substitute 'Climate Change'. When Bush upped the ante in Iraq it became a 'Surge' as opposed to an 'Escalation' - sure sounds a lot better.

CAGW was one of his better inventions. I can see nothing but a dire future for civilization if we don't take some radical steps to prevent it, and my assessment is certainly in line with what is accepted by the main stream. To have this position conflated with catastrophism as was spouted by futurists in past ages or followers of Von Daniken (Age of Catastrophe, Worlds in Collision) is a clever way of making my outlook seem foolish or at least of the radical fringe.

AGW theory predicts nothing but dire consequences - it's going to be too hot for civilization to continue if something isn't done to halt the warming, and to pretend otherwise is to ignore everything that climate science has proven. Whether we run out of time in 50yrs, 100 yrs or 200yrs might still be reasonably debatable points - but the final outcome is the same. If we continue on the path we are on we are assuring that our children or their children or possibly their grandchildren will live horrible lives if in fact they survive.

I'm going to try to use 'dire' when others resort to 'catastrophic', it gets the point across, without the baggage that 'catastrophic' carries.

Terry

[Tropopause_Fold]

Nice post!

The most successful propagandist of our generation, and probably in history, is Frank Luntz, his position is that "80 percent of our life is emotion, and only 20 percent is intellect" and his expertise is taking intellectual (rational) decision making, and making it more emotional. He advised the Bush administration to never use the words 'Global Warming' and to always substitute 'Climate Change'. When Bush upped the ante in Iraq it became a 'Surge' as opposed to an 'Escalation' - sure sounds a lot better.

CAGW was one of his better inventions. I can see nothing but a dire future for civilization if we don't take some radical steps to prevent it, and my assessment is certainly in line with what is accepted by the main stream. To have this position conflated with catastrophism as was spouted by futurists in past ages or followers of Von Daniken (Age of Catastrophe, Worlds in Collision) is a clever way of making my outlook seem foolish or at least of the radical fringe.

AGW theory predicts nothing but dire consequences - it's going to be too hot for civilization to continue if something isn't done to halt the warming, and to pretend otherwise is to ignore everything that climate science has proven. Whether we run out of time in 50yrs, 100 yrs or 200yrs might still be reasonably debatable points - but the final outcome is the same. If we continue on the path we are on we are assuring that our children or their children or possibly their grandchildren will live horrible lives if in fact they survive.

I'm going to try to use 'dire' when others resort to 'catastrophic', it gets the point across, without the baggage that 'catastrophic' carries.

Terry

false

[TerryM]

false

What term would you prefer?

[Tropopause_Fold]

What term would you prefer?

?

[TerryM]

You had bolded "AGW theory predicts nothing but dire consequences"

I'm asking what term you would prefer to dire consequences?

[Tropopause_Fold]

You had bolded "AGW theory predicts nothing but dire consequences"

I'm asking what term you would prefer to dire consequences?

i'm saying that statement is not true. that's all.

[CoastalWx]

Well Jeff Masters said the reason why we had the warm weather last week was because of climate change. If I can have temps like that in late March..bring it.

[LocoAko]

Well Jeff Masters said the reason why we had the warm weather last week was because of climate change. If I can have temps like that in late March..bring it.

Amen!

[Tropopause_Fold]

Well Jeff Masters said the reason why we had the warm weather last week was because of climate change. If I can have temps like that in late March..bring it.

LOL - i'll let my car idle in my driveway 24/7 if it means 70F in the 3rd week of march.

[CoastalWx]

LOL - i'll let my car idle in my driveway 24/7 if it means 70F in the 3rd week of march.

Hopefully the methane trapped in arctic ice gets released from the melting and warms us by 7C.

[SVT450R]

LOL - i'll let my car idle in my driveway 24/7 if it means 70F in the 3rd week of march.

[Tropopause_Fold]

Hopefully the methane trapped in arctic ice gets released from the melting and warms us by 7C.

yep...just get a second home way up north so you can still enjoy some snow...but enjoy palm trees and year-round amusement parks in SNE. works for me.

[TerryM]

i'm saying that statement is not true. that's all.

Are huge sea level changes, loss of bio-diversity and desertification of former croplands not seen as dire?

If you are arguing that AGW isn't real, that's a whole different topic, but the above are just a small sample of what AGW theory predicts for our future.

[CoastalWx]

Are huge sea level changes, loss of bio-diversity and desertification of former croplands not seen as dire?

If you are arguing that AGW isn't real, that's a whole different topic, but the above are just a small sample of what AGW theory predicts for our future.

What about crops and land once useless, suitable for production and living? Just imagine..beach side resorts on the Turnagain arm in AK!

[Alpha5]

Are huge sea level changes, loss of bio-diversity and desertification of former croplands not seen as dire?

If you are arguing that AGW isn't real, that's a whole different topic, but the above are just a small sample of what AGW theory predicts for our future.

Sea level changes are debatable.

Loss of bio-diverstiy is only half because of a changing climate, and desertification is more about agricultural processes than a 0.02 change in global temperature.

Personally, im happy either way.

Warm temps= more bikinis

Cold temps= more snow and skating

Cant lose with those two option

[Tropopause_Fold]

Are huge sea level changes, loss of bio-diversity and desertification of former croplands not seen as dire?

If you are arguing that AGW isn't real, that's a whole different topic, but the above are just a small sample of what AGW theory predicts for our future.

well assuming you meant "dire consequences" to mean "bad things" - i was simply disagreeing with that statement you made. you can go to the IPCC report and see some positive impacts listed.

that's all i was saying.

carry on.

[Tropopause_Fold]

What about crops and land once useless, suitable for production and living? Just imagine..beach side resorts on the Turnagain arm in AK!

yeah would be perfect too because the amount of daylight is so great during the summer...you could enjoy the beach for like 22 hours a day.

[skierinvermont]

What about crops and land once useless, suitable for production and living? Just imagine..beach side resorts on the Turnagain arm in AK!

Yes some previously unusable lands will become arable. However, if one looks at all the costs and benefits of AGW, the net is a catastrophic loss of human prosperity and life. Detailed costs and benefit analyses have been performed by economists, such as the once skeptic Bjorn Lomborg who initially called the greenhouse effect a myth. Skeptics have been fond of using his arguments against the existence of AGW and his arguments that even if it existed it would not be costly. He has gradually revised his understanding of the science and after performing new cost-benefit analyses has concluded AGW is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" "global warming is real - it is man made - and it is an important problem. But it is not the end of the world." He has recommended that a moderate global sum on the order of 10s of billions of dollars per year be invested in mitigation of AGW. This is less than is demanded by some scientists and activists like James Hansen and Bill Mckibben, but represents a serious effort to reduce CO2 emissions and develop alternatives which can be expanded upon in the future.

Lomborg's analysis is not the final or sole analysis, but it is an interesting case of somebody whose position has gradually changed as his understanding of the science has grown. I believe that this transition was possible because unlike many other skeptics and deniers he has a unique combination of characteristics 1) he is young and in the height of his academic career, unlike many other deniers who are retired in their 70s and 80s when it becomes hard to grasp new concepts 2) he is intelligent 3) his original skepticism/denial was fairly genuine (although possibly influenced somewhat by his conservative politics)

[dabize]

LOL - i'll let my car idle in my driveway 24/7 if it means 70F in the 3rd week of march.

Can I take this as proof that you are an imposter, or at least a renter, not an owner of Cape Cod real estate?

[LakeEffectKing]

HadCrut took another dip for Feb 2012.....looks eerily similar (data wise) to Feb 2008:

2008/02 0.192 0.212 0.171 0.343 0.041 0.192 0.186 0.344 0.039 0.344 0.039

2012/02 0.192 0.213 0.172 0.341 0.044 0.192 0.186 0.342 0.042 0.342 0.042

As I've pointed out before, there are lots of patterns in the HadCrut numbers that seem quite odd, especially when reporting out to thousandths of a degree.....what happened to "significant figures"????

[Tropopause_Fold]

Can I take this as proof that you are an imposter, or at least a renter, not an owner of Cape Cod real estate?

yes i own property here.

[skierinvermont]

HadCrut took another dip for Feb 2012.....looks eerily similar (data wise) to Feb 2008:

2008/02 0.192 0.212 0.171 0.343 0.041 0.192 0.186 0.344 0.039 0.344 0.039

2012/02 0.192 0.213 0.172 0.341 0.044 0.192 0.186 0.342 0.042 0.342 0.042

As I've pointed out before, there are lots of patterns in the HadCrut numbers that seem quite odd, especially when reporting out to thousandths of a degree.....what happened to "significant figures"????

And as I've explained to you before the columns after the first column are not regions of the globe as they are with GISS. They are error bars, which remain constant. I'd say you have a propensity for conspiracy theories, but maybe you just forgot.