2012 Global Temperatures

[LakeEffectKing]

In other words...all of them. There is a consensus of agreement amongst active, publishing climate science researchers.

Richard Lindzen resides within the 3%.

Lindzen has published work with the conservative think-tank, the Cato Institute. The Cato Institute has received $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. In his 1995 article, "The Heat Is On," Ross Gelbspan notes that Lindzen charged oil and coal organizations $2,500 per day for his consulting services.

Roger Cohen is the former Manager of Strategic Planning and Programs at ExxonMobil Corporation.

He is a George C. Marshall Institute "Expert," and has led a push for the American Physical Society (APS) to weaken their position on climate change.

Cohen became involved in studying global warming when Exxon realized that its "business environment" could be affected.

William Happer is Eugene Higgens Professor of Physics and Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Princeton University and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the George C. Marshall Institute and is on the Academic Advisory Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Jan L. Breslow is a physician and professor at Rockefeller University, specializing in cardiovascular disease. He is a former president of the American Heart Association. [1]

Breslow was one of 16 scientists to sign a January, 2012 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal declaring that here is "No Need to Panic About Global Warming," despite having no experience in climate science or a related discipline.

Harrison Schmitt is a self-proclaimed climate skeptic, and is on the board of the Heartland Institute and the contrarian Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy. He was also the president of the Annapolis Center from 1994 to 1998.

Apart from denying the existence of man-made global warming, the Annapolis Center has spent considerable effort calling into question the link between air pollution and asthma, the impacts of mercury pollution, and the dangers of pesticide residue on food.

Since 1998, ExxonMobil has given $973,500 to the Annapolis Center. In 2004, at the centre's annual dinner, it honoured Senator James Inhofe for his work in "promoting science-based public policy."

Shall I go on?

Sure! With every sentence you type, you demonstrate (further) your bias!

[WeatherRusty]

Sure! With every sentence you type, you demonstrate (further) your bias!

Correct! Unlike the aforementioned individuals (a sample of 16 prominent skeptics), I am biased toward, or favor consensus science over that of, politics, ideology and personal gain. We are all biased. Some for better, some for worse!

HERE you will find an extensive list of prominent skeptics/deniers of AGW together with their documented background biases.

[WeatherRusty]

Correct! Unlike the aforementioned individuals (a sample of 16 prominent skeptics), I am biased toward, or favor consensus science over that of, politics, ideology and personal gain. We are all biased. Some for better, some for worse!

HERE you will find an extensive list of prominent skeptics/deniers of AGW together with their documented background biases.

blue sky Post #118

I know that you did not have the time to look at the names and research them. I putting this up to an off night for you. Those names are beyond reproach.

[ORH_wxman]

You guys are kind of off topic.

Anyways back on topic....channel 5 is currently running 0.033C warmer for the month of February than 2008 through 2/24...however the current daily value is still well below 2008 so there's a good chance that 2012 finishes the month below 2008 on channel 5...it remains to be seen how much of that transfers to the UAH final monthly anomaly.

[LakeEffectKing]

Correct! Unlike the aforementioned individuals (a sample of 16 prominent skeptics), I am biased toward, or favor consensus science over that of, politics, ideology and personal gain. We are all biased. Some for better, some for worse!

HERE you will find an extensive list of prominent skeptics/deniers of AGW together with their documented background biases.

Look up the name Peter Gleick......

[TerryM]

Peter Gleick - Who uncovered the money trail leading from large corporations to professional propaganda sites, some of whom are quoted on these threads as though they were reliable sources. - I think this is all being covered on the 'We know who pays our Trolls thread.'

[skierinvermont]

I know that you did not have the time to look at the names and research them. I putting this up to an off night for you. Those names are beyond reproach.

For several years I enjoyed your discussions as you debated facts. Facts we disagreed on. But facts. Now you seem to have fallen into the Terry M....trap. Attack all sources that disagree with you.

I am not attacking the source. As I've said multiple times, I really don't care what the source is. The fact remains that the IPCC 1995 and 2001 projections were cooler than the 2007 projection. This is common knowledge and easy to research. All you are trying to do is distract from this basic fact. This graph of yours is an egregious manipulation of the truth. I suggest you drop the attitude and face the facts.

It's also very telling when certain other posters here who know better consistently fail to call out this type of manipulation and prefer to let it slide. You know who you are. I have always called out manipulation when it occurs by both 'sides.'

It was weird that you posted the IPCC chart and ended it in 2010. Leaving out the 2011 decline.

What's going on dude?

I posted the graph through 2010 because that is all that was available to me and I have limited access to the internet to find an updated version. Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

[NEOH]

Correct! Unlike the aforementioned individuals (a sample of 16 prominent skeptics), I am biased toward, or favor consensus science over that of, politics, ideology and personal gain. We are all biased. Some for better, some for worse!

HERE you will find an extensive list of prominent skeptics/deniers of AGW together with their documented background biases.

A blog written by PR and journalism professionals? PR folks always have an agenda... namely the agenda of the people that pay their bills. PR is truly the lowest form of "communications" professionalism.

EDIT: I wonder if Hoggan's blog colleauges know that Shell and Alcoa are one of his PR firms major clients?

[Snowstorms]

You guys are kind of off topic.

Anyways back on topic....channel 5 is currently running 0.033C warmer for the month of February than 2008 through 2/24...however the current daily value is still well below 2008 so there's a good chance that 2012 finishes the month below 2008 on channel 5...it remains to be seen how much of that transfers to the UAH final monthly anomaly.

What was the monthly value for Feb 08 on UAH and RSS?

Two more days left for the month and I dont think it would make a huge difference.

[bluewave]

So far it looks like Kiel University may be having the best success with their forecast.

Still too early to tell how the rest of the decade will work out though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...edictions.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk...ecasts-to.shtml

One message from our study is that in the short term, you can see changes in the global mean temperature that you might not expect given the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)," said Noel Keenlyside from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University.

[WeatherRusty]

A blog written by PR and journalism professionals? PR folks always have an agenda... namely the agenda of the people that pay their bills. PR is truly the lowest form of "communications" professionalism.

EDIT: I wonder if Hoggan's blog colleauges know that Shell and Alcoa are one of his PR firms major clients?

Take it to the appropriate thread, but the skeptical/denier position is entirely PR based. They do little to no peer-reviewed research. All they do is bash mainstream science in the media and on the internet.

Do you think the desmogblog.com information is accurate or not?

[WeatherRusty]

So far it looks like Kiel University may be having the best success with their forecast.

Still too early to tell how the rest of the decade will work out though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...edictions.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk...ecasts-to.shtml

One message from our study is that in the short term, you can see changes in the global mean temperature that you might not expect given the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)," said Noel Keenlyside from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University.

How can they come to a reasonably confident decadal forecast when the natural variability overlying the global warming trend can not be predicted with higher confidence?

What changes should we not be expected to see? The decadal scale changes are all natural variability + the enhanced greenhouse warming trend.

[bluewave]

How can they come to a reasonably confident decadal forecast when the natural variability overlying the global warming trend can not be predicted with higher confidence?

What changes should we not be expected to see? The decadal scale changes are all natural variability + the enhanced greenhouse warming trend.

That's a good question. You can have a great forecast but it just may be lucky and not related to the reasoning in the

forecast.

[blue sky]

Weather rusty has given up arguing science. It's mostly dissing the scientists who are skeptical.

And the skeptics are the ones who pointed out natural variation...which he is now using as a arguement to explain why the models are false.

[ORH_wxman]

What was the monthly value for Feb 08 on UAH and RSS?

Two more days left for the month and I dont think it would make a huge difference.

UAH was -0.25C for Feb 2008....not sure what RSS was.

Its going to be close but I think 2012 def beats 2008 on Channel 5...my data was through Feb 24...now through Feb 26, channel 5 is only running 0.002C behind Feb 2008...once the data is updated for Feb 27, 2012 will pass 2008. This doesn't mean that 2012 will come in lower on UAH though...channel 5 is only one part of the equation albeit a very big one.

[Snowstorms]

UAH was -0.25C for Feb 2008....not sure what RSS was.

Its going to be close but I think 2012 def beats 2008 on Channel 5...my data was through Feb 24...now through Feb 26, channel 5 is only running 0.002C behind Feb 2008...once the data is updated for Feb 27, 2012 will pass 2008. This doesn't mean that 2012 will come in lower on UAH though...channel 5 is only one part of the equation albeit a very big one.

Should be interesting to see the final anomalies for February when they're out perhaps next week.

I'm thinking perhaps, -0.20?

Last year, March had the coolest anomaly so we'll see if it remains consistent thru this year.

[WeatherRusty]

Weather rusty has given up arguing science. It's mostly dissing the scientists who are skeptical.

And the skeptics are the ones who pointed out natural variation...which he is now using as a arguement to explain why the models are false.

Let's get this straight. You think skeptics of AGW discovered solar variability, coupled oceanic/atmospheric oscillations, atmospheric aerosols and the like?

I don't argue why the models are false. The scientific basis for AGW is not dependent on models. The models only project likely outcomes based on certain assumptions. All models show warming, yet there are differences in when and by how much depending on the model in question, what parameterizations are used, what assumptions are input. Models are not required to produce the Planck Response to a doubling of CO2 (1.2C) or in the derivation of likely equilibrium climate sensitivity (2C - 4.5C), but models can help there also.

The crude models of 25 years ago are not as good as the ones today. To expect them to on the money would involve a lot of luck. To say they were junk would also be wrong as they did give a generally correct picture of what to expect given that the proper first order physical constants were integrated even back then. The models of tomorrow will be better than today's...hopefully.

I dismiss the skeptical scientist's because they have no research to back up their doubts. What they do have is a lot of reason (political, monetary, ideological) besides scientific evidence to claim doubt.

[blue sky]

Let's get this straight. You think skeptics of AGW discovered solar variability, coupled oceanic/atmospheric oscillations, atmospheric aerosols and the like?

I don't argue why the models are false. The scientific basis for AGW is not dependent on models. The models only project likely outcomes based on certain assumptions. All models show warming, yet there are differences in when and by how much depending on the model in question, what parameterizations are used, what assumptions are input. Models are not required to produce the Planck Response to a doubling of CO2 (1.2C) or in the derivation of likely equilibrium climate sensitivity (2C - 4.5C), but models can help there also.

The crude models of 25 years ago are not as good as the ones today. To expect them to on the money would involve a lot of luck. To say they were junk would also be wrong as they did give a generally correct picture of what to expect given that the proper first order physical constants were integrated even back then. The models of tomorrow will be better than today's...hopefully.

I dismiss the skeptical scientist's because they have no research to back up their doubts. What they do have is a lot of reason (political, monetary, ideological) besides scientific evidence to claim doubt.

Policy decisions are wholly dependant on models.

[WeatherRusty]

Policy decisions are wholly dependant on models.

That may be, I not sure, but policy is a whole different matter.

[bluewave]

Policy decisions are wholly dependant on models.

I think that it's more about economics than science when it comes to enacting climate policies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04revkin.html

[The_Global_Warmer]

hadCrut4 incorporated more data from Siberia and around the arctic and it's warmer than Hadcrut3.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/1/e/PresentationMOSAC_16.4_Gordon.pdf

[PhillipS]

Policy decisions are wholly dependant on models.

I think most people would agree that your statement is a bit of a stretch - policy decisions are based on a wide variety of factors, many completely unrelated to climate science. And even regarding climate factors, real-world data usually trumps model projections.

But your statement is true to the extent that models do have a role in policy decisions. So the obvious question is - shouldn't policy makers use the best models available in their decision making process? Nobody I'm aware of has said that the IPCC models are perfect (even their strongest proponents say that there is plenty of room for improvement), but what alternative models are better? Since you've said policy makers have to use something for their models, what else should they use? A Farmer's Almanac? The entrails of a chicken?

I find it interesting that the skeptic community and the fossil fuel industries haven't come forward with their own ensemble of global climate models. Why is that? If the IPCC models were truly worthless it would be a breeze to come up with better models. If the cost of creating better models (remember, a GCM represents many man-years of coding and debugging) was the inhibiting factor, many of the current models and datasets are available on-line to use as a starting point.

Another explanation for the absence of alternative GCMs is that the skeptical scientists and the fossil fuel industry researchers know that the IPCC climate models are less than ideal, but they are still the best that can be done today.

[Northern Foothills Snowman]

This is OPPOSITE of AGW theory.. record cold at trapping hot spot levels http://pic.twitter.com/TXLXorKS

Looks a little different the the global warming agenda IPCC wouldn't you say?

[PhillipS]

This is OPPOSITE of AGW theory.. record cold at trapping hot spot levels http://pic.twitter.com/TXLXorKS

Looks a little different the the global warming agenda IPCC wouldn't you say?

Actually, no, it looks just fine. Are you pseudo-skeptics so desperate for something to support your delusions that you're now pushing daily weather?! What's next - hourly? "Well, extrapolating from the temperature drop between noon and midnight I predict the Earth will glaciate by next Thursday. This COMPLETELY FALSIFIES AGW!!!!!" Puh-leeze.

When discussing climate - as opposed to weather - daily values are worth nothing, monthly values are worth little, annual values are better, and decadal and multi-decadal data are the best.

Thank you for sharing your excitement with us - but come back after you've looked at a couple of years of data. Good luck getting your sticky Caps Lock key fixed.

[dabize]

Uh oh.... wait till this guy (not you, Phillip) discovers the stratospheric temps tendency...............

[Snow_Miser]

Uh oh.... wait till this guy (not you, Phillip) discovers the stratospheric temps tendency...............

The graphs that he posted are not stratospheric temperatures.

They are temperatures at 14,000 and 25,000 feet which are well within the Lower Trophosphere.

[Snow_Miser]

Should be interesting to see the final anomalies for February when they're out perhaps next week.

I'm thinking perhaps, -0.20?

Last year, March had the coolest anomaly so we'll see if it remains consistent thru this year.

That could be around the temperature that UAH will print out for February, but as Will has already pointed out, February 2008 was -0.25 Degrees C, and we have been running considerably lower at 25,000 feet than 2008, which is something to consider.

[Snow_Miser]

Looks a little different the the global warming agenda IPCC wouldn't you say?

The IPCC's predictions have been failing when compared to the observed Global Temperature anomalies over the past decade

The graph from Scafetta 2011 shows this discrepancy becoming larger and larger as the years pass by.

Note: Red indicates observed surface temperatures using HadCrut, the Green indicates the IPCC predictions, the Blue indicates Scafetta's prediction for the temperature when taking natural and anthropogenic factors into account.

The yellow line is his calculated harmonic oscillation without the anthropogenic influence.

There is a clear discrepency between the IPCC predictions and observed values that is growing larger as we go foward in time.

[blue sky]

I think most people would agree that your statement is a bit of a stretch - policy decisions are based on a wide variety of factors, many completely unrelated to climate science. And even regarding climate factors, real-world data usually trumps model projections.

But your statement is true to the extent that models do have a role in policy decisions. So the obvious question is - shouldn't policy makers use the best models available in their decision making process? Nobody I'm aware of has said that the IPCC models are perfect (even their strongest proponents say that there is plenty of room for improvement), but what alternative models are better? Since you've said policy makers have to use something for their models, what else should they use? A Farmer's Almanac? The entrails of a chicken?

I find it interesting that the skeptic community and the fossil fuel industries haven't come forward with their own ensemble of global climate models. Why is that? If the IPCC models were truly worthless it would be a breeze to come up with better models. If the cost of creating better models (remember, a GCM represents many man-years of coding and debugging) was the inhibiting factor, many of the current models and datasets are available on-line to use as a starting point.

Another explanation for the absence of alternative GCMs is that the skeptical scientists and the fossil fuel industry researchers know that the IPCC climate models are less than ideal, but they are still the best that can be done today.

I don't think the fossil fuel industries care about this debate. Strawman. Fossil fuel industries know that as long as they provide cost effective energy they will have a market.

[dabize]

The IPCC's predictions have been failing when compared to the observed Global Temperature anomalies over the past decade

The graph from Scafetta 2011 shows this discrepancy becoming larger and larger as the years pass by.

Note: Red indicates observed surface temperatures using HadCrut, the Green indicates the IPCC predictions, the Blue indicates Scafetta's prediction for the temperature when taking natural and anthropogenic factors into account.

The yellow line is his calculated harmonic oscillation without the anthropogenic influence.

There is a clear discrepency between the IPCC predictions and observed values that is growing larger as we go foward in time.

A contortionist's delight! This was rather hilariously debunked at SkS with a quote from John von Neumann:

"With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/scafetta-widget-problems.html