2012 Hottest Spring Ever in US

[Isotherm]

Do you think NOAA is lying to you?????

Hate to break it to you, but just because an organization has a lot of power and responsibility doesn't necessarily mean they're truthful. The only person who I'm confident would never lie to me is myself, and even that's not a guarantee.

[donsutherland1]

The length of the solar cycle is most important, and there is a cumulative effect over time. The long length of cycle 23 will influence temperatures in cycle 24.

The authors of this article discuss in depth the relationship b/t previous solar cycle length and corresponding global temp decrease many years later.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.1954v1.pdf

At least two possible issues exist:

1) Much of the data on which the study is based predates the elevated CO2 atmospheric concentration of today. Could we really expect the same outcome today given what's known about the forcings?

2) For most of the solar cycles studied, the earth was likely closer to an energy balance than it is today. Currently, a fairly sizable imbalance exists. That imbalance didn't disappear even during the depths of the most recent solar minimum. Hence, more heat continued to be absorbed by the ocean.

Given those possible issues, even assuming the studied relationship holds, one could probably expect a much more muted response in terms of changes in the global temperature anomalies.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The impacts of the solar miminum on global temperature do not begin until the 5+ year mark. There is a fairly significant lag between the two. I'd expect to see the resultant gradual cooling in the next several years. I'm very interested to see how the next decade evolves.

Give me a break Sir. Honestly, you expect gradual cooling to come from where?

5 years ago was July 2nd 2007. Not 2003 or 1998. It is 2012 now. the solar output has been dropping for a decade or more. We are already into the next solar max period and your still saying the last very long solar min hasn't caught up with us yet?

I realize many times these OHC graphs are manipulated to hide things or what they really show get's booted because it's not what GISS or Hansen modeled or predicted. 2007 IPCC report says blah blah blah. I don't care. But I do find this to be of interest. Anomaly wise OHC 0-700M has beat 2003 4 times now in the last year and half. In terms of absolute OHC, 2011 Summer beat 2003.

But there is some problems that get completely over looked. Let's take a look at one that humans can not process correctly. One of them is the Super El Nino of 1998 and it's affect on temperature time series. Not only is it completely taken out of context. It's another area that people incorrectly compare REALITY to predictions and modeled forecasts and stop comparing reality to reality and compare reality to failed predictions in order to continue to peddle there own bias.

Let's break this down shall we?

OHC peaked between Oct-Dec of 2004 at 11.65500 [10^22 J]. It has now peaked again: 12.12700. Between Jan-March 2012 it sits at 12.10700.

On the surface like a Time Series Map, it looks like we haven't changed very much the last 10 years, but we have. Now looking at the last 15 years of yearly data with 2012 obviously only Jan-March. But will likely be going up to new records, especially with the Nino starting up and the Northern Hemispheric regions that are torching.

Either way. We can see 0-700M OHC has continued to accumulate during the end of the big solar min. And is now at the peaks of our record. This is happening while 0-2000M or just 700-2000 continues go up much faster, which makes complete sense. But that also shows the oceans are still out of balance by continuing to take in more heat. As of March of 2012 the oceans were at the peak and taking in more heat.

How can anyone try to sell me the Sun has any sort of major impact compared to GHG's when this is happening.

1998 4.968250

1999 5.984250

2000 4.510500

2001 5.936250

2002 8.201250

2003 10.49425

2004 9.143500

2005 9.345750

2006 10.04425

2007 10.08225

2008 9.591250

2009 10.51050

2010 10.35725

2011 11.67221

2012* 12.10700

We can see the 0-700M OHC stabilize bit after 2003. Which likely has to do with the measuring system improving, but also may be climate related.

On top of the Ocean Heat Content.

I have to try and be clever, I know there are people who will read this and try anything to discredit reality. This is not directly at the person I quoted. But towards the folks who like to do those things. I have been sitting here thinking of ways to show outside of the Temperature record, which it self shows this warming, but some folks can't get off of 1998 and that one year or month is irrelevant. So there are different methods that can be tried here is one:

We can see ENSO impact on global sea level. It has a large affect on short term variations. We also know OHC has an affect on sea level rising. But OHC has in fact slowed down at the top 0-700M and SST's have also stopped rising sharply the last decade globally.

Sea Level's peaked in 2010 at the end of the Nino. SSTs at the time globally peaked around 0.32C or so above normal, right around the record highs.

The point is between 1992-2004 OHC and SSTs rose much faster than since then. And had a much larger role in Sea Level rise during that time, than compared to now.

The Graph below shows us peaking globally for Sea Level Rise as of March 2012. When the Seasonal Signals are retained we actually Peaked in Sept/Oct of 2011. Typically the lowest Sea Level readings are Feb/March of the year. And the highest are Sept/Oct.

Again, not only is the thermal expansion not going up as fast. Sea Level rise shows no signs of slowing down and continues to recieve more and more contributions from ice melt.

I am sorry, I just do not see any reason to think the Sun is in charge and when lags catch up we are cooling down.

[bluewave]

A great wrap up of the record breaking heat from Christopher Burt:

http://www.wundergro...an/article.html

All-time Heat Records Broken or Tied June 28-30

There is no point in listing or even attempting to summarize all of the June monthly records set in the region from Missouri to Maryland and south to Georgia during the June 28-30 period. The 108° in St. Louis on June 28th was perhaps the most significant of those. What was truly astonishing was the number of all-time any month records that were broken or tied.

This is especially extraordinary since they have occurred in June rather than July or August when 95% of the previous all-time heat records have been set for this part of the country (unlike the Southwest where June is often the month that all-time heat extremes are recorded).

The early timing of the all-time record highs followed a pattern similar to the record heat this March.

http://www.wundergro...r=2012&month=03

The other extraordinary element of the heat event is that it began during the first half of the month of March. Virtually every weather station from the Dakotas to New England in the northern third of the nation recorded their warmest temperatures for so early in the season ever measured. Madison, Wisconsin recorded 82° on March 15th, a full two weeks earlier than its previous first 80° reading (March 29, 1910).

[csnavywx]

Why aren't we looking at total heat gain? If I recall correctly, the latent heat of fusion for water is 80 cal/g. Heat gains in the arctic (ice loss) dwarfs sensible heat gains in the atmosphere. I won't even go into SSTs. It seems so blatantly obvious that if one were to take into account total heat gain that the trend would be totally unbroken.

Looking at only one type of heat change is folly.

[WeatherRusty]

Why aren't we looking at total heat gain? If I recall correctly, the latent heat of fusion for water is 80 cal/g. Heat gains in the arctic (ice loss) dwarfs sensible heat gains in the atmosphere. I won't even go into SSTs. It seems so blatantly obvious that if one were to take into account total heat gain that the trend would be totally unbroken.

Looking at only one type of heat change is folly.

While the latent heat absorbed by water during the phase transition from ice to liquid water is significant, still over 90% of the energy being absorbed by the Earth is entering the oceans.

[cyclonebuster]

While the latent heat absorbed by water during the phase transition from ice to liquid water is significant, still over 90% of the energy being absorbed by the Earth is entering the oceans.

Warmer Oceans melt more ice. Heat flows from warm to cold.........

[ben4vols]

Warmer Oceans melt more ice. Heat flows from warm to cold.........

Don't tell Friv that, the +AMO has no bearing on ice melt.

[donsutherland1]

Don't tell Friv that, the +AMO has no bearing on ice melt.

He never made any such suggestion. However, the Arctic warming is decoupling from the AMO (much as global temperatures are diverging from solely natural forcings).

[ben4vols]

He never made any such suggestion. However, the Arctic warming is decoupling from the AMO (much as global temperatures are diverging from solely natural forcings).

I really don't trust Arctic GISS temp. reconstructions.

[A-L-E-K]

lol

[The_Global_Warmer]

Don't tell Friv that, the +AMO has no bearing on ice melt.

Thats not what he said.

This amo genie is something marvelous.

Why not get out an SST map of the NATL and show me where and how the AMO is responsible.

[cyclonebuster]

Thats not what he said.

This amo genie is something marvelous.

Why not get out an SST map of the NATL and show me where and how the AMO is responsible.

I don't know to much about the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation melting Northern Arctic Ice but I know warm water does no matter how long it lasts...... LOL..

Still looks positive though which means it will melt more ice also.

[PhillipS]

I really don't trust Arctic GISS temp. reconstructions.

Of course you don't - you are a denialist of any data and any research that doesn't line up with your biases.

[donsutherland1]

I really don't trust Arctic GISS temp. reconstructions.

If you have links to Arctic data from HadCRUT4 or NCDC, I would re-run the numbers using those datasets. It's my understanding that those datasets do not provide data at such a level of detail. All of them reasonably represent global temperatures. Therefore, one can rely on the data presented for global temperature anomalies, including GISS's Arctic region temperatures.

Moreover, if one examines climate data from the recent decades one finds:

1. A divergence of global temperatures from solar irradiance. Nevertheless, some have speculated that amplification of solar forcing might explain most of the observed recent warming. However, the extreme solar minimum in the 2005-10 timeframe offered a lab test of sorts on the solar + solar amplification issue. Despite the deepest and longest solar minimum since at least the early 20th century, the earth maintained a large energy imbalance.

2. Some have insisted more narrowly that the ongoing Arctic warming is the result of the AMO. Yet, Arctic temperatures have diverged from the AMO, regardless of whether one uses the annual data or 5-year moving averages.

3. Measured warming is also confirmed by expected responses. Declining Arctic ice, later first-freezes, earlier last freezes, lengthening growing seasons, etc. all are consistent with warming.

If one lacked any other information, one would be inclined to believe that a mystery or unknown forcing must explain the relatively recent divergence of global temperatures from the natural forcings. Of course, that would raise the question as to why such a mystery forcing had been dormant so to speak until recent decades.

However, things are not so bleak for climate science. Other information does exist. In fact, a very substantial body of information has been developed through careful and rigorous scientific research. That body of work, which has been validated by peer review, includes reasonable approximations for a host of forcings, natural and manmade.

The evidence strongly suggests that the human contribution in the form of greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide, explain most of the recent observed warming. The decoupling of global temperatures from natural forcings highlights the growing role atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are playing. The relative non-response to the longest and deepest solar minimum since at least the early 20th century dismissed the assumption (or hope among some contrarians) that even as solar forcing is relatively modest, amplification leads to a much greater combined direct and indirect influence.

In their 2011 paper concerning the persistence of the earth's energy imbalance, Hansen, et. al., concluded:

The strong positive energy imbalance during the solar minimum, and the consistency of the planet's energy imbalance with expectations based on estimated human-made climate forcing, together constitute a smoking gun, a fundamental verification that human-made climate forcing is the dominant forcing driving global climate change.

If they wish to overturn the scientific consensus, those who disagree with the scientific consensus must furnish credible evidence of a new natural forcing or series of such forcings that allows them to accurately represent the climate--including the recent warming--using solely natural forcings and/or demonstrate that CO2's heat trapping properties are much less than what is currently understood. Attempts to dismiss rigorous and credible datasets that measure the earth's temperature (e.g., Watt's efforts to discredit the instrument record) are not a substitute for meeting that requirement. Instead, they represent an attempt to evade what is likely an insurmountable challenge and possibly a challenge that they know they can't surmount.

In the meantime, natural and anthropogenic forcings will continue to drive the climate, with the latter exerting a relatively greater influence for the foreseeable future. In the near-term, the forecast of imminent global cooling being peddled by some bloggers, could well be shattered next year as the global temperature approaches or exceeds its 2010 peak (GISS and/or NCDC) courtesy of an El Niño that is emerging in the context of a still warming global climate.

[Isotherm]

Of course you don't - you are a denialist of any data and any research that doesn't line up with your biases.

Let's be honest here -- everyone in this thread has a bias to some degree, and most of our posts intend to support that thinking. We like to think we're 100% objective, but we're not computers, and it's human nature to tend toward a certain side.

[ben4vols]

Of course you don't - you are a denialist of any data and any research that doesn't line up with your biases.

LOL. I'm not a big fan of data manipulation. There are not many long term arctic datasets to go by, that is problem numero uno. Number 2, of the few we do have, most have been bastardized to cool the early to mid 1900 warm period and enhance the late 1900 warm period.

[PhillipS]

LOL. I'm not a big fan of data manipulation. There are not many long term arctic datasets to go by, that is problem numero uno. Number 2, of the few we do have, most have been bastardized to cool the early to mid 1900 warm period and enhance the late 1900 warm period.

As you well know, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, funded in large part by the Koch brothers, analysed millions of raw and adjusted temperature records and found that the global warming trend is real and that the trend has not been distorted by adjustments or by UHI effects. All of their data and all of their methodology were made public The four reports, the drafts of which they posted for public review, are in peer-review and will be published soon.

So, given research that says we can trust the GISS temperatures, and your opinion that we can't, which should readers find more credible?

And do you have any basis for deniying the validity of the BEST findings? If so, could you please provide a link?

[LakeEffectKing]

there are no 'sides'. there are facts, and there are fabrications.

There is interpretation and uncertainty.....

[Isotherm]

there are no 'sides'. there are facts, and there are fabrications.

When it's a matter of fact or not, yes, (i.e., I'm breathing right now). With something that can be debated, like politics, religion, or climate change for example, bias always comes into play.

[PhillipS]

Let's be honest here -- everyone in this thread has a bias to some degree, and most of our posts intend to support that thinking. We like to think we're 100% objective, but we're not computers, and it's human nature to tend toward a certain side.

I agree with your comment.- with the slight exception that people who are honest with themselves know that they have biases and that they fall short of perfect objectivity. Even scientists, who are trained at every step of their education to be objective, are human. Which is why double-blind testing was developed - so that researchers couldn't even unconsciously influence the research with their biases. But I digress.

Fortunately,we don't have to be slaves to our beliefs and biases - we can examine them, compare them to reality, and modify them when necessary. Most of us do this on a undirected, haphazard basis in various aspects of our lives - the candidate we voted for in the last election we would now like to see behind bars, the breakfast cereal we used to like is now less appealing to us than the box it's packed in . . . and so on. Of course some people are slaves to their biases - they are simply unwilling or unable to change their biases no matter how out of sync with reality they are. Some of these people are the most zealous climate denialists and pseudo-skeptics.

I don't mean to imply that all skeptics are denialists or are fixed in their way of thinking. Honest skeptics are distinct from pseudo-skeptics. The ideal scientist is the ultimate skeptic - belief in something is only as solid as the data and research supporting it. Nothing is taken for granted and cherished beliefs are discarded if they are shown to be based on errors. But as you pointed out, we are not computers and will always fall short of perfection. But it's still a goal worth striving for.

[ben4vols]

So, given research that says we can trust the GISS temperatures, and your opinion that we can't, which should readers find more credible?

And do you have any basis for deniying the validity of the BEST findings? If so, could you please provide a link?

You can believe what you want and find credibility in whatever hole you want. Anthony Watts (Trixie's head just exploded) had a blog post talking about the GISS mischief in the Arctic.

Appendix A lists every current GHCN station with records back to 1940,that lie between Greenland, at a latitude of 56 W, around to a point about midway across Siberia at 86 E and which are situated close to the Arctic Circle. The table shows the adjustment made by GHCN for 1940 data. Out of 26 stations, the adjustment has reduced actual temperatures in 23 cases, many substantially. In contrast, 2 remain unchanged and only one has a positive adjustment (and this is insignificant). As a crude average, the adjustment works out at a reduction of 0.70 C.

These adjustments typically extend back to the beginning of the station records (though Reykjavik is an exception) and most continue at the same level till about 1970. ( Some of the Russian stations last longer – e.g. Ostrov Dikson’s disappears in 2009).

By 2011, however, the adjustments disappear at ALL of these sites. In other words, an artificial warming trend has been manufactured.

It is worth spelling out two points :-

1) Within this arc of longitude, there are no other stations within the Arctic Circle.

2) With the exception of Lerwick and Vestmanneyja, I can find no stations, in the region, below a latitude of 64 North with similar adjustments. Why is 64 North significant? GISS produce zonal temperature data, and their “Arctic” zone goes from 64 North to the Pole. Coincidence?

Is there any justification for adjusting?

Trausti Jonsson, a senior climatologist at the Iceland Met Office, has already confirmed that he sees no reason for the adjustments in Iceland and that they themselves have already made any adjustments necessary due to station moves etc before sending the data onto GHCN.

Clearly the fact that nearly every station in the region has been adjusted disproves the idea that these sites are outliers, which give biased results not supported by nearby stations.

GHCN were asked in January to investigate this issue and so far have failed to come up with any explanation. Unless they can do this, the assumption must be that the adjustments have been created by faulty software.

[TerryM]

There is interpretation and uncertainty.....

How 'bout misinterpreters & purveyors of uncertainty vs the scientific world?

At some point even the slowest of the believers in conspiracy myth with solar fantasies and cloud obscured judgments will awaken to strains of "Baby, it's hot outside". Even the dimmest amphibians swimming in the shallowest depths of the gene pool can sense that the broth has reached a critical stage and that tadpoles probably aren't going to survive to metamorphosis.

Croaking loudly for compatriots to remain seated until the final curtain is probably more destructive than shouting fire when flames are evident behind the smoke screen.

The denial industry is melting away through a combination of mismanagement and chaotic climatic conditions. The phase change as they dissolve from polished coprolites to a murky pool of noxious effluent will require a little more latent hostility, but their fate is intractably linked to that of the Arctic ice. Greenland and Heartland have both lost their luster and one will be missed.

Terry

[PhillipS]

You can believe what you want and find credibility in whatever hole you want. Anthony Watts (Trixie's head just exploded) had a blog post talking about the GISS mischief in the Arctic.

Well, given the fact that Watts went on record at the start of the BEST project saying he would accept the analysis results whatever they were - and then when the draft reports were released he did a 180 flip-flop and attacked the results - I detect a distinct flavor of sour grapes to his comments. But the review process for the draft reports has been open to the public so he is free to submit any and all criticisms he may have.

Back to my original point - given the exhaustive analysis of the BEST team versus your opinion (even with Watts added for ballast) I feel the discerning reader will believe the BEST team.

[beneficii]

If you have links to Arctic data from HadCRUT4 or NCDC, I would re-run the numbers using those datasets. It's my understanding that those datasets do not provide data at such a level of detail. All of them reasonably represent global temperatures. Therefore, one can rely on the data presented for global temperature anomalies, including GISS's Arctic region temperatures.

Moreover, if one examines climate data from the recent decades one finds:

1. A divergence of global temperatures from solar irradiance. Nevertheless, some have speculated that amplification of solar forcing might explain most of the observed recent warming. However, the extreme solar minimum in the 2005-10 timeframe offered a lab test of sorts on the solar + solar amplification issue. Despite the deepest and longest solar minimum since at least the early 20th century, the earth maintained a large energy imbalance.

2. Some have insisted more narrowly that the ongoing Arctic warming is the result of the AMO. Yet, Arctic temperatures have diverged from the AMO, regardless of whether one uses the annual data or 5-year moving averages.

3. Measured warming is also confirmed by expected responses. Declining Arctic ice, later first-freezes, earlier last freezes, lengthening growing seasons, etc. all are consistent with warming.

If one lacked any other information, one would be inclined to believe that a mystery or unknown forcing must explain the relatively recent divergence of global temperatures from the natural forcings. Of course, that would raise the question as to why such a mystery forcing had been dormant so to speak until recent decades.

However, things are not so bleak for climate science. Other information does exist. In fact, a very substantial body of information has been developed through careful and rigorous scientific research. That body of work, which has been validated by peer review, includes reasonable approximations for a host of forcings, natural and manmade.

The evidence strongly suggests that the human contribution in the form of greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide, explain most of the recent observed warming. The decoupling of global temperatures from natural forcings highlights the growing role atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are playing. The relative non-response to the longest and deepest solar minimum since at least the early 20th century dismissed the assumption (or hope among some contrarians) that even as solar forcing is relatively modest, amplification leads to a much greater combined direct and indirect influence.

In their 2011 paper concerning the persistence of the earth's energy imbalance, Hansen, et. al., concluded:

The strong positive energy imbalance during the solar minimum, and the consistency of the planet's energy imbalance with expectations based on estimated human-made climate forcing, together constitute a smoking gun, a fundamental verification that human-made climate forcing is the dominant forcing driving global climate change.

If they wish to overturn the scientific consensus, those who disagree with the scientific consensus must furnish credible evidence of a new natural forcing or series of such forcings that allows them to accurately represent the climate--including the recent warming--using solely natural forcings and/or demonstrate that CO2's heat trapping properties are much less than what is currently understood. Attempts to dismiss rigorous and credible datasets that measure the earth's temperature (e.g., Watt's efforts to discredit the instrument record) are not a substitute for meeting that requirement. Instead, they represent an attempt to evade what is likely an insurmountable challenge and possibly a challenge that they know they can't surmount.

In the meantime, natural and anthropogenic forcings will continue to drive the climate, with the latter exerting a relatively greater influence for the foreseeable future. In the near-term, the forecast of imminent global cooling being peddled by some bloggers, could well be shattered next year as the global temperature approaches or exceeds its 2010 peak (GISS and/or NCDC) courtesy of an El Niño that is emerging in the context of a still warming global climate.

there are no 'sides'. there are facts, and there are fabrications.

How 'bout misinterpreters & purveyors of uncertainty vs the scientific world?

At some point even the slowest of the believers in conspiracy myth with solar fantasies and cloud obscured judgments will awaken to strains of "Baby, it's hot outside". Even the dimmest amphibians swimming in the shallowest depths of the gene pool can sense that the broth has reached a critical stage and that tadpoles probably aren't going to survive to metamorphosis.

Croaking loudly for compatriots to remain seated until the final curtain is probably more destructive than shouting fire when flames are evident behind the smoke screen.

The denial industry is melting away through a combination of mismanagement and chaotic climatic conditions. The phase change as they dissolve from polished coprolites to a murky pool of noxious effluent will require a little more latent hostility, but their fate is intractably linked to that of the Arctic ice. Greenland and Heartland have both lost their luster and one will be missed.

Terry

(/thread)

[ben4vols]

Well, given the fact that Watts went on record at the start of the BEST project saying he would accept the analysis results whatever they were - and then when the draft reports were released he did a 180 flip-flop and attacked the results - I detect a distinct flavor of sour grapes to his comments. But the review process for the draft reports has been open to the public so he is free to submit any and all criticisms he may have.

Back to my original point - given the exhaustive analysis of the BEST team versus your opinion (even with Watts added for ballast) I feel the discerning reader will believe the BEST team.

The BEST team can only go by the available data and there is very little for the "Arctic" and of that data most of it has been manipulated. I don't deny the Arctic is warming, obviously it is and obviously it is building upon itself. However how much warmer is it now vs what it was decades ago? Doesn't look like it is that much warmer when you compare pre-manipulated data.

[cyclonebuster]

The BEST team can only go by the available data and there is very little for the "Arctic" and of that data most of it has been manipulated. I don't deny the Arctic is warming, obviously it is and obviously it is building upon itself. However how much warmer is it now vs what it was decades ago? Doesn't look like it is that much warmer when you compare pre-manipulated data.

POPPYCOCK!

[dabize]

The denial industry is melting away through a combination of mismanagement and chaotic climatic conditions. The phase change as they dissolve from polished coprolites to a murky pool of noxious effluent will require a little more latent hostility, but their fate is intractably linked to that of the Arctic ice. Greenland and Heartland have both lost their luster and one will be missed.

Terry

This is one of the wildest flowers of scientific oratory I've ever seen......it rivals Poe's initial description of the House of Usher, with bullsh*t substituting for the gangrenous putrefication of the original.

First one to make a "Poe" joke gets a prize...........

[WeatherRusty]

How 'bout misinterpreters & purveyors of uncertainty vs the scientific world?

At some point even the slowest of the believers in conspiracy myth with solar fantasies and cloud obscured judgments will awaken to strains of "Baby, it's hot outside". Even the dimmest amphibians swimming in the shallowest depths of the gene pool can sense that the broth has reached a critical stage and that tadpoles probably aren't going to survive to metamorphosis.

Croaking loudly for compatriots to remain seated until the final curtain is probably more destructive than shouting fire when flames are evident behind the smoke screen.

The denial industry is melting away through a combination of mismanagement and chaotic climatic conditions. The phase change as they dissolve from polished coprolites to a murky pool of noxious effluent will require a little more latent hostility, but their fate is intractably linked to that of the Arctic ice. Greenland and Heartland have both lost their luster and one will be missed.

Terry

deep coprolite............man!

[icebreaker5221]

I thought this was an interesting graph:

Bump for update.