2011 9th Warmest Year in Satellite Record

[skookerasbil]

 

[wirebender]

2011 9th Warmest Year in Satellite Record
January 4th, 2012 at 10:16 pm by Jim Spencer under Weather
2011 9th Warmest Year in Satellite Record | KXAN.com Blogs
Global Temperature Report: December 2011

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.13 C per decade

December temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.13 C (about 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.20 C (about 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.06 C (about 0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.

Tropics: +0.04 C (about 0.07 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.

(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)

Notes on data released Jan. 4, 2012:

2011 was the ninth warmest year (globally averaged) in the 33-year global satellite record despite La Niña Pacific Ocean cooling events at the start and finish of the year, according to John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Globally averaged, Earth’s atmosphere was 0.15 C (0.27 degree Fahrenheit) warmer than the 30-year average in 2011; That was less than half of the warming anomaly seen in 2010.

Average annual global
temperature anomalies,
warmest to coolest
1979 – 2011

1998 0.424
2010 0.411
2005 0.251
2002 0.22
2009 0.187
2003 0.185
2006 0.175
2007 0.168
2011 0.15
2001 0.112
2004 0.104
1991 0.025
1987 0.018
1995 0.018
1988 0.017
1980 -0.003
1990 -0.017
1981 -0.04
2008 -0.041
1997 -0.044
1999 -0.051
1983 -0.056
2000 -0.056
1996 -0.071
1994 -0.104
1979 -0.165
1989 -0.202
1986 -0.239
1993 -0.24
1982 -0.245
1992 -0.284
1985 -0.304
1984 -0.348

With A COLDER SET UP for 2011 we got 9th, while 2008 had the 19th coldest at 2008 -0.041c. 2011 had a double nina...That hasn't happened since 1999-2001 nina cycle. The first nina in 2008 may of been close to the first one, but we didn't go below -.5c globally or even a offical second nina. This year we made -1.0 or moderate for the second nina and never warmed up at all.

This year was a impressive .191c warmer then 2008!

Ladies and gents, if this year couldn't knock us outside of the 10th warmest years-- we aren't ever going to see another in are life times. Seriously, no nina event since 1974 was as strong. Yes, sir we just faced down one of the coldest patterns in 40 years in laughed in its face! A pattern that could of put us near 1984-1985 or lower on that list.

I am looking at the data by which that claim is made Matthew and I have a question. What is the real margin of error in temperature data that supposes to express an average temperature of the whole earth? Not how accurate are thermometers, or measuring devices, but how accurate is the mathematical formula that is used to derive an average?

Do you know? Is it accurate to a 10th of a degree? Half a degree? 3/4 of a degree? A couple of degrees?

 

[Old Rocks]

2011 9th Warmest Year in Satellite Record | KXAN.com Blogs

Now Bent, just go to the site, and read it a couple of times. For you, maybe a couple more times. You should be able to get the accuracy, in decimal form, from that reading. Again, maybe not.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sure thing silly person! You keep telling yourself that. The world is abandoning your scaremongering. You can't frighten the savages anymore because they don't believe your BS anymore. Loser!

Sticking to your denier cult myths to the bitter end, eh walleyedretard? Reality denial might work for a time in the political arena but reality always bitch-slaps you in the end, you poor deluded fool.

Yep, I certainly will continue to follow the scientific method (which the alarmists abandoned decades ago) and strive for a better understanding of the world around us (the alarmists don't care...they just want our money) so that we may be better stewards of the planet (unlike the alarmists who regularly shoot first and aim later resulting in billions of environmental damage and poisoned water wells in one well known case) so that all the critters can live in harmony.

Harmony, the alarmists don't believe in nor want harmony, they are extremists with all of the negative meaning that that adjective entails.

LOL. Walleyes, you silly retard, why did the AAPG change it's positon on AGW?

Seems the membership told the board that if it continued it's lies concerning AGW that it would not have any membership.

American Association of Petroleum Geologists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Global warming controversyIn 2006 the AAPG was criticized for selecting Michael Crichton for their Journalism Award "for his recent science-based thriller State of Fear", in which Crichton exposed his skeptical view of global warming, and for Jurassic Park.[2] Daniel P. Schrag, a geochemist who directs the Harvard University Center for the Environment, called the award "a total embarrassment" that he said "reflects the politics of the oil industry and a lack of professionalism" on the association's part.[3] The award has since been renamed the "Geosciences in the Media" Award.[4]

The criticism drew attention to the AAPG's 1999 position statement[5] formally rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate. The Council of the American Quaternary Association wrote in a criticism of the award that the "AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming."[6]

As recently as March 2007, articles in the newsletter of the AAPG Division of Professional Affairs stated that "the data does not support human activity as the cause of global warming"[7] and characterize the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports as "wildly distorted and politicized."[8]

[edit] 2007 AAPG revised positionAcknowledging that the association's previous policy statement on Climate Change was "not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members",[9] AAPG's formal stance was reviewed and changed in July 2007.
The new statement formally accepts human activity as at least one contributor to carbon dioxide increase, but does not confirm its link to climate change, saying its members are "divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has" on climate. AAPG also stated support for "research to narrow probabilistic ranges on the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global climate."[10]

AAPG also withdrew its earlier criticism of other scientific organizations and research stating, "Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS, and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models."


So there are real scientists among the AAPG membership. But you are not among them, Walleyes.

 

[IanC]

damn!!! thats funny

 

[Big Fitz]

damn!!! thats funny

Here's what that comic's based on for all you arcade junkies with your 80's mis-spent youth.

Rolling Thunder - Videogame by Atari

 

[westwall]

Sticking to your denier cult myths to the bitter end, eh walleyedretard? Reality denial might work for a time in the political arena but reality always bitch-slaps you in the end, you poor deluded fool.

Yep, I certainly will continue to follow the scientific method (which the alarmists abandoned decades ago) and strive for a better understanding of the world around us (the alarmists don't care...they just want our money) so that we may be better stewards of the planet (unlike the alarmists who regularly shoot first and aim later resulting in billions of environmental damage and poisoned water wells in one well known case) so that all the critters can live in harmony.

Harmony, the alarmists don't believe in nor want harmony, they are extremists with all of the negative meaning that that adjective entails.

LOL. Walleyes, you silly retard, why did the AAPG change it's positon on AGW?

Seems the membership told the board that if it continued it's lies concerning AGW that it would not have any membership.

American Association of Petroleum Geologists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Global warming controversyIn 2006 the AAPG was criticized for selecting Michael Crichton for their Journalism Award "for his recent science-based thriller State of Fear", in which Crichton exposed his skeptical view of global warming, and for Jurassic Park.[2] Daniel P. Schrag, a geochemist who directs the Harvard University Center for the Environment, called the award "a total embarrassment" that he said "reflects the politics of the oil industry and a lack of professionalism" on the association's part.[3] The award has since been renamed the "Geosciences in the Media" Award.[4]

The criticism drew attention to the AAPG's 1999 position statement[5] formally rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate. The Council of the American Quaternary Association wrote in a criticism of the award that the "AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming."[6]

As recently as March 2007, articles in the newsletter of the AAPG Division of Professional Affairs stated that "the data does not support human activity as the cause of global warming"[7] and characterize the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports as "wildly distorted and politicized."[8]

[edit] 2007 AAPG revised positionAcknowledging that the association's previous policy statement on Climate Change was "not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members",[9] AAPG's formal stance was reviewed and changed in July 2007.
The new statement formally accepts human activity as at least one contributor to carbon dioxide increase, but does not confirm its link to climate change, saying its members are "divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has" on climate. AAPG also stated support for "research to narrow probabilistic ranges on the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global climate."[10]

AAPG also withdrew its earlier criticism of other scientific organizations and research stating, "Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS, and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models."


So there are real scientists among the AAPG membership. But you are not among them, Walleyes.

I assume they decided to change their tune because of money. How else but throguh governmental regulation can the oil companies make billions more dollars for doing absolutely nothing?

Remember olfraud ENRON was a major player in the Kyoto agreements, that criminal company realised early on (hell Ken Lay TOLD Gore about the economic prospects of CO2 control legislation) that the best way to make (well steal it anyway) money for the least amount of effort (the goal of ALL PREDATORS) is to make people have to pay more for your product then they need to. The more the merrier.

You seem to keep forgetting that the oil companies are now hevily invested in all this "green tech" you keep harping on about. You claim the oil companies are fighting it tooth and nail when in real fact they WANT the legislation to pass so they can really screw the people of the world over.

If you were truly an environmentalist you would know that.

 

[skookerasbil]

LMAO..........-25 degrees in Calgary tonight!!! I guess global warming forgot about that part of the world!!

IM just laughing at the relentless rants of the alarmist k00ks on all this termperature shit.........as if sub freeezing temps no longer occur in the world


Apparently skipping out on Alaska too.............. No end in sight for bitter cold: Alaska News | Alaska news at adn.com



You fcukking dolts.............



But keep up the nutter rants...........its why we come back!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

minus 25 in Calgary in January? That is supposed to be world shaking? Bitter cold in Alaska in January? Ever read London?

 

[skookerasbil]

minus 25 in Calgary in January? That is supposed to be world shaking? Bitter cold in Alaska in January? Ever read London?

But that's the point Ray.........those who get angst about the temperatures where it is a little warmer completely discount other areas where temperatures are colder than a witches tit!! In 2012, people get this and most are scratching their heads and saying to themselves, "I'll take those environmental radicals seriously when I see Calgary at 40 degree's in mid-January for weeks on end.". Until then, the majority give a big yawn to this stuff. They really do see the true believers as a group who wants to only see temperature readings in places where it is a bit above normal while completely marginalizing places where fuel valves are frozen solid and rendered inoperable.

Indeed.........in the northeast the past three days, nobody has left their house for fear of their nuts falling off due to frigid temperatures.

Its all about perception..........and far less about special interests and the prevailing data. Its the way its always gonna be. A vast majority have much more pressing concerns in their lives than to be worried about some speculation about weather in 25 or 30 years.........especially if the goal is to have the government rob them of more money for 19th century energy technology solutions. People are out there on their fancy iPhones getting data from the other side of the world in an instant. What? Theyre going to go for spending thousands a year extra on their energy bills so they can have windmills in their backyards? Its not even close to plausible.

When technology catches up to the 21st century in the area of energy, people might listen then.............not a moment sooner.

Funny thing is Ray..........in a pro-growth economy, some of the technologies we need might actually be initiated but my guess is, you want to continue down this road of goofball Keynesian economics which is ironic because it is a stake in the heart of those truly looking to address the climate ( if indeed there really is something to it ) with energy solutions. The idea of taxing the rich to find new energy solutions is simply an exercise in total futility and will never, ever work.

 

[edthecynic]

minus 25 in Calgary in January? That is supposed to be world shaking? Bitter cold in Alaska in January? Ever read London?

But that's the point Ray.........those who get angst about the temperatures where it is a little warmer completely discount other areas where temperatures are colder than a witches tit!! In 2012, people get this and most are scratching their heads and saying to themselves, "I'll take those environmental radicals seriously when I see Calgary at 40 degree's in mid-January for weeks on end.". Until then, the majority give a big yawn to this stuff. They really do see the true believers as a group who wants to only see temperature readings in places where it is a bit above normal while completely marginalizing places where fuel valves are frozen solid and rendered inoperable.

Indeed.........in the northeast the past three days, nobody has left their house for fear of their nuts falling off due to frigid temperatures.

Its all about perception..........and far less about special interests and the prevailing data. Its the way its always gonna be...

 

[westwall]

minus 25 in Calgary in January? That is supposed to be world shaking? Bitter cold in Alaska in January? Ever read London?

But that's the point Ray.........those who get angst about the temperatures where it is a little warmer completely discount other areas where temperatures are colder than a witches tit!! In 2012, people get this and most are scratching their heads and saying to themselves, "I'll take those environmental radicals seriously when I see Calgary at 40 degree's in mid-January for weeks on end.". Until then, the majority give a big yawn to this stuff. They really do see the true believers as a group who wants to only see temperature readings in places where it is a bit above normal while completely marginalizing places where fuel valves are frozen solid and rendered inoperable.

Indeed.........in the northeast the past three days, nobody has left their house for fear of their nuts falling off due to frigid temperatures.

Its all about perception..........and far less about special interests and the prevailing data. Its the way its always gonna be...

I just love those anomolie maps that show elevated temps where no thermometers are and where the satellites don't cover the planet...priceless! Every part of the Arctic where there is a thermometer on the ground shows lower temps, amazingly enough where there are NO thermometers there is a rise. Voodoo I tell ya, voodoo.

 

[wirebender]

[Its all about perception..........and far less about special interests and the prevailing data. Its the way its always gonna be...

[/QUOTE]

Interesting thing about that graphic. Some of the largest anomolies are where there are the fewest, if any data collection sites. Makes you wonder.

 

[wirebender]

2011 9th Warmest Year in Satellite Record | KXAN.com Blogs

Now Bent, just go to the site, and read it a couple of times. For you, maybe a couple more times. You should be able to get the accuracy, in decimal form, from that reading. Again, maybe not.

In typical fashion rocks, you failed again. You didn't answer my question and there is no answer to the question at the site.

 

[edthecynic]

But that's the point Ray.........those who get angst about the temperatures where it is a little warmer completely discount other areas where temperatures are colder than a witches tit!! In 2012, people get this and most are scratching their heads and saying to themselves, "I'll take those environmental radicals seriously when I see Calgary at 40 degree's in mid-January for weeks on end.". Until then, the majority give a big yawn to this stuff. They really do see the true believers as a group who wants to only see temperature readings in places where it is a bit above normal while completely marginalizing places where fuel valves are frozen solid and rendered inoperable.

Indeed.........in the northeast the past three days, nobody has left their house for fear of their nuts falling off due to frigid temperatures.

Its all about perception..........and far less about special interests and the prevailing data. Its the way its always gonna be...

I just love those anomolie maps that show elevated temps where no thermometers are and where the satellites don't cover the planet...priceless! Every part of the Arctic where there is a thermometer on the ground shows lower temps, amazingly enough where there are NO thermometers there is a rise. Voodoo I tell ya, voodoo.

Interesting thing about that graphic. Some of the largest anomolies are where there are the fewest, if any data collection sites. Makes you wonder.

 

[westwall]

I just love those anomolie maps that show elevated temps where no thermometers are and where the satellites don't cover the planet...priceless! Every part of the Arctic where there is a thermometer on the ground shows lower temps, amazingly enough where there are NO thermometers there is a rise. Voodoo I tell ya, voodoo.

Interesting thing about that graphic. Some of the largest anomolies are where there are the fewest, if any data collection sites. Makes you wonder.

Yes look at that paucity of ground based thermometers in the Arctic and yet that is where the temp anomolies are the highest... voodoo I tell ya, voodoo!

 

[edthecynic]

I just love those anomolie maps that show elevated temps where no thermometers are and where the satellites don't cover the planet...priceless! Every part of the Arctic where there is a thermometer on the ground shows lower temps, amazingly enough where there are NO thermometers there is a rise. Voodoo I tell ya, voodoo.

Interesting thing about that graphic. Some of the largest anomolies are where there are the fewest, if any data collection sites. Makes you wonder.

Yes look at that paucity of ground based thermometers in the Arctic and yet that is where the temp anomolies are the highest... voodoo I tell ya, voodoo!

Yeah sure, there are no red anomaly dots in Northern Europe, or Eastern USA, only in the Arctic.

 

[wirebender]

Yeah sure, there are no red anomaly dots in Northern Europe, or Eastern USA, only in the Arctic.

The point was that the largest anomoly dots are where the fewest data collection stations are located and as coverage decreases the anomoly increases.

You might try getting a better image of the GCN map as well. If you look at one with decent resolution, it is clear that the areas in northern europe that are well covered are showing cooling, while areas with hardly any coverage are showing the greatest warming trends; and as coverage decreases, the anomoly increases.

Does this not raise red flags for you?

Warming: Drinking the kookaid has been proven to sharply decrease critical thinking ability.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, ol' Walleyes comes out with the silly answer again. There may less weather stations in the Arctic, but they are manned by people of several differant nations. So they are all in a conspiracy to fool the rest of us? Would you like another roll of tinfoil for your little hats?

 

[Old Rocks]

2011 9th warmest year in satellite record | kxan.com blogs

now bent, just go to the site, and read it a couple of times. For you, maybe a couple more times. You should be able to get the accuracy, in decimal form, from that reading. Again, maybe not.

in typical fashion rocks, you failed again. You didn't answer my question and there is no answer to the question at the site.

lol