The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration recently released its “
State of the Climate in 2012” report, which states that “worldwide, 2012
was among the 10 warmest years on record.”
But the report “fails to mention  was one of the coolest of the decade,
and thus confirms the cooling trend,” according to an analysis by climate
“To no one’s surprise, the report gives the reader the impression that
warming is galloping ahead out of control,” writes Gosselin. “But their data
shows just the opposite.”
And why is no one surprised that they are still ringing the climate alarm bell in the teeth of their own data? Because everyone knows that they know that tax dollars don’t get spewed at agencies that say “calm down, it’s not as bad as we thought.”
16 Replies to “What Global Warming? 2012 Data Confirms Earth In Cooling Trend”
This is an interesting part of the July 2013 Senate hearing on Climate policy. None of the scientists supported what the president had said. Dr Heidi Cullen tried to change the subject but she was really blown away with graphs from other expert witnesses (Pielke Jr. mainly) telling that problems are not getting worse.
So despite it being one of the top 10 warmest years on record, 2012 was still the coolest year of the decade, because 8 of the other 9 years are also in the top ten, with 2010 being the warmest year on record. (And don’t forget that 2012 was a La Nina year, so it was supposed to be cooler than usual.)
If that’s a “cooling trend”, I’d sure hate to see what a warming trend would look like! 🙂
While the past decade has been the warmest decade on record (by far) I would say (despite 2010) that the past decade shows no trend either way. Ranking the years of the past decade by temperature shows a pretty random list of the 10 years.
Please remember weather is not climate. Overall measurements including sattelites show a flat Earth temp for 17 years, with no further rise.
Maybe some of you that are better informed than me can help. I struggle with the idea of “global climate”. I understand there are average temperatures that one can call “global temperatures” but these don’t effect localities. Local temperatures do. Arctic temperatures affect the arctic, antarctic temperatures effect the antarctic, tropical temperatures effect the tropics and all these can all be different. Don’t warmer oceans lead to more evaporation, cloud formation, rain and arctic snowfall when local conditions like pressure permit?
Where did you get that from. As I understand it satellite lower troposphere (you can’t do surface with satellite) and surface measurements agree quite closely and show long term warming.
From Wikipedia (I can’t be bothered to delve deeper right now):
Climate model results summarized by the IPCC in their third assessment show overall good agreement with the satellite temperature record. In particular both models and satellite record show a global average warming trend for the troposphere (models range for TLT/T2LT 0.6 – 0.39°C/decade; avg 0.2°C/decade) and a cooling of the stratosphere (models range for TLS/T4 -0.7 – 0.08°C/decade; avg -0.25°C/decade).
Mark – I don’t know you but really, friends don’t let friends cite Wikipedia for anything that might have a politically controversial dimension (and CAGW is certainly politically driven) – and especially one never cites Wikipedia for factual, objective information about GW, at least not in polite company.
mark frank #5
I follow ‘Watts Up With That’ web site. All us deniers gather there and exchange valid climate information, not IPCC propaganda. Try it. You might learn something that is real.
I have no idea what the word means to climate scientists. But in financial markets a “trend,” in the case of an uptrend, means higher highs and higher lows. Or in the case of a downtrend, like the one seen in the chart the OP linked, it means lower highs and lower lows. Trends are not rocket surgery. Really.
You are right that Wikipedia is not authoritative. I was tired and short of time. If you look at this wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....atures.png you will see a graph showing satellite and land temperatures with a detailed explanation and supporting references.Do I really have to spend time digging up the references when no on has given me a reference of any kind showing satellite temperatures are flat.
I used to follow the climate change debate closely. I found climate audit to be a much more convincing and detailed source of sceptical information. Then it all became repetitive and more to do with politics and social groups than science. Can you give me an actual reference showing Overall measurements including satellites show a flat Earth temp for 17 years.
The chart you show takes 1998 as it start. That was a freak high year. I hope financial markets are more sophisticated than that when measuring trends!
Actually the trend of scientific consensus is still warming in places near the North American coasts although the underlying data is having a significant overall chilling effect on the number of peer-reviewed papers on anthropogenic global warming, a number that’s closely followed by those who closely follow scientific trends.
As a result, the momentum from the tide of opinion is beginning to dissipate as the lunatic pull begins to shift toward hiding the profound embarrassment to the scientific consensus from the collapsing support of the Fluoridation debacle.
It turns out that this is such an important issue that no one even bothers to show up if it rains.
#9 mark frank: By eyeball you can see the flatness since 1998. Granted 1998 was the warmest, but remember CO2 is still rising.
Global warming? We still haven’t reached an increase of 1 degree Celsius going back over 100 years. And that was coming off of a little ice age.
As side note this summer has been the coldest summer that I can remember. If they factor in night-time temps 2013 should be colder than any recent year.
Very interesting article over at crev.info entitled “Invisible Influence of Plants Coming to Light”.
It is related to global warming. It throws a whole new aspect into the mix that may have been overlooked in current warming models.
Here is the opening paragraph:
“The air is filled with substances we barely notice – molecules produced by plants – but they have profound effects on climate and ecology.
They’re called volatile organic compounds, or VOCs – molecules with a low boiling point that evaporate out of plants and waft through the air. Scientists know about a few of them, but not all…. Plants produce hundreds of other VOCs, though, that until recently were not even detected. What is the invisible influence of plants in their ecological niches, or for the planet as a whole?”
It looks like the warming we have encountered was due to the clean air acts of the 70s and 80s- clean air allows more of the sun’s rays through to the Earth’s surface:
Shocker: Global warming may simply be an artifact of clean air laws
Check the Gosselin source cited, which is an interactive page. Gosselin has selected a peak in 1998 for the beginning of his graph, and implied a recent decline in mean global temperatures.
Here is the same source, plotted since 1920 (you can use your own parameters)
And while might that would support the view that things have steadied, don’t be too sanguine until you’ve checked out the annual minima on the Arctic sea ice chart, and also note that 1998, the peak on Gosselin’s chart, was close to a sunspot peak, since when sunspot activity has declined for longer than usual but is starting to climb again.
By the time of the next sunspot peak, in two or three years, if arctic sea ice has continued to decline, reducing NH albedo, expect another record high. If that doesn’t happen, perhaps we can relax.
Oh, and Joe – only if clearer air were the only contributor to global warming would that news be comforting. Unfortunately evidence suggests that dimming in the second part of the last century merely masked some of the CO2 induced warming, making current projections worse, not better.