2012 obliterates temperature records, meanwhile Fox News demands recount of temp measurements
56 replies, posted
[img]http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/201201-201212-640x525.gif[/img]
[quote]
When 19 of the contiguous 48 states have the warmest years on record, it's pretty much guaranteed to be a record year for the country as a whole. But saying that 2012 had record heat doesn't truly capture how much of an aberration the year was for the US, according to the [URL="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2012/13"]annual report from NOAA[/URL]. Another 10 states had their second-warmest years on record; seven more had their third. The end result was a year that was a [I]full degree Fahrenheit[/I] above the previous record holder, and 1.8°C (3.3°F) above the average from last century.
Most of the warmth came during the early part of the year, which was accompanied by significant drought conditions across a wide section of the country. NOAA's "climate extremes index," which incorporates temperature, precipitation, and other trends shows the entire South (from Texas to the East Coast) experienced its most extreme weather in the spring; everything but the West Coast was much above average during that time. The index shows that 2012 was either the most extreme on record or came in second to 1998, depending on whether you included hurricane activity.
For some regions of the country, snow took the year off. As NOAA puts it, "The 2011/12 winter season was nearly non-existent for much of the eastern half of the nation." The result was the third-lowest snow cover on record in the 48 contiguous states, with only a relatively heavy winter in the Pacific Northwest keeping matters from being worse. The low snowpack contributed to the drought conditions that prevailed over most of the summer.
Hurricane activity was a mixed bag. With 19 named storms, ten hurricanes, and one major hurricane, it was tied as the third most active season on record. At the same time, none of the storms reached Category 4 or 5, which has only happened two other times since 1995. The sole Category 3 hurricane, Michael, only sustained that status for six hours. The New York area will take little comfort from the fact that Sandy wasn't even a hurricane when it made landfall, allowing the US to have its seventh year without a hurricane making landfall.
It's obviously very tempting to assign this extreme year to climate change (and a number of people have). In the case of some specific facets, it's easy to do so; for example, the flooding caused by Sandy was exacerbated by the fact that climate change has driven a small increase in sea levels over the last century. But attribution is hard (at least from a scientific perspective) and takes a significant amount of time, so the studies that link specific events to climate change usually take a year or two to appear.
[h=2]The global picture[/h] Globally, however, 2012 doesn't seem to have been an extreme year. Every year since 2000 has been warmer than every other year on record except 1998, which is a strong outlier from the rest of the last century. Although the final numbers for the year have yet to be posted at any of the sites that track them, [URL="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt"]data from the earlier months[/URL] suggest that 2012 will be no exception, and it has a fair chance of winding up on the top-10 list of warmest years. But, if it does, it's likely to end up somewhere in the middle of the list.
Part of that is the hangover from the [URL="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/"]recent La Niña event[/URL] in the Pacific. Even though there was a relatively weak El Niño (the warmer phase of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation) in 2010, it was enough to push that year to the warmest on record. Since then, we've mostly been in a relatively strong La Niña, which has moderated global temperatures.
[IMG]http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ts.gif[/IMG]The ENSO index shows that the tropical Pacific has mostly been in a cold phase recently.
[URL="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ts.gif"]NOAA[/URL]
That started to change this year, but there tends to be a lag between ocean temperatures and the response of global temperatures. So far, at least, the El Niño has been very weak, and it quickly dropped back toward a neutral state. There's no good way to predict whether this represents a temporary dip, or whether the El Niño will strengthen over the course of 2013.
Although 2012's global temperatures won't be setting any records, that doesn't mean that they were insufficient to drive extreme weather events. It will certainly be well above the 20th century's average temperature and will likely be one of the 10 warmest years on record to date. But it will take some time before scientists can actually crunch the numbers to see whether any particular weather trends can be ascribed to the year's warmth.[/quote]
[URL="http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/2012-was-hottest-on-record-in-the-us-warm-everywhere-else/"]SOURCE[/URL]
[quote]
Back in 2010, a [URL="http://arstechnica.com/science/2010/12/fox-news-on-climate-skip-the-science-report-the-controversy/"]memo leaked[/URL] from Fox News in which its managing editor informed his staff that they couldn't even report on basic temperature measurements without noting they were subject to controversy in some quarters, even if those quarters are out past the fringes of the scientific community. That directive is apparently still in force. Just days after NOAA released its reading of [URL="http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/2012-was-hottest-on-record-in-the-us-warm-everywhere-else/"]last year's US temperatures[/URL], Fox responded with [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/10/hottest-year-ever-skeptics-question-revisions-to-climate-data/#ixzz2HbjuLWQj"]a report[/URL] in which it questions whether NOAA is producing accurate temperature readings.
The report is a classic example of what's been termed "false balance." It presents experts with relevant experience and the official word from NOAA, but it simultaneously surrounds them with quotes from several people who aren't scientists—as well as one scientist who is a notable contrarian about other fields of science. In many ways, the self-labelled skeptics contradict each other in their haste to condemn NOAA. But the Fox article doesn't point any of this out, and it actually ends with a veiled hint that we might consider throwing NOAA scientists in jail for their "manipulations of data."
At issue are the historic US temperature records. These are generated from stations maintained by the US government. Over the course of 100-plus years, many of these stations have been moved to new locations or had their equipment replaced. These events create a break in the record. To generate its historical analysis, NOAA has to identify the breaks and perform an analysis that matches up the two end-points, creating a single, continuous record.
Apparently it does a good job. When the Berkeley Earth project [URL="http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/10/climate-skeptics-perform-independent-analysis-finally-convinced-earth-is-getting-warmer/"]examined temperature records[/URL], they used a statistical method that didn't repair the breaks. Instead, they treated the two sides of the break as independent temperature records. Yet that team came up with a temperature reconstruction that was [I]nearly identical[/I] to ones made using NOAA's data. Since that time, NOAA has gone back and updated their records further, identifying additional breaks that had gone undetected and updating its algorithms to take advantage of advances in computing power. If anything, its current data is even more reliable.
[B]And that's exactly what a NOAA spokesperson told Fox News[/B]. Yet the Fox News team felt compelled to go out and find three people who don't believe him or the scientists he represents.
One is a blogger who writes under the name Steve Goddard, who told Fox, "The adjusted data is meaningless garbage. It bears no resemblance to the thermometer data it starts out as." But Goddard doesn't explain why he thinks that's the case, nor why Berkeley Earth came up with similar results when they weren't using some of NOAA's adjustments. And Fox doesn't explain why they're putting NOAA's word up against someone who doesn't study the climate and has only bachelor's degrees in science and engineering. A cursory examination would have also revealed that Goddard has attacked climate researchers before, only to find out his criticisms [URL="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/"]were completely wrong[/URL] and based on a trivial error.
The report does include one scientist with some relevant experience, Roy Spencer. But again, Fox does not appear to have done any checking of Spencer's background. Spencer has been known to let his personal views cloud his scientific judgement, as evidenced by his wholehearted support of intelligent design and [URL="http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/roy-spencer-on-intelligent-design/"]disbelief of evolution[/URL]. In the case of environmental issues, he's made his personal views [URL="http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/fundanomics-the-free-market-simplified/#comment-17613"]very clear[/URL], stating, "I would wager that my job has helped save our economy from the economic ravages of out-of-control environmental extremism." A lot of his climate research isn't [URL="http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/09/editor-of-journal-behind-controversial-climate-paper-resigns/"]well respected by the community[/URL], either.
But Spencer is brought out anyway and given a chance to blast NOAA for its adjustments. At least he voiced a specific complaint, saying that urbanization has thrown off the temperature records. Unfortunately, that claim isn't consistent with the available data. People have tracked the impact of urbanization [URL="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010RG000345/abstract"]both globally[/URL] and [URL="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD013094/abstract"]in the US[/URL] and found that it doesn't influence the temperature record. The Berkeley Earth project, linked above, also found no influence of urbanization. Yet Spencer is allowed to point the finger at it unchallenged.
The final critic trotted out is meteorologist Anthony Watts, who runs a prominent skeptic site that is notable for its generally flawed approach to science. Nevertheless, Watts himself was involved with some research that showed that the US' historic temperature record hasn't been unduly influenced by urbanization; ironically, his own stab at science is being dismissed here by Spencer.
And Watts returns the favor. Spencer recognized that some form of adjustment was necessary, but Watts slams any such effort as reinventing history: "Is history malleable? Can temperature data of the past be molded to fit a purpose? It certainly seems to be the case here." His evidence that this is the case? If he provided any to Fox, it wasn't relayed in the article.
What are we to make of this chaotic jumble of unreliable sources and internal contradictions? As far as Fox is concerned, apparently nothing; the article doesn't draw any conclusion about the science whatsoever. It's a classic example of false balance, allowing the reporter to present a biased picture while maintaining the appearance of impartiality. But the reporter does let Watts show his biases when he's given the last word, and he uses it to insinuate that NOAA's scientists should probably be in prison, saying, "In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data."[/quote]
[URL="http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/false-balance-fox-news-demands-a-recount-on-us-warmest-year/"]Source[/URL]
[quote]But the reporter does let Watts show his biases when he's given the last word, and he uses it to insinuate that NOAA's scientists should probably be in prison, saying, "In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data."[/quote]
Another winter with zero snow here.
It was 75F here in NC yesterday, and 73 today.
Last year was really warm compared to the previous years, and this year although it started off cold for me in Georgia, around 30-50F, It was 73 the yesterday and its 68 now.
This year has been really fucking cold here in Montana, I don't get how we're any -hotter- than normal.
It flurried around Christmas here a bit. Now it's getting over 60 degrees (Fahrenheit).
Where is my damn snow?
We should ask Glaber about the NOAA's clearly illegal activities
[QUOTE=bisousbisous;39209563]Another winter with zero snow here.[/QUOTE]
In southeast missouri we just got a really awesome snowstorm. the snow has melted though
2011 was much warmer in Maine. We didn't even have (enough) snow (to nordic on) until very late January.
Bullshit, it was freezing cold in Southern California.
Trends.
[QUOTE=gamefreek76;39209713]Bullshit, it was freezing cold in Southern California.[/QUOTE]
For 24 hours I assume, then it got hot just like the rest of the states
Get on our level, Washington
What I want to know is how it can be considered "much above normal" to have 71º highs and pouring down rain [i]when that's been the case for mid January in Tennessee for nearly ten years now.[/i]
It's not 'much warmer than normal'. Being much warmer [i]is[/i] the norm.
40° F on Friday, 5° F today.
Minnesota, what are you doing?
70°F here in Pennsylvania today.
[QUOTE=Mad Chatter;39210034]40° F on Friday, 5° F today.
Minnesota, what are you doing?[/QUOTE]
I'll trade you. 40° F one day, and now -17° F for the 4 days in a row.
[QUOTE=IliekBoxes;39209672]In southeast missouri we just got a really awesome snowstorm. the snow has melted though[/QUOTE]
North Missourian here, we got only a few inches of snow, but it's windy enough that we had several feet deep snow drifts in our driveway, I had fun jumping in snow that came up past my knees, rare sight snow that deep anymore.
[QUOTE=TestECull;39210027]What I want to know is how it can be considered "much above normal" to have 71º highs and pouring down rain [i]when that's been the case for mid January in Tennessee for nearly ten years now.[/i]
It's not 'much warmer than normal'. Being much warmer [i]is[/i] the norm.[/QUOTE]
because tenessee isn't the only state in the U.S.
I see that Washington is still the coolest state.
It as like, 70F last night at 12 AM here in SC.
Minnesota's weather is having a seizure.
Here in VA, the weather has fluctuated all winter, honestly. Atleast to me it seems. One day I would have to wear my cashmere coat in the cold rain, just barely over the freezing mark, and other days (like yesterday), I would be fine riding around town with my sunroof open and wearing short sleeves... so... I kinda see it.
118 east krew
[QUOTE=Da Big Man;39209766]For 24 hours I assume, then it got hot just like the rest of the states[/QUOTE]
In LA it has been REALLY cold for Los Angeles standards. It's still no where close to warm and hasn't been for a rather long time. Most winters here are much warmer than this. Seriously over here we're used to 80 degree winters with no rain and all of a sudden it's 40 degrees with rain. Our weather has never made sense.
[QUOTE=Schmaaa;39210256]because tenessee isn't the only state in the U.S.[/QUOTE]
Did I mention the entire country? No, I did not. I was referring to my own state when I made that post, which I thought the context would make perfectly clear.
Posts like this make me wish we still had bad reading in the rating pool...
It was 65 degrees last night and thunder storming, and this morning it was in the 30s with the threat of snow and ice. Indiana weather, if you don't like it it will change soon enough.
[QUOTE=Reshy;39210311]I see that Washington is still the coolest state.[/QUOTE]
I can confirm this from personal experience.
[QUOTE=Reshy;39210311]I see that Washington is still the coolest state.[/QUOTE]
it's pretty nice here, not very much snow at all but it's still kinda cold
Hell yeah cold in the Pac-NW bout time!
But fuck all this.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.