15,000 warm temperature records broken in March 2012

Q1 2012 is hottest quarter since 1895. Anyone want to find out how hot it was in 2011? Of course, this means temps are flat, or level, or down, or something. The year isn’t out yet of course, but I think climate deniers will have a hard time sticking with ‘we need more time to study if it is man-made or just volcanoes, or sunspots, or something (anything!) else.’

Nothing to see here folks. Move along, move along.

20 Responses to “15,000 warm temperature records broken in March 2012”

  1. knarlyknight Says:

    Enk, you’ve posted an interesting item on weather. Wild and bizarre weather, but weather it is. (North of the Pacific Northwest we’ve been dealing with below average temperatures and excess precipitation.)

    The March weather is consistent with climate models that predicted an increasing frequency and severity of such extremes in weather events as global temperatures change, providing further evidence that climate scientists are correct.

    I’m interested in what this chart has to say when it is updated for March 2012:


    On another subject, go mittens! lol

  2. shcb Says:

    I was thinking the same thing Knarly, why is a decade of level temperatures too short a time to be claimed an indication of climate change but a single month plenty long enough.

  3. knarlyknight Says:

    Because the former is denial of widespread consensus of expert scientific conclusions and the latter is further verification of the consensus, silly. It’s much the same with how evidence supporting the official theory on the tragedy is accepted and facts that don’t fit in are blown away.

  4. knarlyknight Says:

    911 tragedy, that is.

  5. shcb Says:

    Yes, the 2004 data point is superimposed, but the temperatures don’t continue to rise as they were up to 2000, you can see that in the graph you provided


    Why not superimpose the other lines in 2005? Did everyone but Hadley the stop tracking the temps in 2000? Why gloss over 5 years when you have spent so much time logging the last 2000? Let’s see, who works for the Climate Research Unit? Phil Jones right? But he did come clean to a certain degree and admit they manipulated figures to hide a decline in tree ring data, but that was in 2010, I guess he was still manipulating in 2005

    I’m not arrogant, I have simply looked at the data that is available and have determined the only way someone can come to the conclusion of that large a rise. You have to not only cherry pick years, you have to cherry pick months. Depending on how inclusive you are of 2000 and 2004 or 2005 the rise is somewhere under half what they show here or it is very slightly rising or dropping. That is simply averaging all months for each year. Unless you pick the right months, but as I said earlier a .4 to .6 degree shift happens in almost every El to la Nino event.

    It happened in 84-88, 88-91, 92-95, 96-98, 2000-04, then took a few years off and again from 08-10. All you have to do is study this stuff a little.

  6. shcb Says:

    You see, what they have done here is combine to sets of data, they took a broad set from 0 to 2000 that would filter out these El Nino events and then tacked on a single El Nino event since it just happened to coincide. Tricky little devils.

  7. shcb Says:

    Let me rephrase, the humps and bumps wouldn’t be leveled out, they would just follow the co2 exactly, if something is causing 100% of a change by definition it has to follow exactly. Now of course that is ridiculous but that was posted here and then defended for days on end, not because it made sense, but because I was unqualified to criticize. You guys lived by that sword, you should die by it. If we are causing all the warming of the planet then the temperatures should exactly mirror our contributions. Something that hasn’t happened in over a decade.

  8. enkidu Says:

    hey e-p long time no c-e
    as you can c-e not much has changed around here
    we had a brief influx of reasonable right wing comments from some new folks a while back when ‘gleick-gate’ was all the rage, or rant or whtvr

    now it is back to wwnj spamming the channel 150% of the time

    please allow me to synopsize wwnj’s comments for the last, oh, forever
    that way you can just skip his posts entirely (works wonders)

    hurf durf! socialism!
    libs is dum! I’m always right!
    Up is down! taxamagical!
    I hates president π!@@#&
    etc etc

  9. shcb Says:

    The great part was the guys at Samizdata were trashing you guys the same way, with the same arguments I have been making for years except they have that wonderful British accent and are coming from a very libertarian point of view. The funny part was watching JBC gush all over them here and on their home field and suddenly the rest of the normal suspects here were silent. Was it because they found their leader faltering or were they just outclassed, we may never know. But the dust has cleared and they are back to normal form.

    Off subject but an observation I liked by Patrick over at Samizdata “Germans are great at taking first principles to their logical conclusions and bad at asking whether the first principle was correct or not”

  10. knarlyknight Says:

    JBC did not falter. I felt the new folks bring a breath of fresh air. I suppose that means they have a certain level of class that is absent from the usual suspect.

    Concerning shcb’s earlier post on the 150%, two points. One is the CO2 relates to long term trends not variances. Two is that the scientists’ models encompass all thoughts we’ve discussed plus hundreds of other considerations that have a material impact on the results plus thousands of other variables that potentially may. In other words, shcb’s analysis is sketching with a stick in the dirt and climate scientists’ analysis includes those sketches and everything up to post 20th century algorithms.

    Let me summarize what those two points mean:

    Point One + Point Two = “shcb fatur, ideo est falsus.”

  11. shcb Says:

    Their models can encompass everything up to and including how Dorothy clicking her heels got her out of Oz and it wouldn’t change my point. Their conclusion is we are causing it all plus some so the cause, co2, should track temps.

  12. knarlyknight Says:

    I’ve always been stuck on why a close look at the historical record clearly shows that changes in CO2 concentrations have always followed large scale temperatures changes.


    However, iirc the science says that AGW is unique since the industrial revolution is the only event in which the CO2 content has soared to unnatural levels. And that causes higher global avg. temperature and that creates a positive feedback where even more CO2 is released.

    But, keeping in mind the reliability of knarly’s law, I looked and found Fig. 4 in the following link which again proves: shcb fatur, ideo est falsus.


  13. shcb Says:

    There is scientific evidence that warming is natural and there is evidence that it is manmade. You are right Enky that people like me will probably never be convinced to agree with the scientific evidence supporting the theory that global warming is man made. Two reasons for this; one is that we feel the evidence and the collection methods and the analysis have been so corrupted, manipulated, and politicized that there is no possible way to unravel it all. We will have to basically start over with more transparency which leads to the second point, I won’t live long enough for a significant enough amount of time to pass to make that determination. So I personally will probably never be swayed by scientific evidence of man made warming because I have already been swayed by scientific evidence of natural warming.

    So, if you want to win us over to your side and you really want to “save the planet” there are two simple criteria you have to meet; one, come up with an economically viable solution and two, structure it in a way that there is no massive transfer of wealth without something in return, i.e. no taxation, no cap and trade.

    So dust off that old electron microscope and get crackin.

  14. knarlyknight Says:

    That’s partly true as you seem to be the only one deceived by it. But Knarly’s law apples here as well, as it was clearly in context as a simple update to the data set that ended in 2000, and iirc were we to add more recent data points they would be at 0,5 or 0.6 which is much higher than the 2004 value of 0.4 degrees above the set average.

  15. knarlyknight Says:

    So unless you are arguing that the deceit intended was to show temperatures were lower in recent years knarly’s law is again confirmed.

  16. shcb Says:

    That isn’t the deceit I’m talking about, I guess you didn’t understand what I was saying., I explained it in my April 14 and 15 posts, at 7am and 7pm. It would be helpful if you would download and graph every month of temperature data since 1980 like I did, it’s pretty obvious when you see it, but if you don’t want to do that I guess you’ll just have to take my word for it.

  17. shcb Says:

    I could explain this to you if you would like but I will have to make a PowerPoint, there are several graphs to show, data sets, spreadsheets and the like to evaluate. I really need to mow the pasture instead. You are way over simplifying this, which shows me you don’t understand. For instance, one of your rebuttals is my time frames aren’t in an “El nino year”, very simplistic. You went to a website and found a chart that gave El nino years and said eureka, I’ve got him! But if you notice I was very careful in picking my wording, I said El nino event. El ninos usually start in the winter so the cross the arbitrary to nature line of January 1. They are natural so they and their cooler sister have no deadline or set schedule. Maybe I’ll have to put a cute phrase in Google translate Latin and let it give me something close so I can repeat it ad nauseum, or maybe I can just use yours, it seems a better fit.

  18. knarlyknight Says:

    “but they always do between ls and el nino events, usually more. ”
    Isn’t it silly to mow a pasture? Not to mention ecologically repugnant? Why don’t you let the flowers grow or get some sheep? Maybe you hate birds and butterflies?

  19. knarlyknight Says:

    Going up a mountain soon, should be back tomorrow.

  20. enkidu Says:

    lol wwnj, project much?
    being labelled a bigot by this site’s resident bigot/racist/numbskull/commentspammer
    is a badge of honor

    I suggest we use a point system for wwnj posts from now on
    Simply assign one point for every logical fallacy (or just outright lie/non-truth) used by our resident bigot-in-chief


    For example wwnj might have yet another long winded post about how libs jes want the global sociamalism! (see above) and we could just give it a grade like so: “another 9 pointer for ol wwnj, but getting back to reality, what are we to think about solving x-problem or y-issue?”

    It could save a ton of time and electrons.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.