NOAA report: 2012 Global average temp's, 2nd lowest in this century!

[billvon 3,078]

> Remember when the only cause for the warming was man-made?

No. When did any scientist say that the only cause for warming was man-made?

[brenthutch 444]

I like you Bill so I will give you a pass. BTW I like Kallend as well.

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

> Remember when the only cause for the warming was man-made?

No. When did any scientist say that the only cause for warming was man-made?

Since BH declines to answer, NEVER.

No scientist claimed that the only cause for warming was man made.

Typical denialist strawman.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

None other than the high priest of AGW himself, Michael Mann, He claimed that the unprecedented heating of the planet was outside the range of natural variability and the ONLY cause was man made CO2.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Thank you for showing how Brenthutch and the Washington Times cherry picked sentences.

I’m never in the business of hiding facts. The letter contained plenty of stuff for both sides.

Quote

Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina.

This is where I get some confusion. La Nina means that the ocean is not absorbing heat in the equatorial Pacific. El Nino means that it is. If one looks at the histories, the strongest El Nino we’d measured was in 1997 – peaking in December, 1997. By December 1998 there was a strong La Nina. The atmospheric temperatures in 1998 were greatly elevated because that stored energy in the El Nino was released into the atmosphere.

A strong La Nina implicates more atmospheric warmth because the atmosphere isn’t absorbing it. The end of El Nino is marked by elevated atmospheric temperatures and La Nina is marked by increased atmospheric temperatures. This is why I am somewhat perplexed by high temperatures “despite” a “strong La Nina”

Quote

The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.

Right. CO2 level increases are diminishing in their forcing returns, which is a known effect.

Quote

Now, counselor, wasn't it YOU who pointed out the importance of the oscillations in interpreting arctic sea ice data?

Why yes. On here. There are lots of oscillations that we don’t have a lot of data on. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation, for example, which wasn’t even noticed until the late 1990s. Like the ENSO, it’s an ocean oscillation. Then there’s the North Atlantic Oscillation which is atmospheric. There are other oscillations identified (and probably some that haven’t been).

My point in bringing these up is that there is a lot of stuff we just don’t understand. What we have at this point is the cutting edge of our understanding. I have questions about accounting for oscillations. i.e., if an oscillation can account for .8 Degrees C temperature increase in the last 40 years, then we’ve got some more explaining and work to do. The point is to understand the effect of the oscillation, the cause, and the relationship (i.e. between the ENSO and the PDO).

But let’s not say, “The atmosphere been warm despite a strong La Nina.” A strong La Nina (cool in the equatorial Pacific) implicates warmth in the atmosphere. A strong El Nino implicates cool atmosphere till the El Nino converts to La Nina and releases that energy into the atmosphere.

My wife is hotter than your wife.