Data shows last month was hottest January on record
The record-setting January was spurred on by unusually warm Siberia, Canada, northern Asia and Europe, said scientists, who went beyond their normal double-checking and took the unusual step of running computer climate models "just to make sure that what we're seeing was real."
"From one standpoint it is not unusual to have a new record because we've become accustomed to having records broken," said Jay Lawrimore, climate monitoring branch chief. But January, he said, was a bigger jump than the world has seen in about 10 years.
The temperature of the world's land and water combined - the most effective measurement - was 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than normal, breaking the old record by more than one-quarter of a degree. Ocean temperatures alone didn't set a record.
Want to hear more about DeSmogBlog? Sign up for our weekly newsletter here and have it delivered right to your inbox
This is weird
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_Thermometry_of_Ocean_Climate
On the other hand, googling the only cetacean biologist I know of who made a stink about it brings this from 1997, which is less optimistic than the wikipedia article.
http://whitelab.biology.dal.ca/lw/lwcb.htm
the way i see it
facts please
Unless you can submit information saying that El Nino effects are linear then it is hardly irrelevant. I would imagine that they are not (but IANA Climate Scientist).
Ocean temp-wise 1998 (also an El Nino event), 2005 and 2004 were hotter in January than this year.
Land temp-wise it is a record for January at 1.89 vs 1.44 in 2002 and 1.17 in 2003. So we are talking a land-temp record. Given that Dec-Feb effects of an El Nino event are almost all "warmer" effects over land this is hardly surprising.
For December, Ocean high is 1997 followed by 2006.
Land high is 4th following 1939, 2003 and 1999.
I find it annoying that when an anti-agw points out something like, say, a *low* month or point to the terrific snow in NA currently, they are blasted as being ignorant, idiotic "deniers". Yet when a single month high (land) temp happens, it's big news and more power to the gospel according to the IPCC. Whatever happened to GW being a longer term trend vs. short term effects I wonder?
It gets worse than that
Regarding pointing to specific events, though, gets worse if you remember even the groundhog activities being interpreted as “sure signs of global warming.” I think it was okay not to get worked up about it, however. Two things to consider in this case are: 1. it smashed the record rather than barely beat it, and 2. given the long-term trend into uncharted climates we should see a lot of really weird local (spatially and temporally) stuff going forward. Also, precipitation should increase (in some areas) with AGW. It will be interesting to see if the models predict which areas with any accuracy!
That El Nino event was
That El Nino event was actually 1997-98 and Dec 97 is the ocean record. I can't say why this year's Jan ocean temp is so low (ranks 47th going back to 1880) but what I have noticed is that the the temperature increase of land vs. ocean swapped sometime in the 1960's (Ocean now at a lesser rate than land). No idea why.
47th?
Well HOT DAMN! A January
The name of this blog
Did you actually read the
Did you actually read the article, it is a value across the entire earth, then broken down in hemispheres not a single region, or in reference to a single location. Also note it mentions the largest amount of warm in the northern hemisphere, minor amount in the southern. The rest of your comments are as nonsensical as the one just addressed.
Smear on Suzuki
I listened to that radio talk you refer to as "Mr. Suzuki's little tantrum at the radio station recently." That was no temper tantrum; that was an intelligent man arguing passionately to counteract the ignorance, lies and confusion sown by the deniers like yourself.
Your own little temper tantrum in print here looks pretty smoggy to me.
So??? The weather is the
Silly
Desmogblog is a very descriptive name
Steve, it is actually a very good name. Since “smog” is a fog made worse by smoke, to “desmog” would mean to lessen the effects of the clouds of misinformation (fogginess) and to deflect the effects of the smoke (and mirrors) used by the AGW deniers.
The rest of your post is perfectly correct.
I also found the name to be
I also found the name to be appropriate. My assumption of desmog was to clear up the smog of or pollution of disinformation.
O.K. I'm convinced. In order
how about this...
If you did all those things,
then you're a moron, ZOG. It's 2007. I've managed to halve my hydro usage, and I'm living better than I've ever done.
This pattern may be familiar: you've bought in to a convenient, stereotyped, and totally wrong image of "envrionmentalism".
BUt more to the point, you may have noticed that no one on this site has ever to my knowledge advocated composting toilets or even a policy of "EARTH FIRST". This website is about clearing up dishonesty in the climate debate, which is something completely different. You're talking about (highly imaginative) consequences, DSB is talking about FACTS.
In fact, your little switcheroo is classic ad hominem (are you reading, Johan?). It goes like this: "Your arguments about the climate are invalid, because you advocate a lifestyle I find unpalatable." In fact, your line of reasoning contains both a logical fallacy and a falsehood.
It's this style of arguing, and the inability of the deniers to produce anything more credible, that makes a really good case for AGW.
'Fraid that I couldn't cut
BTW, I'm not a nature-hater.
And one of the coolest
Stratospheric cooling is predicted by the GCM's
J I K, time you took a junior level course in physics then read a little about the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere then you would find out that cooling of the stratosphere is predicted for increased levels of CO2.
You do understand the differences in the terms, atmosphere, troposphere and stratosphere, don't you? The figure you refer to shows cooling in the lower stratosphere.
Did you find that reference all by yourself or was it sent to you on the list of talking points for AGW deniers?
Of course!
Ian
Big deal. One will always
Big deal. One will always see months which are not in the top 10 warmest for a given region even if the region is experiencing significant warming.
What we are to be concerned with is global rather than regional temperatures. ("Think globally, act/live locally" ring a bell?) In this case, January 2007 was the warmest January on record.
Which record
understanding basic graphs
Such brilliant repartee!
gzhzbtqr
inkcsqbr