Hottest twelve month period on record for USA

Man made climate change is still getting stronger. NOAA reports that the 12 month period from April 2011 to March 2012 was the warmest such period on record in the lower 48 states with the average temperatures for the contiguous U.S. at a whopping 2.6 degrees F above the 20th century average. March was the warmest month on record since (at least) 1895 for the contiguous United States, with average temperatures soaring to an enormous 8.6 degrees F higher than the 20th century average for March. The US also experienced record warmth for the first three months of this year with average temperatures an incredible 6 degrees F above the long term average.

State of the Climate
National Overview - March 2012
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center
(government publication - free to reproduce - not under copyright)

Climate Highlights — March
Record and near-record breaking temperatures dominated the eastern two-thirds of the nation and contributed to the warmest March on record for the contiguous United States, a record that dates back to 1895. The average temperature of 51.1 degrees F was 8.6 degrees F above the 20th century average for March and 0.5 degrees F warmer than the previous warmest March in 1910. Of the more than 1,400 months that have passed since the U.S. record began, only one month, January 2006, has seen a larger departure from its average temperature than March 2012.

A persistent weather pattern during the month led to 25 states east of the Rockies having their warmest March on record. An additional 15 states had monthly temperatures ranking among their ten warmest. That same pattern brought cooler-than-average conditions to the West Coast states of Washington, Oregon, and California.

Every state in the nation experienced a record warm daily temperature during March. According to preliminary data, there were 15,272 warm temperature records broken (7,755 daytime records, 7,517 nighttime records). Hundreds of locations across the country broke their all-time March records. There were 21 instances of the nighttime temperatures being as warm, or warmer, than the existing record daytime temperature for a given date.

The nationally-averaged precipitation total was 2.73 inches, which is 0.33 inch above average. The Pacific Northwest and the Southern Plains were much wetter than average during March while drier-than-average conditions were observed in the interior West, Northeast, and Florida. Colorado had its driest March on record.

According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, as of April 3rd, 36.8 percent of the contiguous U.S. was in drought, a decrease from 38.7 percent at the end of February. Above-average precipitation across the Southern Plains improved long-term drought conditions across Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

The warmer-than-average conditions across the eastern U.S. also created an environment favorable for severe thunderstorms and tornadoes. According to NOAA's Storm Prediction Center, there were 223 preliminary tornado reports during March, a month that averages 80 tornadoes. The majority of the tornadoes occurred during the March 2-3 outbreak across the Ohio Valley and Southeast, which caused 40 fatalities and damages exceeding 1.5 billion U.S. dollars.

The U.S. Climate Extremes Index (USCEI), an index that tracks the highest and lowest 10 percent of extremes in temperature, precipitation, drought and tropical cyclones across the contiguous U.S., was a record 41 percent during March. The extent of extremes in warm maximum (71 percent) and warm minimum (70 percent) temperatures was at or near record levels across the nation. A record extent of extremes in both maximum and minimum temperatures covered all of the Northeast, Upper Midwest, Ohio Valley and Southeast regions during the month.

On March 9th, a cut-off low pressure system impacted the Hawaiian Islands, bringing heavy rainfall and severe thunderstorms. A rare EF-0 tornado hit the towns of Lanikai and Kailua on Oahu, causing minor damage. A separate storm dropped a hailstone measuring 4.25 inches long, 2.25 inches tall, and 2 inches wide, the largest hailstone on record for the state.

Year-to-Date (January-March)

The first three months of 2012 were also record warm for the contiguous United States with an average temperature of 42.0 degrees, which is 6.0 degrees above the long-term average.

For the January-March period, 25 states east of the Rockies had three-month average temperatures which were the warmest on record, and an additional 16 states had temperatures for the first-quarter of 2012 ranking among their ten warmest. Numerous cities had a record warm January-March, including Chicago, Boston, and Washington, D.C. No state in the Lower-48 had 3-month temperatures below average.

The nationally-averaged precipitation total for January-March was 0.29 inch below the long-term average. States across the Pacific Northwest and Southern Plains were wetter than average, while the Intermountain West, parts of the Ohio Valley, and the entire Eastern Seaboard were drier than average.

For the January to March (year-to-date) period, the USCEI was 39 percent, nearly twice the long-term average and the highest value on record for the period. The predominant factor in this elevated value was the large area of the contiguous U.S. experiencing ongoing extremes in warm maximum and minimum temperatures. Warm temperature extremes during the first three months of 2012 had a large impact across the country, with 74 percent of the country experiencing extremes in warm maximum temperatures and 63 percent by extremes in warm minimum temperatures. Record extent of both warm maximum and minimum temperatures dominated across most of the Northeast, Upper Midwest, Ohio Valley, Northern Rockies and Plains, Southeast and South regions. Half of the Southeast region experienced extremes caused by drought and a record 27 percent of the South region experienced extremes caused by heavy 1-day precipitation events.

Cold Season (October 2011-March 2012)

The cold season, which is defined as October 2011 through March 2012 and an important period for national heating needs, was the second warmest on record for the contiguous U.S. with a nationally-averaged temperature 3.8 degrees F above average. Only the cold season of 1999-2000 was warmer. Twenty-one states across the Midwest and Northeast, areas of the country with high seasonal heating demands, were record warm for the six-month period.

For the cold season (October 2011 – March 2012), the USCEI ranked second highest on record with 38 percent of the contiguous U.S. impacted by a combination of extremes, primarily from warm temperatures and ongoing regional drought and wet spells. A record 100 percent of the Northeast and Upper Midwest regions were impacted by extremes in both warm maximum and minimum temperatures during this season. The Ohio Valley and Southeast regions had between 90 percent and 100 percent coverage in extreme temperatures.

12-month period (April 2011-March 2012)

The 12-month period (April 2011-March 2012), which includes the second hottest summer (June-August) and fourth warmest winter (December-February), was the warmest such period for the contiguous United States. Twenty-eight states were record warm for the 12-month period, and an additional eleven states had April-March temperatures ranking among their ten warmest. Oregon and Washington were the only states cooler than average for the period. The 12-month running average temperature for the contiguous U.S. was 55.4 degrees F, which is 2.6 degrees F above the 20th century average.

 

Does this mean we can officially retire the "no warming since 1998" myth?

 

Of course! It will be replaced with the "no warming since 2005" myth.

 

No

 

LOLOLOLOLOL......still clinging to those factually inaccurate denier cult myths long after they've been debunked, eh, Windigo? Too funny!!! What scientific sources do you have that still say that 1998 was the warmest year in the first place? Oh, that's right, there aren't any. All of the world temperature data sets collected by different scientific groups and government agencies now place 2010 as being tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record.

Wow, you posted an unsourced graph starting in 1998 (can you spell "cherry-picked"?) created by who knows who, supposedly using "UAH" data and showing an unlabeled wiggly red line that perhaps relates to some upper atmospheric temperature readings. How very, very unimpressive and completely meaningless.

Try a dose of current reality from the actual world-class climate scientists at NASA.

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
NASA
Mar 9, 2012
(government publication - free to reproduce - not under copyright)

Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change


Line plot of global mean land-ocean temperature index, 1880 to present, with the base period 1951-1980. The dotted black line is the annual mean and the solid red line is the five-year mean. The green bars show uncertainty estimates.




Our traditional analysis using only meteorological station data is a line plot of global annual-mean surface air temperature change, with the base period 1951-1980, derived from the meteorological station network [This is an update of Figure 6(b) in Hansen et al. (2001).] Uncertainty bars (95% confidence limits) are shown for both the annual and five-year means, account only for incomplete spatial sampling of data.

 

The United States has been affected by the effects of global warming over the last decade or two with (among other things) droughts in some large areas of the southwest and heavier rain and snowfall in other areas, often causing flooding, but temperatures increases have been fairly moderate here and these effects have not been as bad here yet as the effects have been in some other parts of the world. But now AGW is coming around to hit us a lot harder in terms of record temperatures. That's the basic point of this thread. Some people might object that the US is only about 2% of the world's surface so why should these record temperatures be considered significant to the topic of global warming but everyone should remember that it is not just the USA. Globally temperatures have set some similar records in very recent years. In fact, globally, three of the warmest 12 month periods on record happened in the last seven years with the very warmest period occurring just a little over two years ago. Scientific indicators point to a new record breaking 12 month period happening in either this year or 2013. Temperatures are still rising and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future with the trend modified only slightly by natural variations like the ENSO cycle or volcanic activity. Right now, with the end of the last La Nina and the sun entering a solar maximum period, this summer in the US will probably be even hotter and more record shattering than this spring has been.

Warmest 12-Month Period on Record
AccuWeather/com
Dec 29, 2010
(excerpts)

The 12-month period from December 2009 through November 2010 was the warmest on record globally, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The average land and ocean combined temperature anomaly for the period was .65 Celsius or 1.17 F above the 1951-1980 global mean, beating the previous warmest 12-month period of +.62 Celsius during 2005. Third place is currently held by 2007 with a reading of +.61 Celsius.



© 2012 AccuWeather, Inc. All Rights Reserved

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

Since satellites are more accurate I will use the satellite record for any comparisons between years that occur within the satellites record. The temperature reconstructions of the GISS and CRU have their place for data preceding the satellite record but for modern comparisons they are akin to using X-ray over MRI. The X-ray says you are fine the MRI says you have a torn ACL which do you believe?

Its not unsourced it says right there in the lower right woodfortrees.org. Woodfortrees.org is the major online database of all the major records. Anyone can access and query it to see the major records.

Go there and try it out for yourself.

I queried it for 168 months of UAH data. You can do so too if you so please.

NASA can say what it wants but the a surface reconstruction is inherently inferior to a satellite record. Both satellite records still have 1998 hotter than 2010. You have to go with the MRI over the X-ray when they disagree. They aren't both right and one is the far better technology.

 

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/ua....37/plot/gistemp/from:1999/offset:-0.37/trend

 

That myth was never officially employed, although many global warming deniers have been paid to promote it.

However, a year of records in an area that is less than 2% of the Earth's surface is not the best evidence against the 1998 myth, but it does make the idiots who touted cold weather in recent winters as evidence against global warming (telling Al Gore to build an igloo for example) look utterly ridiculous at this point.

 

Uh you see that big ass dip in late 99. Temperatures finally equlibrated in about mid to late 2000 depending on data set. Like I said I don't like to use the ENSO to generate trends. I know some skeptics do. But then again that is nothing compared to the hay the warmmongers try to make out of every ENSO cycle. The problem is you have cried wolf so much its falling on deaf ears this time around.

So my usual starting point will be 2001 unless of course we are talking about the last decade and I will use 120 months from present

 

I'd say the big difference is that the US is small. However, northern hemispheric snow cover is anything but regional. The cold winters were not localized events.

 

I see about a 0.2 C rise in temperature from the starting point you just stated that you prefer, a reasonable one that starts and ends in relative la Nina conditions. If you acknowledged that, you'd be ahead of 99% of your fellow deniers. Still, you see trend causation in dips and peaks supposedly conforming to whatever pre-conceived denier conclusion you've formed in your mind. ENSO is not responsible for global warming.

 

99 is not the starting point I stated. 99 includes much of the ENSO which you already knew.

And as to your last part. You could have fooled me given the way you warmmongers act every ENSO. It seems to me that every ENSO you argue that its proof of global warming.

 

Actually, they were. 2010, was the warmest year on record globally, February, 2010 being a record month I believe. Winter 2010 also had above average northern hemisphere snow cover extent. Snow cover extent in winter is critically determined by precipation temperatures in certain mid-latitude regions. High latitudes will generally always be cold enough to have snow cover, and mid-latitudes are the wild card. It just happened that the mid-latitude northern hemisphere areas were colder than normal, and hit with big precipation events, so snow cover extended down farther south in the U.S. and through the U.K. and much of France, and through much of central Asia, leading to above average extent anomalies. Arctic areas were extraordinarily mild in comparison - much owed to an extreme Arctic Oscillation anomaly.

I recall deniers using winter snow cover extent that year as being some sort of evidence against global warming, all the while either denying the global data or blaming it solely on el Nino. They never are short on dishonest obfuscation.



http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/g...010&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg

 

So does late 2010-2012. But if you start too late, it's hard to keep the "no warming since 1998" myth breathing.

 

Winter snow cover is actually very strong evidence against global warming because winter snow cover is albedo. If snow cover increases in response then feedback is strongly negative. AGW is falsified.

 

I cant do anything about the state of the ENSO in the present it is what it is, However, we are at the time that the ENSO when should have equilibrated. The La Nina phase began almost two years ago. If the present is represent of the new equilibrium it will be rather interesting. Time will tell.

 

Wow where to start? If "AGW" is defined by the high confidence range of 1.5 to 4.5 C of climate sensitivity, then this would have be some extraordinary ice-albedo feedback of magnitude well beyond current estimates for CS to fall below this range to "falsify" AGW. Next, ice-albedo includes land and sea ice. The albedo effect is not confined to winter, and more solar energy is hitting the northern hemisphere during the warm season. The warm season NHSCE has trended down sharply, far beyond the slight increase observed in winter, which appears to be due to recent extreme Arctic Oscillation indexes. But at some point, the underlying global warming trend will heat up mid-latitude winters beyond the point where natural variation can combat it, indicating the feedback is temperature-dependent. This has already happened in the early spring months.

Observations indicate the positive feedback from ice albedo is higher than climate models have estimated, which seems in part due to the underestimated dramatic decline in Arctic sea ice.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n3/full/ngeo1062.html

You deniers are so intent on "falsifying AGW", you leave your brains by the side of the road in the process. I give you a half point for creativity, though.

 

Ahem,



spoke too soon.

 

And you are still missing the point. All that matters is the total amount of white. If a slight decrease area sea ice at high latitude leads to a large increase in slow cover at lower latitudes where solar radiation is far greater than the lost albedo at high latitude then the net effect is a huge cooling. Albedo is the monster that warmmongers dont really understand or want to address. The earths albedo effect dwarfs any known changes in forcing. A 1% change in the earths albedo is far greater than any proposed forcing from CO2, solar variance or anything else. The warmmongers dont get that in their attempt to explain away the snow they falsified AGW.

 

Arctic sea ice varies over the course of a year. Watts on fellow fanatics roll out the annual Arctic sea ice chart a couple of times per year.

Once again, examining the trend...



Comparing observations to model projections...

 

I always love how everything was perfectly stable before we got a satellite.

 

all this is evidence........of a warm year.

 

So you're saying satellite data isn't reliable? Why do you use it then?

 

And if it doesn't, you're wrong and we're all screwed.

And hey, guess what? You're wrong. Northern hemisphere snow cover is declining too: