Big drop in global surface temperature in February, ocean temps flat

In reply to:
MattN says:
March 4, 2013 at 6:17 pm
Really need to start seeing some negative numbers….
William:
The extreme AGW paradigm gig is up if there is planetary cooling. It will be interesting to listen to the extreme AGW paradigm pushers’ fabrications to explain global cooling.
Past climate cycles correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. The paleoclimatic record shows there is a 10 to 12 year delay in planetary cooling when the sun changes from a series of very active solar magnetic cycles to a Maunder minimum set of cycles. The sun appears to be rapidly moving to a Maunder minimum. There appears to be early observational evidence of global cooling.
The extreme AGW paradigm pushers appear to have painted themselves into a corner with comments that the time to discuss AGW science is over. The AGW climate science is settled. Scientists that do not support the extreme AGW paradigm are “deniers”.
For example David Suzuki.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-change-basics/climate-change-deniers/
David Suzuki
“The debate is over about whether or not climate change is real (William: Suzuki defines the debate to be about climate change, not climate sensitivity to forcing changes, to avoid discussion observations and analysis that does not support the extreme AGW movements agenda which is to reverse industrial development. The climate debate is about the magnitude of the future warming, as current warming is roughly half of what was predicted and has stalled. The debate is also about the IPCC general circulation models that assume the planet amplifies warming which is not correct as satellite analysis of top of the atmosphere radiation vs ocean temperatures indicates the planet resist warming by increasing or decreasing clouds in the tropics).
Irrefutable evidence from around the world—including extreme weather events, record temperatures, retreating glaciers and rising sea levels—all point to the fact that climate change is happening now and at rates much faster than previously thought. (William: Suzuki does not provide facts to support his statements. Actual planetary temperature data indicates the warming has stopped. The IPCC models predict continued warming as atmospheric CO2 increases.)
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
“On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000-2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account. ….
….we show that simple regression methods used by several existing papers generally exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are negative. We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise.
… We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.”
….However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of wellmixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds….
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html
“Even though the temperature standstill probably has no effect on the long-term warming trend, it does raise doubts about the predictive value of climate models, and it is also a political issue. For months, climate change skeptics have been gloating over the findings on their Internet forums. This has prompted many a climatologist to treat the temperature data in public with a sense of shame, thereby damaging their own credibility.
“It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,” says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. “We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”
Just a few weeks ago, Britain’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius — in other words, a standstill.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate/
“The problem for global warming supporters is they actually need for past warming from CO2 to be higher than 0.7C. If the IPCC is correct that based on their high-feedback models we should expect to see 3C of warming per doubling of CO2, looking backwards this means we should already have seen about 1.5C of CO2-driven warming based on past CO2 increases. But no matter how uncertain our measurements, it’s clear we have seen nothing like this kind of temperature rise. Past warming has in fact been more consistent with low or even negative feedback assumptions.”

James Abbott says:
March 4, 2013 at 4:01 pm
“Encouraging” for skeptics is data that backs their position.
I don’t have a position other than “I don’t like the warmists’ methods.” Skeptics have shown ALL of the methods to be suspect, from the simple (types of thermometers used in gathering data) to the difficult (all things feedback-oriented), and everything in-between (models).
Since all of the above is in question, the conclusions are a joke, scientifically speaking. It’s not science at all. The skeptic position is “Follow the scientific method.” Therefore, in this article, the only thing to check is “Did Spencer report the data properly?” I think that’s pretty simple, lol.

While we here in Australia have to endure the rantings from Flannery and the latest rubbish, sorry report, from the BOM about the “hottest summer evah”, we are now being subjected to the claims that the start of our autumn is looking to be “the hottest evah!” There are comments at the Jo Nava link that completely demolishes the BOM report specifically around weather stations. And if you go to the BOM website and check out station localtion you will notice that most are sites at town/city centres and at airports. Well, if the BOM can “fiddle” with temperature data from NIWA in New Zealand, why not “fiddle” with their own?