Last Build Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 18:07:15 +0000
Fri, 20 Jan 2017 18:07:15 +0000The temperature trajectory suggests enormous problems ahead. The deniers deal with this by putting their heads in the sand. But I don't think that the non-deniers do much better. They acknowledge the problem, but do extremely little to deal with it. CO2 exponential growth has not abated. The Paris agreement is totally inadequate. Promises around the world to rely less on carbon fuels usually turn out to be empty promises. Wind and solar power show no signs of providing much relief. In other words, the non-deniers should get off their high horse.
Fri, 20 Jan 2017 17:20:47 +0000Daily CO2 January 18, 2017: 406.00 ppm January 18, 2016: 402.58 ppm 3.42 ppm increase, noisy number, but latest in long line of noisy numbers in the 3 plus range and it was only a few years ago that there was nothing in the "un-noisy" number in the 3 plus range, so it's easy to spot the trend if you are so inclined. December monthly average increase dropped from 3.01 ppm for 2015 to 2.89 ppm for 2016, but the feel of January daily numbers seems to be in 3 ppm plus range. MAR mentioned a bulge in December 2015 CO2 numbers, so that would explain it, will wait to see what the increase number is for Jan 2017. Jan 2016 was 2.56 pm over Jan 2015. I think Jan 2017 will be over that. These are really atrocious real world numbers even if you want to argue that EL Nino is responsible. Yes, there is a cyclical EN/LN effect, but the underlying and longstanding trend (all the decades of record keeping) show an increase in CO2 in atmosphere and increase in the rate of increase. If folks want to discuss a pause, they ought to talk about a pause in the CO2 in ocean and atmosphere because there is no pause. Talk about falling emissions is a smoke screen, the dissemination of "feel good" numbers that are probably real in their limited presentation frame, but are of little consequence when the levels of CO2 in ocean and atmosphere continue to rise at increasing rate. That is the ball game. That is what we should be talking about. but, hey, what do I know? warm regards Mike
Fri, 20 Jan 2017 16:07:33 +0000re: 19 and 20. Why are you posting about short-term *weather* events when the issue at hand is long-term *climate*? Wow, what scientific arrogance. And on a climate blog run by peer-reviewed climate scientists yet. You might want to learn the distinct differences in time between weather and climate since it is apparent you have little clue about them. And that it takes 30-year periods to account for long-term trends due to short-term natural variations. As any basic climate science internet search would have told you.
Fri, 20 Jan 2017 16:07:20 +0000I meant "the rest of the globe..." tired... need to proofread...
Fri, 20 Jan 2017 16:06:12 +0000L 133: Global sea ice has been some 2 mill. sq. km below the usual level for about three months by now . . . Does anyone have an idea how much radiative forcing this lack of ice surface would generate? BPL: I'll take a stab at it. Let's say the portion under discussion has gone from 0.50 albedo (roughly correct for sea ice; better figures are welcome) to 0.07 (for open ocean at high latitudes; again I welcome correction). Assume the patch in question is at about 70 degrees from the equator. Insolation at that latitude averages perhaps 62 watts per square meter at the ground. So instead of absorbing (1.00 - 0.50) * 62 * 2e12 = 6.2 x 10^13 watts, it now absorbs (1.00 - 0.07) * 62 * 2e12 = 1.15 x 10^14 watts, or an extra 53 trillion watts. Trenberth et al. (2009) give the global mean annual surface absorption as 161.2 watts per square meter, which for a global surface area of 5.10066 x 10^14 square meters adds up to 8.22 x 10^16 watts. So radiative heating is increased 0.006%. But that's just in that area. The rest of the global is also heating. It doesn't help, let's put it that way. But it is not, in and of itself, catastrophic.
Fri, 20 Jan 2017 13:19:01 +0000Do I have to mention the ‘pause’? The start date for the pause will probably be reset from 1998 to 2016. In fact, to go by the number of times I'm reading that the usual suspects are quoting El Nino as the sole cause of the current spike, it's already happening.
Fri, 20 Jan 2017 12:21:35 +0000Frank @126, Do note that your conversion for the GISTEMP LOTI anomaly from a base of 1951-1980 to 1880-1919, the annual average anomaly base is as you say reduced by 0.27ºC but there is an annual cycle hiding within that change in anomaly so the monthly anomaly bases drop by a value from 0.20ºC to 0.35ºC depending on the month.
Fri, 20 Jan 2017 12:20:06 +0000While the 2016 annual values show the third warmest calendar year in a row, the individual monthly temperatures show the December 2016 anomalies continuing at the level of recent months and similar to early 2015 when the effects of the El Nino had yet to bite. A graph comparing the average of GISS/NOAA/HadCRUT, the average of RSS/UAH TLT and MEI for this last El Nino and the 1997/98 El Nino is here (usually 2 clicks to 'download your attachment') The MEI shows well the absence of a follow-on La Nina this time round. The three surface temperature records December 2016 is still sitting high up in the rankings. For GISS it was the 2nd warmest December on record and 25th warmest anomaly for all months. For NOAA it was the 3rd warmest December & 58th for all months. For HadCRUT it was 5th warmest December (after 2015 which is head-&-shoulders above the rest on all three records, 2006, 2014 & 2003) and 52nd on the full record.
Fri, 20 Jan 2017 09:09:50 +00007: I wasn't just referring to the "flat-earthers" (I assume here you mean those on the extreme end of denial), I was referring to genuine cognitive flaws in human thinking. Even in the case where someone does accept that AGW is real and is a threat, look at how they live. Do they actually take measures to reduce their carbon footprint, beyond the really easy stuff that requires little effort? If not, then their words are just lip service, it is easy to talk the talk, less easy to walk the walk. One reason you have denial is because taking significant action will require making compromises and maybe sacrifices to comfort. People don't want to reduce the creature comforts in their life, but they also don't want to think of themselves as irresponsible, this sets up cognitive dissonance when it comes to AGW and Western lifestyles. The way to resolve the dissonance is to either shift responsibility (make out it is the responsibility of politicians/corporations, not the individual) or flat out denial (it is exaggerated, no evidence etc) which absolves them of having to do anything.
Fri, 20 Jan 2017 09:05:11 +0000BPL: Great. Instant recession. Correction. Grand Economic Depression, if that budget is followed. Conservative Media outlets are laughing at the new global temperature measurements and claiming that it is just more faked data. As proof of this, they assert that the yearly string of record highs, is just one exaggeration after another since the string of highs clearly can't be real.