Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 Next
Comments 38551 to 38600:
-
Klapper at 11:14 AM on 9 February 20142013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
"...What's also interesting is that despite being a Neutral year, 2013 was hotter than 1998.."
Only in the Cowtan and Way dataset. This is not true in any of the other atmospheric datasets. It is definitely not true in the datasets with the best spatial coverage, RSS and UAH TLT. The satellite data shows 2013 is 2/10's off of 1998 in the UAH TLT dataset and 3/10's lower in the RSS dataset.
This is significant in that Cowtan and Way use the relationship between surface air temperature and the lower troposphere to help fill the big spatial holes in the instrument network, especially in the Arctic. However, while the adjusted version of HadCRUT4 shows 2013 to be warmer than 1998, UAH, the source of the adjustments clearly does not.
-
Klapper at 10:48 AM on 9 February 20142013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
@ #35 mgardner:
@ #38 One Planet:
"...However, El Nino doesn't add any energy to the climate system as a whole ('the planet')...."
"...As others have pointed out an ENSO or El Nino event does not 'add energy to the global system'...."
ENSO can change global heat content. Read Loeb et al 2012. Net global TOA radiative imbalance on a monthly basis can spike +/- 2Wm2 based on the state of ENSO, and can average +/- 0.5 W/m2 over the period of a year. However the imbalance is the opposite of what you might think. The planet is losing heat during an El Nino and gaining it during a La Nina (which I'm sure shows in in the ocean).
Since the posters here like the metric "Hiroshimas per second", I'll convert the La Nina between the start of 2008 and early 2009 from Loeb Figure 2, which shows a global TOA measured energy imbalance of about 0.4W/m2 (heat gain). Convert global to ocean and you have a heat gain of about 3 hiroshimas per second thanks to La Nina over the 1 and 1/2 year period or so.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:31 AM on 9 February 20142013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
Topal,
As others have pointed out an ENSO or El Nino event does not 'add energy to the global system'. It only ceates a short term global average surface temperature that is higher than the 'norm' (the norm being the average trend line of global average surface temperature - or the line created by a long average of temperatures like 20 or 30 year averages which can be created for each new month of new data).
So the period since the extremely strong ENSO event of 1997/98 has 'appeared to indicate a slower rate of warming in the global average surface temperarure record. There have been El Nino events since 1997/98 but they have not produced the magnitude of bump of global average that the 1997/98 event produced.
If you are wondering about recent reports that 'strong El Ninos are expected to be more frequent', that would be the expectation of a more energetic global climate system and the pattern of global warming that is occurring (more polar warming). The strong El Nino events in the NOAA ONI history (linked to in my earlier post), occurred in 1972/73, 1982/83, 1997/98. These stronger events would be expected to occur more frequently in a warmed planet (our planet with more energy in the surface climate system).
However, it is not just the strength of the ONI (or El Nino), that matters. The Southern Oscillation occurring with the El NIno (the ENSO), and the relative timing and magnitudes of the combined conditions will affect the magnitude of the temporary bump of global average surface temperature warming.
The main point remains. Human activity is leading to more energy in the global climate system. This can be seen in many things like the global average surface warming to rebalance the rate of its energy emissions with the higher captured/trapped incoming energy (the higher capture being due to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which are mainly due to human activity and additive feedback responses to that human activity - such as less surface ice reflecting incoming solar radiation). The continued increase of global average surface temperature since the very significant ENSO event of 1997/98 (combined with very little volcanic dimming in the same time period), will clearly become more difficult to claim isn't occurring when the next significant ENSO event occurs. The current ENSO conditions are on the La Nina side of neutral (the cooling from the norm side) and yet the global average for 2013 nearly matches the significantly ENSO bumped 1998.
-
2013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
Esop #2, 26, 28
I agree completely!
If the surface temperature trend between 1975 and 2000 had continued for the last 14 years we might have seen at least some action in stead of just talk, talk and more talk from the politicians. It’s bad enough that we now have a climate denier party in the Norwegian government, but the effort from the last government led by the Labour party wasn’t particularly impressive either.BTW, the average temperature in Longyearbyen, Svalbard, for the last 30 days is now 13.6oC above normal, though the forecast predicts somewhat colder weather towards the end of next week. In fact, February will very likely become the 39th consecutive month that is warmer than normal in Longyearbyen!
-
Tom Curtis at 07:49 AM on 9 February 20142013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
mgardner @35, ENSO warms (or cools with La Ninas) the planet more than would be expected just by adding the warming or cooling of the tropical Pacific to the global average. Further, the maximum warming (or cooling) of the planet from ENSO is experienced approximately 6 months after the maximum warming (or cooling) of the tropical Pacific associated with ENSO fluctuations.
In a way that is unsurprising. Temperature feedbacks are feedbacks on changes in surface temperatures. Therefore any widespread net change in surface temperatures would be expected to result in further changes in the same direction globally as a result of feedbacks. If that were not the case, climate sensitivity would be very low. As it happens, it is not low, and the ENSO effect on global temperatures is one of the pieces of evidence that that is the case. However, for ENSO to work as a ratchet that elevates tempertures in the long term (rather than simply results in oscillations around the mean), the feedback response to temperature would need to be greater than 1, and would need to be higher for rises in temperature than for falls in temperature. Both are known not to be the case from past climates.
-
scaddenp at 05:57 AM on 9 February 2014Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?
Michael, the data you need will depend very much on what your purpose is. These datasets are for assessing climate change. To be useful for that purpose, you have to have data that is comparable with past records and comparable with other stations. To do this, you have to make adjustments to account for change of instruments, screens, site location, time of observation, change in environment (urban heat effect), etc etc. The procedures and papers relating to these adjustments is very well documented at each data sets source. You might like to at USHCN or GISS for details. The data sets usually have the unadjusted data as well so you can compare.
Of course the BEST project assumed they had done it all wrong and with fossil fuel money set out to do different. Funnily enough they got same answer. They also provide their data and methods - see here. There are other useful links on the page I linked to above. Tamino and Realclimate both have links to the major data sources on their home page. Be sure to read the associated documentation to see whether it is fit for your purpose.
-
william5331 at 05:34 AM on 9 February 2014Establishing consensus is vital for climate action
The only way we are going to get consensus is if we are bludgeoned into it by a series of events that make Sandy and Katrina look like summer breezes. A failure of Northern Hemisphere crops for a year might do it.
-
mgardner at 05:14 AM on 9 February 20142013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
topal@32
You appear to be ignoring my comment @19, so I refer you to it again.
When you say "Agreed. And it [El Nino] will inevitably warm the planet.", you are incorrect.
ENSO will not "warm the planet". El Nino will cause the MST to be higher, because it will increase SST (sea surface temp) where it occurs, and that will be part of the computation of average temperature for the entire surface of the planet.
However, El Nino doesn't add any energy to the climate system as a whole ('the planet').
If you are serious about learning how this works, you have to distinguish between:
1) An increase in *one* temperature measurement
and
2) An increase in the total energy of the system.
Why don't you try asking your questions without that ambiguous use of the term "warm"; it will make things clearer.
-
Composer99 at 04:54 AM on 9 February 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #6
The hyperlink for "How to convince your friends to believe in climate change" is broken.
Moderator Response:[DB] Fixed, thanks!
-
williamfreimuth at 02:52 AM on 9 February 2014Establishing consensus is vital for climate action
Excellent! It is my firm belief that DENIAL denial and it's inertia is causing the entire human race to sit on the train.....heading for the cliff. Environmentalists have moved to the back.
Moderator Response:[JH} The use of all caps is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. Please read and adhere to the policy in future posts.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:15 AM on 9 February 20142013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
Topal,
The ENSO strength of consequences will be greater due to the warmer global system it is occurring in.
Human activity does not 'create ENSO'. Human acivity has led to the capture of more solar energy which is increasing the energy of the climate system (warming of the surface being one clear measure of that added energy in the system, but warming of the deeper oceans also being due to that human impact).
One item to note about the NOAA OSI in the link in my first comment is they have 'updated the baseline temperature value for idenifying an El Nino'. This is because the long term average of the surface of the Pacific has been warming. So the circulation conditions creating an El Nino now produce an even warmer average surface in the Pacific.
It is all adding up because of human impacts.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:08 AM on 9 February 20142013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
Markoh,
I am definitely striving to help the least fortunate, by hoping that many among the more fortunate who are currently callously creating the greater harm for those less fortunate, get 'awakened from their greedy stupor'.
The reality of the result of their callous behaviour is clear to me. It unfortunately needs to be 'clear to them'.
The tragedy resulting from the next strong ENSO needs to be squarely and clearly 'blamed on all those who have chosen not to accept the climate science and the resulting need to stop trying to benefit from burning fossil fuels'. The only acceptable benefit from that unsustainable and damaging activity would be exclusive short term benefits for the less developed least fortunate to help the poorest of the poor develop through to a way of living that is sustainable and not damaging (what the most fortunate should have already been doing for 20 years).
I consider the very informed and intelligent people who have been carefully but deliberately trying to keep public opinion from growing 'against allowing continuation of benefiting from the burning of fossil fuels by any people except temporary development benefit for the very least fortunate' to be the most despicable. I consider their deliberate actions trying to promote unsustainable and damaging attitudes and activities to prolong the benefits obtained by the callous greedy are almost 'criminal'. Burning fossil fuels for benefit is not 'too essential to curtail'. Sure, there are many people who believe they are wealthy. But is that believed wealth is from burning fossil fuels it is make-believe wealth that needs to be wiped from the global socio-economic system. Anyone still gambling on benefiting that way has had 20 years of warning. It is time for those undeserving callous greedy people to lose the full value of their unsustainable and damaging gambles.
-
topal at 02:05 AM on 9 February 20142013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
@One Planet: "The next strong ENSO will happen regardless of human actions."
Agreed. And it will inevitably warm the planet.
"The severity of it will be significantly due to the lack of reduction of impacts by the 'most fortunate' among our predecessors."
Can you elaborate on that. What exactly will determine its severity; our predessors, your ancestors? How severe will it be?
I'm still looking for the anthropogenic footprint in the natural process called ENSO.
-
ZincKidd at 02:04 AM on 9 February 2014Establishing consensus is vital for climate action
"Political debate" is not the solution, it's the problem. Political debate is polarizing. In political debate, facts are not checked, wins are by popularity and/or mudslinging contest, "balance" and equivalence is awarded any opinion that can afford to speak.
-
PluviAL at 01:56 AM on 9 February 2014Establishing consensus is vital for climate action
Good point, in my quest, if often confront deniers with that objective. Although I am weak in detailed technical knowledge relative to that found here, I am very effective. I know I have made a point when the worker's comment thread is removed from the discussion. I can also tell by the careless twists and turns in their arguments that they don't care about the point of discussion but only offering doubt. When the political issue is addressed, with simple brushing away doubt on the basis of scinetific consensus, they often change tactic, or wipe out their own conversation in order to remove mine.
A genuinely convinced person does not twist like that, they just get mad, and will not comment anymore. In case you are not familiar with my quest, I want people to consider the real solution, which Pluvinergy offers. Most sites do not see my work spam. Becasue, most conversations are dichotomous; there is nothing that climate change will not affect.
-
David Thornton at 23:42 PM on 8 February 2014New Video: Climate, Jetstream, Polar Vortex
Here in the UK a super active jet stream has for the past 2 months been sending deep depressions, one after the other, across the Atlantic, with storm force winds and giving the south the wettest winter for over 200 years. Coastal defences have been battered away (including a coastal railway line), and large parts of Somerset have been under water for months - people have been evacuated from their homes and villages abandoned. More heavy rain and gales are forecast for the foreseeable future.
-
Markoh at 21:13 PM on 8 February 20142013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
One Planet. I have a concern for humanity and would never wish bad on the helpless.
-
Michael Whittemore at 18:58 PM on 8 February 2014Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?
If i could have some more clarity on the topic, are each of uthese data sets raw or have they been corrected for urban heat effect? I want to use this data but want to know if it's the raw data or not. I know that when they do global estimates they take it into account.
-
ajki at 17:45 PM on 8 February 2014Debunking climate myths: two contrasting case studies
I do not like the bomb thing (rotting apples vs. contaminated dead or starving oranges). But I do like the underlying message. In showing how absurd and blatantly false this "it stopped warming since [whenever]" gibberish really is, tamino has found a visually appealing answer recently (I think).
Hypothesis: "Warming has stopped in 1998":
Measured data:
Putting this into a nicer graphic and you should have another "Escalator".
-
scaddenp at 16:20 PM on 8 February 2014Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?
Of course. See here for discussion and papers.
-
Michael Whittemore at 14:54 PM on 8 February 2014Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?
Are these data sets altered to take into consideration urban heat?
-
ubrew12 at 12:31 PM on 8 February 20142014 SkS News Bulletin #1: Keystone XL Pipeline
All politicians need to be seen to say 'yes', not 'no'. Yeah, its stupid, but there it is. Hence, if we say yes to solar and wind, and electric and hydrogen powered vehicles (the hydrogen gotten by solar-hydrolysis of water), then the natural IMPETUS impetus of the trends will overwhelm fossil fuels REGARDLESS regardless of any 'yes' votes given on behalf of fossil fuels. SUPPORT support solar and wind, and fossil is history. Even without a punative action AGAINST against fossil for destroying Nature (and, I might as well mention though its 'not important', killing 5 million people every year with their exhaust products), the trend over the last 20 years is that renewables are going to overtake fossils, in pricing and installed base, ANYWAY anyway. So why risk a possible Republican Senate in 2014, because you felt you had to 'take it to fossil fuels'? This would be disastrous for America, but not for those fighting Global Warming, since fossils are soon going to be overtaken by events anyway.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." You win because you kept at it, not because you engaged in a fight. The PHYSICAL physical impetus is with solar and wind - thats the history of the last 20 years. Don't engage in a politically expensive battle. Don't react to challenges of a fight. Just put your shoulder to the wheel and push. Keep in mind 2 things: 1)in a decade solar and wind with be the low-cost alternatives anyway and, 2)in a decade everyone and his great aunt are going to get the reality of climate change, and what is causing it. In the meantime, I think America could be hurt by an action against Keystone. Hurt in ways far beyond the issue of AGW.
Moderator Response:[JH] The SkS Comments Policy prohibits the use of all caps. Please comply with this policy in your future posts.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 11:24 AM on 8 February 20142014 SkS News Bulletin #1: Keystone XL Pipeline
Unfortunately we still live in times when 'democracy' is misunderstood to be 'the wealthy majority gets its way'.
Democracy needs to be the protection of everyone from the unsustainable and damaging pusuits and desires of others.
And it is time to clarify that to be protection of 'future humans and all opther life' from the unsustainable and damaging pusuits and desires of others.Anything less than implementation of that form of 'democracy' is unsustainable and unacceptably damaging.
Popularity needs to be understood to only really matter in things like 'entertainment ratings'. The best undertanding constantly developed and improved through additional research needs to 'rule', even if it isn't popular.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 11:13 AM on 8 February 20142013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
Markoh, I share ESOP's 'sentiment'. The lack of an ENSO event since 1997-98 as powerful as that one was has fueled far too much 'unacceptable belief' about what is going on.
Some people seek any excuse to 'refuse' to better understand what is going on (I say refuse because they are choosing not to better understand this issue and so many other issues). They correctly sense that they will not be able to enjoy as much benefit if 'popular opinion' fails to support those unsustainable and damaging activities they enjoy benefiting from.
The next strong ENSO will happen regardless of human actions. The severity of it will be significantly due to the lack of reduction of impacts by the 'most fortunate' among our predecessors. Into the future, the increased harm will be due to the deliberate lack of understanding among the current generation and demands that 'their popular interest must be accepted'. They already make absurd claims like "life would be horrible without burning fossil fuels the way they do". If everyone's lifestyle matched the fossil fuel burning habits of the biggest per-capita impacters that lifestyle would be over in a moment, with massive battles among the population fighting to get the most of the last possible benefits.
This is a really serious issue. But it is only regarding one of the many fundamentally unsustainable and damaging activities in the current global economy that not only have no future, they damage the future others will have to try to live in.
The next strong ENSO event will hopefully wake more of the global population out of their greed induced stupor. That awakening is essential for the development of a sustainable better future for all life on this amazing planet.
-
kanspaugh at 09:59 AM on 8 February 20142014 SkS News Bulletin #1: Keystone XL Pipeline
If the White House were keeping Keystone "above political influence" it would have been rejected without question.
-
Markoh at 08:44 AM on 8 February 20142013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
ESOP. So you would wish for a big El Niño knowing that it would mean drought, death and disease to South Eastern Africa? I couldn't do that. I'm one hoping El Niño stays away.
-
Don9000 at 08:32 AM on 8 February 20142014 SkS News Bulletin #1: Keystone XL Pipeline
While I grasp that building the pipeline makes getting the oil out of this region of Canada easier and thus could result in the release of vast amounts of CO2 over the coming decades if nations keep buring fossil fuels, including tar-sands oil, in an unabated fashion going forward, I don't see how building the pipeline means all or even most of the tar-sands will be exploited.
That is, it seems readily apparent to me that a rational carbon tax--one that taxes fossil fuels according to their relative carbon loads--would render tar-sands oil prohibitively expensive compared to other fossil fuels, which would in turn be taxed at a rate that encouraged a transition to renewable green energy sources as they come on line. In other words, my understanding is that a robust, rational carbon tax scheme would impose taxes on fuels based on their carbon footprint, and since tar-sands-derived oil has a significantly larger carbon footprint than "conventional" oil, it would therefore be assessed a commensurately higher tax. If Canada refused to do this at the "wellhead", couldn't the US impose a tax on the incoming oil?
In any event, of this is not how a carbon tax scheme is supposed to work, then I must be missing something fairly basic and would appreciate being corrected. I'd especially appreciate being set straight, since in my mind I have long imagined that the necessary carrot aspect of a carbon tax stick is that it makes it more cost effective for fuel users to shift to greener energy sources. It thus seems to me that the key goal of any carbon tax a nation or group of nations might impose would be to price the highest carbon fuels out of the market, wherever they come from. If that isn't the idea, then what is?
Ubrew--regarding keyboards, I'm not sure the notion of having "invented" a layout applies to the process of coming up with more efficient keyboard layouts. My understanding is that all you need to do to make a more efficient layout is to place the most frequently used characters on the "home row" and then distribute the other keys based on the frequency with which they are used. People had access to this kind of information at the start of the typewriter age but I believe at the time the technology they had made such layouts problematic.Moderator Response:[JH] Given the state of national politics in both Canada and the US, the prospects for enacting a carbon tax in either country in the near-term future are very slim.
-
ubrew12 at 07:37 AM on 8 February 20142014 SkS News Bulletin #1: Keystone XL Pipeline
Re: the article by Michael Mann (in the Guardian) is quite good, especially his points about Path Dependency and Presidential Leadership. I knew a guy who invented an alternative for the "qwerty" keyboard in the 1930's, but it never caught on, even though you could type much faster on it.
But there's another aspect of 'Presidential Leadership' to point out: the pipeline may be irrelevent. For the last 20 years, solar PV generation has doubled, globally, every two years. Only 8 more doublings (16 yrs), and solar PV can power the entire world. And with each doubling, the cost per panel drops by 40% (google 'citibank energy darwinism'). Renewable technologies, like Wind and Solar, are exploding right now, and the energy landscape is unlikely to look, in a decade, anything like it does today. For example, Citi calculates that in just six years, Solar PV will be the cost-choice for residential power most places on Earth, and Wind will be the cost-choice for utility-scale power everywhere. Not for nothing did Warren Buffett just plunk down a billion of his own money on Windmills in Iowa. The smart money is already fleeing fossils: over 70% of investment in power generation in the next 2 decades, according to Citi, will be directed at renewable energy.
They will likely approve Keystone because there's an election six months later. But America is about to be overrun by events, having proven itself unable to anticipate them.
Moderator Response:[JH] The majority of the tar sands bitumen will be refined into either gasoline or diesel fuel for the transportation sector.
-
schuhlaw at 07:21 AM on 8 February 2014Tom Harris' Carleton University Climate Misinformation Class
There is another exact copy saved of the EPA Endangerment and Causing or Contributing Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act document here:
http://schuhlaw.com/endangerment.htmlIt appears that the EPA does not provide this outline anymore. I hope this helps you out!
-
michael sweet at 06:54 AM on 8 February 2014Debunking climate myths: two contrasting case studies
I like Hiroshima bombs. It is recognized by everyone and indicates the seriousness of the situation.
-
ShawnB at 05:23 AM on 8 February 2014Debunking climate myths: two contrasting case studies
How about power plants? 4 Hiroshima bombs = 50,000 power plants (Did I do the calculation right?). Seems impressive to me.
-
Esop at 03:42 AM on 8 February 20142013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
And while parts of the US are chilly due to the displaced Arctic air, what about the Arctic, where that air was supposed to be?
Well, for example at Longyearbyen, Spitsbergen, the average for the last 30 days is a silly 23.5F (13.1C) above normal:
http://www.yr.no/place/Norway/Svalbard/Longyearbyen/statistics.html
Not just the last 30 days, look at the curve for the past year.
The deniers should not be too happy, though, since a much, much warmer than normal Arctic will mean less Arctic sea ice, and we all know that the ''skeptics'' themselves into a corner about that last fall by claiming that the bottom had been reached and it was all recovery from 2013 and on.
The tragic thing is that they can to a despicable degree spout BS like that and still not being held to task by the very MSM (that they lied to in 2013), when the record very likely gets beaten sometime before the end of 2016.
Moderator Response:[PW] In order to facilitate better communication, I'd strongly suggest ceasing using the term 'deniers;" it's as disrespectful as when dismissives--the more widely-acceptable term for those who reject all the standing scince that supports the AGW theory, according to Yale research--use the term 'alarmists.'
-
DSL at 03:39 AM on 8 February 2014Debunking climate myths: two contrasting case studies
What about a large, infamous forest fire? Perhaps the Yosemite and/or Colorado Springs fires? Or the total firepower expenditure of WWII (minus Hiroshima/Nagasaki) or Vietnam? Or Pinatubos?
-
Rob Painting at 02:45 AM on 8 February 2014Debunking climate myths: two contrasting case studies
My personal experience is that very few people have an issue with the Hiroshima bomb analogy. People that do have an issue, however, tend to make a spectacle of themselves. Which of course attracts attention and likely alters any bystander's perception.
SkS contributors had a very heated discussion over this, but in the end no one was able to come up with a 'stickier' metaphor. Your suggestions are no improvement, but if someone is able to come up with something 'stickier' than Hiroshima..........
-
Klaus Flemløse at 02:41 AM on 8 February 2014Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?
Here is another example of double counting.
It is difficult to argue that there are two different stations placed in the Baltics Sea.
I have visited the place several times and there is no weather stations out there in the Baltic Sea. The weather station sits close to the lighthouse.
This describes the problem with differences betweenthe metadata in the 16 archieves BEST is using.
-
dhogaza at 02:40 AM on 8 February 20142013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
"Australia last year had the warmest Day ever recorded, the warmest month, and the warmest year ever recorded since accurate record keeping began (150 years)."
And CONUS is only about 5% larger than Australia. So the fact that half of CONUS has had a cold winter (by recent definitions of "cold") apparently, disproves global warming despite a big chunk of CONUS having unusually warm and dry weather (worst drought known in CA, severe drought in OR and WA) and Australia's warmest year on record.
That's interesting logic ...
-
ShawnB at 02:33 AM on 8 February 2014Debunking climate myths: two contrasting case studies
OK, ok, nobody likes the Hiroshima analogy. But there has to be something better than kitten sneezes. You need some BIG energy user, preferably with heat as its basis. How about traincars of coal or US energy consumption? Or...?
-
Esop at 02:10 AM on 8 February 20142013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
#21 (Markoh):
An El Nino will likely bring a new record and that means that the denier claims of ''no warming since...'' will have much less impact among at least moderately educated folks.
Ie. for those of us who wish to see meaningful action done to reduce the likelihood of a completely messed up climate in the future, having the public see and feel what is going on now is a lot better than having a monster Nino wreak havoc closer to 2020. The deniers are having massive success with help from the MSM, lying to a largely completely clueless public about AGW since they are helped by repeated La Ninas that mask the surface warming.
However, for those who for various reasons do not want to cut emissions, I guess they keep their fingers crossed for another La Nina and further masking of the warming signal, so they can continue lying to the public and still have a chance of being listened to.
Same goes for Arctic sea ice. We know from basic physics and the long term trend that it is doomed, so pretending to be happy for another year of ''recovery'' is like pretending to be happy that the canary in the coalmine appears fine while miners are dropping dead around it.
-
chuck101 at 01:40 AM on 8 February 20142013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
Topal@3
What part of the term "Global Warming" do you not understand. It means the warming of the entire planet, averaged out as a whole. So why then do you think a single colder than normal winter in 2% of the globe falisfies it?
Australia last year had the warmest Day ever recorded, the warmest month, and the warmest year ever recorded since accurate record keeping began (150 years). That in itself does not prove Global Warming. Individual records do not prove anything, it is the overall trend, averaged out over many years that is important.
So comments like:
"The winter months of December 2013 and January 2014 averaged over the contiguous 48 United States were the 3rd coldest Dec/Jan in the last 30 years."
Are entirely meaningless in this context.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:37 AM on 8 February 20142013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
Topal,
You are not alone in struggling to better understand this issue. Many people continue to make many similar claims. Other posts have tried to help you better understand this issue. I offer the following.
The graph showing the global average temperatures not only shows the bumped values during El Nino and the reduced values during La Ninas. It shows how much variation can occur just because of the condition of the ENSO at any given time. But the important point is that the global average is what needs to be tracked. The surface of the Pacific varies by far more than 10ths of a degree.
A rather basic measure of the Pacific Surface temperature variations can be seen at the following site. Note that this is not a full evaluation of the ENSO and its ability to influence the global average (that which involves the timing and strength and patterns of trade wind circulations and other considerations).
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
As can be seen the '3 month averages' of the overall zone being measured fluctuate by many degrees C. Regions within the zone being averaged have even higher variations. That regional short-term fluctuation can also be seen to not be 'truly cyclical in timing or strength'.
However, as the graph in this article clearly shows, the average trend line of the widely fluctuating global surface average annual surface temperature is what really needs to be noted.
So, to better understand what changes are occurring, it is important to also follow the global average temperature values. And it is important to review a long time series of data since there are many random significant factors creating fluctuations of even the global average values.
Another way of looking at the changes over time is to compare every new year's global average temperature to the value 20 or 30 years prior. In the graph it is clear that every new year has been significantly warmer than those 'previous years'.
A final point has to be the amount of global average temperature 'warming'. As can clearly be seen the warming is less than 1 degrees C. With the global average warming being so small (yet very significant even though ‘it is small’), and the many reports of how the warming of the Arctic and the Antarctic has been more than other regions of the planet, it should be clearer why it can still get cold in the US 'in spite of the warming'. A concern should be the increasing frequency of freezing temperatures reaching down to places like Florida due to the 'predicted weakening of the jet stream' which allows Arctic air masses to be pushed further south more frequently.
I hope that helps.
-
ZincKidd at 01:34 AM on 8 February 2014Debunking climate myths: two contrasting case studies
I see a couple of problems with the suggested debunk of myth #1. One, is you really don't want a politician communicating it. That Obama cites the 97% is enough to consider it automatically wrong in many circles. And Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" may have done as much harm as good. Second, I've heard it said that there are people who claim that 97% of scientists are convinced of global warming but that is because they are all getting grant money from Big Nuclear or green power sources. And I hear the argument that there is plenty of science on the other side, insisting on peer-review is cherry picking. Yes, I've actually heard that said with a straight face.
-
Michael Whittemore at 00:50 AM on 8 February 20142013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
My comment at 22 is wrong Dana is spot on as usual. :)
-
Michael Whittemore at 00:48 AM on 8 February 20142013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
Markoh, I personally think that El Nino's are natural and knowing they will happen soon and help the public see that the Earth is getting warmer is a good thing. Like what was stated before, we can feel fine about them because they don't last very long, unlike man made CO2.
-
Michael Whittemore at 00:39 AM on 8 February 2014How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
Geoengineering might work well if the sun was blocked from hitting the oceans in areas where there is not much life. Also reducing sun light from hitting the Arctic might help sea ice stay in summer and increase its volume.
-
Michael Whittemore at 00:21 AM on 8 February 20142013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
"Climate scientists didn't panic and decide the short-term acceleration in rising surface temperatures (didn't mean)? that climate models were underestimating global warming"
-
bruiser at 00:04 AM on 8 February 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
@Barry
Hi Barry, not sure if you are still monitoring this article but ...
that while solar exposure is (very convincingly) the primary reason why 2013 was hot relative to 1990-2013, it is not the reason why 1990-2013 was hot relative to 1910-1939.
If you check bom sites that have temperature records that go back to the late 19th century, the hottest year is usually 1888 or early 20th century. One perticularly interesting location is the Cape Otway lighthouse where records go back to 1865. All the top 95 percentile are pre 1890.
-
Markoh at 23:45 PM on 7 February 20142013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
Esop, you must be the only person that I have heard of that is hoping and wanting a bad El Niño In 2015. You sure?
-
bjchip at 23:38 PM on 7 February 2014There's no tropospheric hot spot
Wouldn't the fact that the warming is in fact concentrated at the poles this past decade or so, and the low latitude ocean surface temps being dominated by a quiet ENSO so having not had a lot of warming lately (owing to the heat being carried into the deep ocean), make it reasonable that an effect that is ascribed to warming of the area SHOULD weaken when the area is not warming that much?
Just sayin... If one is looking for this in the tropical troposphere as something that is happening ALL the time one may be ignoring what is actually happening SOME of the time. -
mgardner at 22:59 PM on 7 February 20142013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
topal @18
You are making a really elementary mistake.
The MST (mean surface temp) is computed from all the different areas of the planet. So, ENSO causes the temp to rise or fall in one part of the planet, and that is reflected in the value of MST.
What you have to do is stop using the ambiguous verb "warm" and replace it with the correct language specific to the context:
Greenhouse gases "increase the energy" of the entire system.
ENSO "increases or decreases the temperature" measured as MST.
Hope that helps.
-
Klaus Flemløse at 22:02 PM on 7 February 2014Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?
Hi Tom Curtis
Here is the Google Map picture of the double counted Vestervig weather station. There is only one Vestervig weather station.
Prev 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 Next
