2016 even hotter than 2015 and 2014

[Bugeye]

this year had the largest el nino ever recorded. When data from multiple sources and multiple models indicate an approaching and avoidable calamity, how can we not pay attention to it?

I'm not sure there is, has been, or ever will be a we. But that is a different argument. I support paying attention and drawing we own conclusions.

 

[OddBall1st]

Same strategy by the same people that brought us delays in the scientific understanding of health problems with cigarettes and asbestos. Also same people that delayed action on CFC's (Freon) and are now muddying waters about second hand smoke health issues. Same "think tank" is putting out the same deceptive pseudoscienc on AGW.

So after millions and more millions of years, the Earth starts to break down,...and you cried.

 

[Fogdog]

I'm not sure there is, has been, or ever will be a we. But that is a different argument. I support paying attention and drawing we own conclusions.

oh yeah the individual gunfighter against the bad cattle baron. Hahaaahaahaaha You've watched too many westerns where the good guy by himself prevailed. In this case, corporate interests are struggling to delay action that the best we've ever had say is necessary. Sorry man, the data are in and its time to act. The alternative is harsher action against the same corporations fighting for delay. In this case, for their own best interest its time to rein them in.

 

[UncleBuck]

El Niño is the obvious reason for the significant January and February spikes.

then why weren't previous el ninos this hot?

we have had el ninos before, and lots of them. so many that we gave a name to the phenomenon.

so why is this one hotter than all the others?

 

[ttystikk]

then why weren't previous el ninos this hot?

we have had el ninos before, and lots of them. so many that we gave a name to the phenomenon.

so why is this one hotter than all the others?

Because Trump said that benghazi emails stained Monica Lewinsky's dress so they laundered it in Whitewater.

Duh, get your facts straight, bucky... when Mexico builds our wall, you don't wanna be on the wrong side, you understand me?

 

[Bugeye]

I believe this El Niño is comparable to 1998. Is AGW contributing, of course. But to leave this El Niño out of the explanation is silly.

 

[akdoh]

but we don't.

How do you know we don't? How do you know we don't go through thousand year cycles? The simple fact is we don't have enough recorded history to know for sure.

I am not a cLIEmate change denier. What I say is that there are multiple reasons for it, some of which we understand and some of which we don't.

I believe the solar cycles impact weather more than we even begin to know. I believe if the solar wind is weaker and slower, and we don't experience as many solar flares the different layers of the atmosphere act differently.

 

[akdoh]

Because everyone else is posting graphs I feel obligated to do so now too!

Arctic Sea Ice:

Antarctic Sea Ice:

Juts last year we shattered the previous record maximum levels of Antarctic Sea Ice as seen above. Even NASA confirmed that - https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

Jan-Dec 2014 we (US) were on average colder than warmer:

I could keep going with these too.

 

[Fogdog]

Because everyone else is posting graphs I feel obligated to do so now too!

Arctic Sea Ice:

Antarctic Sea Ice:

Juts last year we shattered the previous record maximum levels of Antarctic Sea Ice as seen above. Even NASA confirmed that - https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

Jan-Dec 2014 we (US) were on average colder than warmer:

I could keep going with these too.

It would help if you posted a conclusion.

Ever wonder how the so called hiatus was set at 18 years and not 15 or 20? That's cherry picking. What you are doing is this:
The hiatus :
1) Form hypothesis that there is no global warming.
2) Group data so that it proves the hypothesis.
3) When warming occurs, group data again to show that the warming has stopped.
3a Shout Benghazi
4) Go to step 1 and repeat.

 

[akdoh]

It would help if you posted a conclusion.

Ever wonder how the so called hiatus was set at 18 years and not 15 or 20? That's cherry picking. What you are doing is this:
The hiatus :
1) Form hypothesis that there is no global warming.
2) Group data so that it proves the hypothesis.
3) When warming occurs, group data again to show that the warming has stopped.
3a Shout Benghazi
4) Go to step 1 and repeat.

Very few people are presenting anything close to a conclusion.

As I responded to Buck - I think we as humans don't understand fully what is causing our climate to change. I also will never agree that we are 'warming' - and it is hard to say Global Warming when we are recording record breaking high levels of sea ice, and on average seeing colder temperatures than warmer temperatures.

I would purpose we start saying things like 'Global Climate Extremes'....because they are extremes for both Heat and Cold.

 

[Bugeye]

It would help if you posted a conclusion.

Ever wonder how the so called hiatus was set at 18 years and not 15 or 20? That's cherry picking. What you are doing is this:
The hiatus :
1) Form hypothesis that there is no global warming.
2) Group data so that it proves the hypothesis.
3) When warming occurs, group data again to show that the warming has stopped.
3a Shout Benghazi
4) Go to step 1 and repeat.

Cherry picking or a mathematical calculation of how far back you can go without warming. Probably won't be true for much longer given the strength of this El Nino.

Could you tell me what the consensus "realist" view is for why the warming has been so much lower than expected these last 18 years? You know how the last step in your "skeptical" graph is shorter in height and longer in duration than the ones preceding it despite record CO2 levels?

 

[ttystikk]

I've looked at both sides of these arguments. All I can say is that if the climate scientists denying AGW were car makers, I wouldn't ride across the street in one of their designs.

 

[Bugeye]

I've looked at both sides of these arguments. All I can say is that if the climate scientists denying AGW were car makers, I wouldn't ride across the street in one of their designs.

Me too. But then again, not many skeptics deny AGW. However, the rate of warming increase expected may be far less settled than you are aware.

 

[Fogdog]

Cherry picking or a mathematical calculation of how far back you can go without warming. Probably won't be true for much longer given the strength of this El Nino.

Could you tell me what the consensus "realist" view is for why the warming has been so much lower than expected these last 18 years? You know how the last step in your "skeptical" graph is shorter in height and longer in duration than the ones preceding it despite record CO2 levels?

Why would you ask me? How about the person that gathered the data you refer to:

"He starts at that time for a very specific reason and that's because there is a huge El Nino event"
"of course if you start at the top of a hill and start driving its all downhill at least in the beginning"
"the longer you look at the time the better...get a better idea of what the trend is"

 

[Fogdog]

You know how the last step in your "skeptical" graph is shorter in height and longer in duration than the ones preceding it despite record CO2 levels?

Regarding the figure that shows CO2 ppm in atmosphere overlaid on top of global temperature readings, that figure was used in this presentation at a congressional hearing. Title is "I was a was a climate skeptic", humorously reminiscent of a 50's b move horror movie title. Well, maybe funny to a nerd. Anyway, here is testimony from a career climate professional who began that career as a skeptic but eventually saw enough data to convince him the modelling was correctly predicting global temperature trends based upon accumulation of greenhouse gasses:

This is from a series of interviews collected and archived here:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_t-6ku13PGk_nieSDOmWkRmO76rnS8qi

 

[Bugeye]

Why would you ask me? How about the person that gathered the data you refer to:

"He starts at that time for a very specific reason and that's because there is a huge El Nino event"
"of course if you start at the top of a hill and start driving it at least in the beginning"
"the longer you look at the time the better...get a better idea of what the trend is"

So if the trend we have seen over the last 18 years (approx. 0.1C per decade warming) continues for another 18 years, will the hiatus then have meaning relative to model predictions? At what point would it become meaningful?

 

[Fogdog]

So if the trend we have seen over the last 18 years (approx. 0.1C per decade warming) continues for another 18 years, will the hiatus then have meaning relative to model predictions? At what point would it become meaningful?

What if the future is as you predict? Is that where you want to take this conversation? Can I make my own predictions and force you to agree with me? Come on man, let's stick to data that are on the record. Pick that apart if you will. Or pick apart the global climate model that is used to make the predictions if you will.

 

[Bugeye]

What if the future is as you predict? Is that where you want to take this conversation? Can I make my own predictions and force you to agree with me? Come on man, let's stick to what is on the record. Pick apart the global climate model that is used to make the predictions if you will.

It seems logical at some point to evaluate model performance against observations. If the greatest warming is expected to occur in the troposphere above the tropics, and our best measurement tools are not seeing it taking place at expected levels, should we not get concerned about our assumptions at some point? If so, when?

 

[Fogdog]

Me too. But then again, not many skeptics deny AGW. However, the rate of warming increase expected may be far less settled than you are aware.

It does seem that the rate of global warming might be less than predicted. If true, that is good news. It means extreme steps that would damage vital parts of the economy don't have to be taken. It also means that steps need to be taken that will eventually replace fossil fuels as the source of energy for those vital parts of the economy. Less disruptive is good.

Its not hard to find skeptics that deny AGW, just look at a few posts on this board. You aren't one of those, on that we agree.

 

[OddBall1st]

It does seem that the rate of global warming might be less than predicted. If true, that is good news. It means extreme steps that would damage vital parts of the economy don't have to be taken. It also means that steps need to be taken that will eventually replace fossil fuels as the source of energy for those vital parts of the economy. Less disruptive is good.

Its not hard to find skeptics that deny AGW, just look at a few posts on this board. You aren't one of those, on that we agree.

Like China, India, Brazil, Russia, and Taiwan will just comply too. Steps, .....ya.....OK.