[_ Old Earth _] Warming Up

[Barbarian]

Global temperatures, every month so far this year have been hotter than last year, which was at that time, the hottest on record. Unless something changes soon, we will have yet another record-breaking year.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt

And it's now happening faster than the models predicted. I haven't given much thought to a catastrophic warming, but it's starting to concern me a bit.

 

[Hyla C]

Global temperatures, every month so far this year have been hotter than last year, which was at that time, the hottest on record.

Much of that will be ENSO-related. That's tapering off now, so July-Sept 2016 should be pretty similar to 2015 and Oct-Dec will likely be cooler.

Unless something changes soon, we will have yet another record-breaking year.

I'd be surprised if we didn't. With ENSO plus global warming in the first half of the year the rest would have to be unusuallly cold to keep 2016 out of the record books. It might actually set a record that won't get broken for a while which, sadly, is likely to lead to complacency.

And it's now happening faster than the models predicted. I haven't given much thought to a catastrophic warming, but it's starting to concern me a bit.

Depends on the model, but it is at the upper end of the range. BTW, what do you consider non-catastrophic?

 

[Barbarian]

Much of that will be ENSO-related. That's tapering off now, so July-Sept 2016 should be pretty similar to 2015 and Oct-Dec will likely be cooler.

Interestingly, my part of the world might actually get better. It seems that continued warming might keep the prevailing winds coming from the Gulf of Mexico (as they do in the spring now) instead of shifting over Northern Mexico in mid to late summer. If that happens, we'll have wetter, and probably cooler, summers.

 

[Barbarian]

My favorite xkcd cartoon on global warming:

 

[Hyla C]

That one isn't bad either.

Here's a prediction for you. The ~11 year solar cycle is the most powerful short-term factor in climate change. Right now the sun is on a longer-term downswing in activity. The last solar maximum was feable and jokingly referred to as the minimax. The solar minimum that preceded it set records for the modern era. Sunspots vanished for over a year and the thermosphere contracted 50% and cooled 100 degrees C.

Down here 2008 was the only year that was marginally cooler than the others in that decade.

The solar minimum that we are headed into right now is predicted to be even deeper. If solar activity drops as deeply as most predictions suggest then we should see significant cooling at ground level. If the next few years have very low solar activity but warm temperatures then you should be concerned.

If that happens then the current temperature increase is under-representing the problem because that warming trend is overlaid on what ought to be a cooling trend. If that's true then our kids are going to suffer in the decades ahead when the sun resumes normal ouput.

 

[brewmama]

As for the OP, nah, not so much...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/22/is-the-reuters-news-agency-committing-fraud/

The Global Warming Speedometer for January 2001 to June 2016 shows observed warming on the HadCRUT4 and NCEI surface tamperature datasets as below IPCC’s least prediction in 1990 and somewhat on the low side of its 1995 and 2001 predictions, while the satellite datasets show less warming than all IPCC predictions from 1990 to 2001. Later IPCC predictions are too recent to be reliably testable.

Next, Reuters unquestioningly reports a WMD spokesman as saying: “What we’ve seen so far for the first six months of 2016 is really quite alarming. This year suggests that the planet can warm up faster than we expected in a much shorter time … We don’t have as much time as we thought.”

Er, no. Just look at the predictions and then look at the measured reality, even after all the data tampering. It ought to be plain even to the meanest journalistic “intelligence” at Reuters that the planet is actually warming up far more slowly than They had expected.

Next, Reuters unquestioningly repeats that “The average temperature in the first six months of 2016 was 1.3° Celsius (2.4° Fahrenheit) warmer than the pre-industrial era of the late 19th Century, according to space agency NASA”.

Unh, no. Even if one relies upon the most tampered-with and prejudiced of all the global temperature datasets, that of “space agency NASA”, the rate of global warming since the dataset began in January 1880 has been less than 1 degree, equivalent to a mere 0.7 degrees per century. Not exactly scary. It’s well within natural variability.

etc. etc

 

[Barbarian]

Well, let's take a look...

January 2016 was the hottest January on record.
February 2016 was the hottest Febuary on record.
March 2016 was the hottest March on record.
April 2016 was the hottest April on record.
May 2016 was the hottest May on record.
June 2016 was the hottest June on record.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

See Hyla's comments. We should be cooling off now, based on solar activity. The last time we had a strong minimum, there should have been notable cooling. But it didn't happen. It only moderated the ongoing rise in temperatures.

And in spite of all the denials, the northward movement of hardiness zones continues:

Warm-weather plants are viable farther and farther north, and that's been going on for decades. Must be all those liberal zinnias, I guess.

 

[ezrider]

Barbarian, correct me if I am wrong, but I think I have gathered from your posting that you are a teacher? Do you teach science?

 

[ezrider]

Interestingly, my part of the world might actually get better. It seems that continued warming might keep the prevailing winds coming from the Gulf of Mexico (as they do in the spring now) instead of shifting over Northern Mexico in mid to late summer. If that happens, we'll have wetter, and probably cooler, summers.

Do you see that weather pattern as being consistent with the polar vortexes that have developed the last few winters?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, correct me if I am wrong, but I think I have gathered from your posting that you are a teacher? Do you teach science?

Yep. When I "retired", I became a science teacher.

And yes, the polar vortices are consistent with global warming. Instability is one of the expected effects, but in spite of that cold weather, the last two years have each been the hottest on record. I should emphasize that weather is not climate, and it's wrong to ascribe any particular spell of weather to climate change. The key is the trend, not any particular months of weather.

 

[Sinthesis]

Some wouldn't attend a house warming, as if it would be giving in to a liberal conspiracy.

 

[Cygnus]

One thought is.....after the flood of Noah the ice caps formed. They reached well down into the states. The planet is still receeding from the effects of the flood.

 

[reba]

I do not believe 'their" numbers
I check the weather report on line for this town..
Example;
Yesterday as i am watching the temperature high is listed at 86 they say this is actual not the projected
today i check the history for yesterday it says 98

The above is common

So their credibility is zero

 

[Barbarian]

I do not believe 'their" numbers

But the zinnias do. And they should know, shouldn't they? As the climate warms up, tropical plants are surviving farther and farther north. Accusing plants of bias is not really a reasonable idea.

I check the weather report on line for this town..
Example;
Yesterday as i am watching the temperature high is listed at 86 they say this is actual not the projected
today i check the history for yesterday it says 98

Weather is not climate. And thermometers can vary widely depending on where they are in a locale. Which is why climate data comes from constant sources.

 

[Barbarian]

One thought is.....after the flood of Noah the ice caps formed.

Nope. They were there long before humans were here. Would you like to see the data?

 

[reba]

my numbers come from usga

 

[ezrider]

Yep. When I "retired", I became a science teacher.

And yes, the polar vortices are consistent with global warming. Instability is one of the expected effects, but in spite of that cold weather, the last two years have each been the hottest on record. I should emphasize that weather is not climate, and it's wrong to ascribe any particular spell of weather to climate change. The key is the trend, not any particular months of weather.

You had mentioned in your earlier post about a shift in the prevailing winds. It appears to me that because of the loss of the Arctic sea ice, that the polar pressure systems have reacted have accordingly. With a weakening arctic high pressure because of the warming, we have seen during the winter months the frigid polar vortices, but now this patter seems to be carrying on through the summer months as well. With the loss of sea ice, how much more does the ice sheets over Greenland help to drive the polar jet?

There is one thing that I do wonder about. Once upon a time those who pushed the idea of global warming said that there would be more hurricanes in the Atlantic basin, but it seems as though the warming has shifted the polar jet stream so that it makes it more difficult for the hurricanes to form, and those that do would be less likely to hit the US, as the prevailing winds would more than likely keep them in the Atlantic.

 

[Barbarian]

You had mentioned in your earlier post about a shift in the prevailing winds. It appears to me that because of the loss of the Arctic sea ice, that the polar pressure systems have reacted have accordingly. With a weakening arctic high pressure because of the warming, we have seen during the winter months the frigid polar vortices, but now this patter seems to be carrying on through the summer months as well. With the loss of sea ice, how much more does the ice sheets over Greenland help to drive the polar jet?

Not sure. That's still not well-determined by models or by observation, I think. I should know that, but I don't. I'll see what's out there.

There is one thing that I do wonder about. Once upon a time those who pushed the idea of global warming said that there would be more hurricanes in the Atlantic basin,

Not more hurricanes, the model predicts more strong hurricanes. And data this decade seems to confirm that.

There are two aspects to hurricane activity that are often confused so it helps to consider them separately. Specifically, does global warming cause more frequent hurricanes and does it cause more intense hurricanes?
...

To determine whether warmer temperatures affect hurricane intensity, one study began by defining the potential destructiveness of a hurricane based on the dissipation of power, integrated over the lifetime of a hurricane (Emanuel 2005). The Power Dissipation Index is found to increase since the mid-1970s, due to both longer and more intense storms. Hurricane intensity is also highly correlated with sea surface temperature. This suggests that future warming will lead to an increase in the destructive potential of tropical hurricanes.

...But more significantly, Elsner found weaker hurricanes showed little to no trend while stronger hurricanes showed a greater upward trend. In other words, stronger hurricanes are getting stronger. This means that as sea temperatures continue to rise, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming-intermediate.htm

I'll take a look and see what I can find about the change in winds.

 

[Cygnus]

Nope. They were there long before humans were here. Would you like to see the data?

Your data that contradicts the Word of God? No thanks. That kind of thinking leads to an extremely watered down and corrupt bible.

 

[Sinthesis]

Climate change is a fact. The big debatable question is, are we sure humans are now influencing climate change? Secondarily, are we sure this is a net negative globally?