This month’s open thread on climate science topics. We are well into Arctic melt season (so keep track of Neven’s Arctic Sea Ice blog for more info). Another link is the NY Times Daily podcast on the interesting-yet-flawed NYTimes Magazine “Losing Earth” piece (which is useful if you didn’t get around to finishing the written article yet). Remember to please stick to climate science topics on this thread.
HadCRUT have posted their August anomaly at +0.588ºC, a tiny bit down on the July’s +0.594ºC anomaly. The last six months have been very similar (in the range +0.62ºC to +0.57ºC) with only Jan & Feb showing a significant difference (being both cooler, +0.55ºC & +0.53ºC respectively).
It is the 6th warmest August on the HadCRUT record (August was 5th warmest in GISTEMP, NOAA & BEST) sitting below August 2016 (+0.79ºC), 2015 (+0.74ºC), 2017 (+0.71ºC), 2014 (+0.68ºC) & 1998 (+0.60ºC) and above 7th-placed August 2009 (+0.586ºC).
August 2018 sits in 70th place on the full all-month HadCRUT record (=52nd in GISTEMP, =58th in NOAA, =48th in BEST).
HadCRUT puts the 2018 to-date temperature anomaly in 6th place (BEST & GISTEMP sit 3rd, NOAA 4th). With two-thirds of the year now reported, the +0.58ºC average for the HadCRUT year-to-date suggests 2018 will likely rise up the rankings into 5th spot or even 4th spot, although sticking at 6th is still a possibility. (By the same analysis, GISS & BEST look certain to claim 4th spot while NOAA, likely also a 4th, may yet end up in 5th.)
…….. Jan-Aug Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.90ºC … … … +0.80ºC … … … 1st
2017 .. +0.74ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 3rd
2015 .. +0.70ºC … … … +0.76ºC … … … 2nd
2010 .. +0.62ºC … … … +0.56ºC … … … 5th
1998 .. +0.61ºC … … … +0.54ºC … … … 7th
2018 .. +0.58ºC
2002 .. +0.56ºC … … … +0.50ºC … … … 12th
2014 .. +0.56ºC … … … +0.58ºC … … … 4th
2007 .. +0.54ºC … … … +0.49ºC … … … 13th
2005 .. +0.53ºC … … … +0.55ºC … … … 6th
2013 .. +0.48ºC … … … +0.51ºC … … … 8th
Victor: You don’t think that maybe the glacier melting and moving faster might have anything to do with it? Naaaah!
You really are a very dull, broken tool.
AB: Dumb, dumb, stupid. You are saying that MAYBE rocks got shoved and stacked IN THE LAST DECADE and when scientists reported the rocks they CONVENIENTLY left off the recent history? Dude, you are calling scientists either “dumber than dirt” or “more evil than Kavanaugh”. OK, I went with current events. Sue me.
—–
Ray L: Weaktor,
I’ll try to be nicer if you try to be smarter. Deal?
AB: Vic is trying as hard as he can to be as smart as he can. Paraphrasing Forest Gump, “____ is as ____ posts”. And seriously, since “smartness level” is pretty much as solid as those Antarctic rocks and “nice” is infinitely adjustable, you made one TRULY STUPID OFFER…. unless one considers that trying to be nicer is a good thing and any excuse to increase the effort is beneficial. Then you made the most brilliant offer possible.
Killian @198, total BS. I dont always agree with Kevin McKinney, but he is largely commendably polite, rarely gets the science wrong (Im talking general scientific and economic knowledge ) and when he does he admits it, or at least he doesn’t throw a tantrum when criticised.
You Killian are the complete opposite, and the gulf is huge, and if you cant fix the problem you should GO AWAY.
AB: …TRULY STUPID OFFER…
Given that my offer is contingent on Victor being smarter, I think I’m safe.
#204, nigel–
Well, ta!
The ESRL MLO CO2 data for 27th of September has been posted, the point where the ESRL MLO CO2 data (and also the Scripps MLO CO2 data) has on-average shown the annual minimum (using weekly data). It is a shallow minimum and the chance of a minimum week occurring after this on-average point will be present for another couple of weeks and more. So far th 2018 data has been showing above the on-average levels. This situation is presented on this rather bizzy graph (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’) which will be kept up-to-date throught the period of possible minimum.
Help please. I have been debating with a large group of (mainly) contrarians on Twitter, and one of them is repeatedly posting this IPCC image: https://twitter.com/DocRichard/status/1045634859467755520
He claims that it shows that the IPCC thinks that the GHE is generating energy, because incoming solar is 240, but GHE is 342.
We have tried repeatedly to show how the numbers balance at the surface and TOA, to no avail. The IPCC page containing the image does not address the point of why the GHE is greater than solar incoming. It does seem counter-intuitive that the GHE should be greater than incoming solar.
My guess is that the earth outgoing radiation is greater than incoming solar precisely because Earth is warmer as a result of the GHE. In the absence of GHGs the radiation from the surface would exactly equal the incoming solar. Have I got this right?
Kevin McKinney: Killian, #198–
What, whiny one, have I actually gotten wrong, rather than not 100% right? Pretty much nothing.
I rest my case.
AB: Man, now I’m tempted to go read 198… Thank goodness for Nancy “Just say no” Raygun.
Al Bundy @203
“Vic is trying as hard as he can to be as smart as he can.”
I don’t know. It looks more like deliberate ignorance or laziness at times. I have heard similar nonsense from people who really are reasonably smart. Thats not to say that Victor is a genius, because he ain’t.
However heres another alternative. Some people just dont think scientifically in the sense of being able to intuitively grasp the nature of materials, correlations, cause and effect, and weigh up a lot of different things together in their heads. I had a school friend who was brilliant at languages etc and worked hard but he was a disaster at science and maths. It may have been due partly to a lot of broken schooling. I think Victor is probably somewhere on this spectrum.
204 – nigelj
I’d agree with this post.
#201 Kevin McKinney said Killian, #198–
What, whiny one, have I actually gotten wrong, rather than not 100% right? Pretty much nothing.
I rest my case.
You have no case. Stop acting like a pouty child. You want badly to paint me a certain way. If you could, you would. You cannot. Fact is, whether you like it or not, I have come to conclusions you could not, have not, and likely will not, and that goes for everyone else on this forum. Not one of you can point to any of the insights I have had or any novel interpretations of climate, as I have done.
2007: SLR of up to 3M.
2008: Crash in the fall of 2008. (Not my analysis; recognized legitimacy of others’ analysis.) Did not anticipate the depth and breadth of the bailout, nor the complete lack of prosecutions.
2007-10: 1. ASI melt would continue to be significantly faster than expected. 2. Arctic clathrates and permafrost would decomp faster than expected.
3. EVERYTHING would decomp faster than expected, largely due to a lack of hysteresis, negative feedbacks and based on changes to that (and this) time being greater than expected for the carbon load so far realized.
2011: Food supply would come under pressure faster than expected due to extremes. (Currently in progress, but most papers see food difficulties as decades into the future. They are wrong.)
2011/12: Deep Simplicity, Regenerative Governance, Regenerative Community Incubators.
2015: EL Nino would influence ASI in 2016. Despite near-perfect conditions for ASI retention (as with pretty much every year since 2012.) 2018: Paper – Pacific heat and moisture influence ASI.
Where is your list? Or anyone else’s?
Now, stop hiding behind unwarranted snark and state your case or shut up. Libel is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.
For the last time, show your proof or shut up and get serious about solving the problems we face.
11 or 12 years of “alarmism” validated. I’m a vouce in the wilderness no longer.
Pay attention, Kevin.
https://ethicsandclimate.org/2018/09/21/new-evidence-that-climate-change-poses-a-much-greater-threat-to-humanity-than-recently-understood-because-the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change-has-been-systematically-underestimating-climate/amp/