19 May 16
4 edits
http://phys.org/news/2016-05-april-12th-month-row-global.html
Locally, in my part of the world, it has been a very late spring and so cold that I still have to put the central heating on and I really wish for some warm weather. Meanwhile, globally, the overall temperature is still going up to ever greater heights. I guess I will get far more than what I wish for sooner or later.
Of course, global warming deniers will still say this isn't evidence of global warming. No amount of evidence is evidence for them.
19 May 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat's pretty impressively visually concise; visually only one way to interpret it. The general trend for the last few years is visually very obviously.
Have you seen this animation?
http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2016/spiralling-global-temperatures/
Click the image to see the animation.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
19 May 16
Originally posted by Eladarhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/05/17/april_2016_was_the_hottest_april_on_record.html
I suppose that if we get 12 straight months of global cooling you'll be ready to say that global warming does not exist?
I also suppose that the only explanation for the short term heating trend is man made.
If you look at this temperature data [from the above article] set you will see that the global average fluctuates up
and down on the short term...
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/apr_wld.html
But the LONG term trend is always up.
That is proof of a long term warming trend. Having all the top ten hottest years in the recent past and having
temperature records broken regularly is one of the signs of such a trend. As these info-graphics clearly show.
This years [and last years] records are due to El Niño which increases the surface area of the pacific covered
with warm water which dumps lots of heat into the atmosphere and raises the worlds surface temperatures.
We have had a strong El Niño which is why this year is breaking records. Although it's now weakening and
likely to be replaced by a La Niña pattern where colder than average waters cover large areas of the pacific
which reduces the global average surface temperature [an effect that has been very common over the last
decade or so even with which we still had almost all the top ten hottest years on record].
However these short term variations are built upon the aforementioned LONG term trend which is inexorably up.
The reason for this is that the Earth is absorbing more heat from the sun than it is emitting.
Which can be clearly measured by satellites, and is a signal so huge as to be beyond dispute.
As the Earth is gaining energy it is warming up. At a rate of heat gain equivalent to multiple Hiroshima sized
nuclear bombs per second, and has been doing so for decades.
That is a ludicrously large amount of energy the climate system has gained [90% of which is going into heating
the oceans].
And that is why this is no little trivial short term trend, but is instead a very real long term trend.
The sheer amount of energy required to heat the Earth's climate system this much is vast. And cannot be caused
by some minor natural temperature fluctuations.
19 May 16
Originally posted by EladarAll of the 10 hottest years on record (since the late 1800s) have taken place since 1999. Such a "short term trend," as with the trend in the OP, is extremely unlikely absent a long-term trend of increasing average temperatures.
Glad to see that you agree that the short term trend being touted is a result of natural cycles and not man made global warming.
I'm sure that you agree that some of this global warming in general is also tied to natural cycles, one of which includes the Sun.
19 May 16
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou really aren't very good with basic math are you?
All of the 10 hottest years on record (since the late 1800s) have taken place since 1999. Such a "short term trend," as with the trend in the OP, is extremely unlikely absent a long-term trend of increasing average temperatures.
Once the temp has reached a high level, any little variation above and below will create multiple "hottest years" even if the change isn't much. It would take a long term cool down to mean a new high is significant.
19 May 16
Originally posted by EladarAgreed. Which demonstrates that the temp has reached a new high ie global warming.
Once the temp has reached a high level, any little variation above and below will create multiple "hottest years" even if the change isn't much. It would take a long term cool down to mean a new high is significant.
Originally posted by EladarNope. And we are not talking about just 12 months but a general trend over many years and to an extend that cannot be explained by known natural cycles thus indicating man made CO2 release as at least a large part of the cause.
I suppose that if we get 12 straight months of global cooling you'll be ready to say that global warming does not exist?
.
Originally posted by EladarAre you saying that a series of hottest years is NOT evidence of global warming!? So, if you say we should dismiss all observation showing a series of hottest years as relevant evidence of global warming, what, according to you, WOULD be evidence of global warming then if not involving the evidence of a series of hottest years?
Once the temp has reached a high level, any little variation above and below will create multiple "hottest years" even if the change isn't much. It would take a long term cool down to mean a new high is significant.
And exactly HOW would you expect the evidence to be different from what it is if your belief is wrong and there IS a global warming trend?
Originally posted by humyEarth ending global warming or simply warming that is natural? Surely you are not so ignorant to the believe that the earth has always warmed and has always cooled.
Are you saying that a series of hottest years is NOT evidence of global warming!? So, if you say we should dismiss all observation showing a series of hottest years as relevant evidence of global warming, what, according to you, WOULD be evidence of global warming then if not involving the evidence of a series of hottest years?
And exactly HOW would you expec ...[text shortened]... nce to be different from what it is if your belief is wrong and there IS a global warming trend?
Originally posted by EladarThat's a weird question to ask to someone you know is pretty good at maths and makes his living using it.
You really aren't very good with basic math are you?
Once the temp has reached a high level, any little variation above and below will create multiple "hottest years" even if the change isn't much. It would take a long term cool down to mean a new high is significant.
To give a technical response to your query - it would depend on how strongly one year's average temperature correlates with the next, which happens to be not very strongly - certainly not strong enough to find very hot years in 2016 because there was also a historically very hot year in 1999.
Originally posted by EladarI find both those statements totally unintelligible;
Earth ending global warming or simply warming that is natural? Surely you are not so ignorant to the believe that the earth has always warmed and has always cooled.
What do you mean by
"Earth ending global warming"
especially in the weird context you have placed it in of that being as opposed to
"warming that is natural" ?
I personally would have thought the statement "warming that is unnatural" is the one opposed to the statement "warming that is natural" !
and what do you mean by,
"earth has always warmed and has always cooled"
given you imply this is false ?
Surely you don't deny there exists natural cycles of warming and cooling?
Whether man made influences are added on or not, the climate has always gone through natural cycles of warming and cooling so, at least in that narrow sense, you could argue that the statement "earth has always warmed and has always cooled" can be attached with a meaning that is correct (although that statement is rather vague and imprecise) and I have no idea what meaning you have attached to that statement that is such that you would say it is false.