Global Surface Air & Sea Temperatures: Current Conditions and Future Prospects

[Midlands Ice Age]

3 hours ago, Methuselah said:

Well, for a start, 'we' could stop denying the reality we face? 

The reality..?

Exactly what is that?

MIA

[Scott Ingham]

1 hour ago, jonboy said:

What I find really interesting in Nick F early winter thoughts he has specifically noted as one of the key variables that brings uncertainty to what is happening is the water vapour from hunga tonga that has now found its way to the poles.

Until we fully understand the impact this most important green house gas has had you can't fully understand the true underlying trend. 

We already understand it Jon jesus christ! The science is rock solid the theory has been proven 100% correct and certain. This is a fact! We need people now coming together to try to help get us out of this mess

Edited October 18, 2023 by Scott Ingham

[Scott Ingham]

3 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

The reality..?

Exactly what is that?

MIA

That were living in human induced catastrophic climate warming.

A theory long proved 100% certain.

The fact we still have people trying to fight against the science is the same as the nut jobs who still think the earths flat.

Energy needs to be put into how we stop this becoming an extinction now

Edited October 18, 2023 by Scott Ingham

[jonboy]

41 minutes ago, Scott Ingham said:

We already understand it Jon jesus christ! The science is rock solid the theory has been proven 100% correct and certain. This is a fact! We need people now coming together to try to help get us out of this mess

Listen to yourself.  You are ignoring the most powerful green house gas that has been circulating this planet for the last 18 months in concentrations not seen before in a place it shouldn’t . That has happened not because of co2 concentration but because of a volcanic eruption. 

Until that effect is properly quantified you can't say that the excess warming over that period is down  to co2.

I haven't said our climate isn't warming I have said let's not jump to conclusions on this most recent surge which could be temporary as that excess water vapour disperses. 

So I suggest you fully understand the complexity of the science before you Jesus christ me.

Edited October 18, 2023 by jonboy

[Scott Ingham]

4 minutes ago, jonboy said:

Listen to yourself.  You are ignoring the most powerful green house gas that has been circulating this planet for the last 18 months in concentration not seen before in a place it should be. That has happened because of co2 concentration but because of a volcanic eruption. 

Until that effect is properly quantified you can't say that the excess warming over that period is down  to co2.

I haven't said our climate isn't warming I have said let's not jump to conclusions on this most recent surge which could be temporary as that excess water vapour disperses. 

So I suggest you fully understand the complexity of the science before you Jesus christ me.

Im not getting in to this as this is a very passionate topic for me and i dont want to fall out with anyone on here!

Needless to say im not happy at what were collectively doing to ensure my grand children dont die living on this planet

[SnowBear]

1 hour ago, Scott Ingham said:

Im sorry.

But ice core records show that at this rate of increase we will NOT still be living on this planet. We are well on the way to extinction.

Being in denial is really not helping its contributing to us becoming extinct.

We need actions and FAST! This isnt sensationalism this is realism its an INCREDIBLY worrying situation we are in right now

You assume much. You don't know me, and we haven't debated at all so not sure how you can draw any conclusions about what I may think or not. 

When I have time (at the moment work is busy and also my Dad in hospital once again this year recovering from major emergency surgery) we can perhaps debate on the appropriate thread. 

For now, back to the original topic, Kirkcaldy, back to you.

 

Edited October 18, 2023 by SnowBear

[WYorksWeather]

1 hour ago, jonboy said:

Listen to yourself.  You are ignoring the most powerful green house gas that has been circulating this planet for the last 18 months in concentrations not seen before in a place it shouldn’t . That has happened not because of co2 concentration but because of a volcanic eruption. 

Until that effect is properly quantified you can't say that the excess warming over that period is down  to co2.

I haven't said our climate isn't warming I have said let's not jump to conclusions on this most recent surge which could be temporary as that excess water vapour disperses. 

So I suggest you fully understand the complexity of the science before you Jesus christ me.

Best estimates of contributions to temperature rises over the last 10 years, from Berkeley Earth. As a summary, the combined effects of natural forcings compared to last year could be on the order of 0.1C, internal variability (mostly El Nino) around 0.2C, and marine fuels probably 0.02C (roughly one year of global temperature trend). The underlying global warming trend used here by Berkeley Earth is 0.2C per decade, though if James Hansen is correct we may be seeing an acceleration towards closer to 0.3C, given the continued rise in CO2 and methane emissions over the past few decades and a reduction in SO2 sourced from pollution.

In short, the best available evidence would seem to suggest that this year's warmth is partly due to warming since the last El Nino in 2016, but other factors may also be playing a part. Given the IPCC went for 1.2C above pre-industrial as a consensus in the AR6 report, the first wave of which was published in 2021 and based on data for a few years prior, I would say that the underlying trend is probably now in the range of 1.3-1.4C.

My expectations would be that next year will be similar or hotter still, but then we will see the usual temporary drop as we go back into La Nina, before another big spike at the time of the next significant El Nino, probably in the late 2020s or early 2030s.

[Midlands Ice Age]

12 hours ago, SnowBear said:

To be honest, that's a human problem, not a planetary problem. We don't know for sure how quick the climate can change but I suspect it's faster than we think and part of what we are seeing now is possibly Mother Nature showing us exactly who is boss. 

We have lost the ability to move and adapt to climate change, plus there are too many of us so if the climate does change quickly we are at a loss what to do. 

The planet can become much warmer and it will still be here with living things on it. 

This is correct Snowbear.

The belief that CO2 will 'cure the world of all its problems' emphasis has killed off all other thinking and actions, 

Just what happens if it does not work?  That scares me much more than any gradual increase in Co2. 

During the 20th century we did quite a lot. The result was that the number of deaths attributable to climate change per year dropped steadily from 1.2 million in 1900 to a liitle over 100,000 in 1999.

That was human intervention. I have a graph stacked away somewhere but I have to go out now so I will find it later.

MIA

[Mixer 85]

What I find baffling is that some folk in here believe that the current warming is going to lead to a complete catastrophe and the extinction of our species. This is ludicrous and has no support from the scientific literature.

@Scott Ingham I’ve always thoroughly enjoyed your posts and regard you as highly knowledgeable but I’m very much surprised with your above statements. Worth noting, you speak of grandkids on the same forum where it was suggested only a few pages back that we need to actively lower the global population to 150m. That would likely mean no grandkids for you or me and having just recently become the proud father to a beautiful 6 month old girl, I could never endorse any policies or ideologies that might deny her the right to have her own children and experience the love and fulfilment that can add to one’s life.

 

Regarding the catastrophic outlook some believe justify such tyrannical actions, there have been periods in the past that have been much warmer and quite benign, where life has flourished. What makes this period of warming so different and so catastrophic? Honestly I’d be a lot more alarmed if temperatures were trending colder, then we’d have a real humanitarian catastrophe on our hands.

 

 

[WYorksWeather]

10 hours ago, Mixer 85 said:

What I find baffling is that some folk in here believe that the current warming is going to lead to a complete catastrophe and the extinction of our species. This is ludicrous and has no support from the scientific literature.

@Scott Ingham I’ve always thoroughly enjoyed your posts and regard you as highly knowledgeable but I’m very much surprised with your above statements. Worth noting, you speak of grandkids on the same forum where it was suggested only a few pages back that we need to actively lower the global population to 150m. That would likely mean no grandkids for you or me and having just recently become the proud father to a beautiful 6 month old girl, I could never endorse any policies or ideologies that might deny her the right to have her own children and experience the love and fulfilment that can add to one’s life.

 

Regarding the catastrophic outlook some believe justify such tyrannical actions, there have been periods in the past that have been much warmer and quite benign, where life has flourished. What makes this period of warming so different and so catastrophic? Honestly I’d be a lot more alarmed if temperatures were trending colder, then we’d have a real humanitarian catastrophe on our hands.

 

 

I think there is some over-catastrophising and doomism at times which isn't very helpful. But it also isn't helpful to have a head in the sand approach (not accusing you of that).

The right approach in my view is that we need to mitigate emissions as quickly as we reasonably can. But we also need huge investment in adaptation, both in the West and in developing countries, as some significant changes are now sadly inevitable.

It has to be both mitigation and adaptation.

In terms of life flourishing historically, what makes this different is the speed of the change. Life has adapted to all sorts of conditions, when given many thousands or millions of years to do so. But in every single case I am aware of, dramatic changes on the order of centuries or faster with a worldwide scope have in every instance proved catastrophic for the life on the planet at that time (though of course many species have survived in each instance, otherwise we wouldn't be here).

[LetItSnow!]

I think denialism, at its roots, is not wanting to accept the fact that the future does look problematic for a lot of people, animals and land, and I know that because during my teen years, I bought into a lot of it. I am all for discussing new breakthroughs, ideas and solutions - but I wonder... how many searing summer heat waves, positive sea surface temperature anomalies, freak warmwaves in winter and all sorts to realise that something is up? Regardless of whether we end up a scorched earth, drowned earth, or, ironically, a snowball earth, it doesn't matter... we have a problem and we need to fix it and stop bickering and relying on corrupt politicians and professional wind-up merchants on the internet. All these wars going on all while we're picking a war with the earth itself... Priorities.

[cumbrian ice]

My take on things is that I don't deny that man made global warming exists. The big question is how much of the warming trend since industrialisation is attributable to man made greenhouse emissions? I don't think we will ever know the answer to this question. One thing I don't agree with though is the shutting down of the debate on this, by  stating there's a consensus, when nothing is definite. I suspect 30 years from now little will have changed. Then again I can't be certain and I may be proved wrong. My mind is certainly open to all possibilities and not closed like some.

[matty40s]

 

[WYorksWeather]

59 minutes ago, cumbrian ice said:

My take on things is that I don't deny that man made global warming exists. The big question is how much of the warming trend since industrialisation is attributable to man made greenhouse emissions? I don't think we will ever know the answer to this question. One thing I don't agree with though is the shutting down of the debate on this, by  stating there's a consensus, when nothing is definite. I suspect 30 years from now little will have changed. Then again I can't be certain and I may be proved wrong. My mind is certainly open to all possibilities and not closed like some.

I just don't know how you can say 'we'll never know the answer to this question', when it is literally one of the most studied questions in climatology. Unless you mean that we'll be able to give an exact percentage, in which case I'd concede that this is unlikely. Estimates I've seen range from the 70% range at the lower end, to well over 100% at the high end (in other words, cooling absent anthropogenic influence).

The strands of evidence are many, but can be broadly divided into four types.

1. Radiative forcing - the basic physics of the greenhouse effect is based on experiments that date back to the mid-19th century - Eunice Newton Foote and John Tyndall are a good starting point if you want to read more about this.

2. Simulations / models - these get a bad rap from a lot of people, but essentially nobody has been able to produce a simulation that explains the current warming without a dominant anthropogenic signal. Natural forcings and internal variability are insufficient by themselves.

3. Direct physical evidence - carbon isotope changes, solar insolation changes, measurements at various levels of the atmosphere, and so on.

4. Paleoclimatology - studying past climates to identify causes and effects of changes in climate.

The other point is that I would note that those who are opposed to the consensus have failed for the last 30 years to propose a coherent alternative theory. If you throw 10 mainstream IPCC scientists into a room they agree on the broad theory and perhaps disagree on some details. But there is no clear opposing camp - I've seen theories ranging from the influence of the sun, volcanoes, internal variability, and about a dozen other things, none of which stand up to scrutiny as explanations once you actually scratch the surface. Those who are opposed to the consensus need to propose an alternative theory that isn't inconsistent with one or more of the strands of evidence.

Of course the question of policy is a different one, and leaves the realm of the purely scientific to enter the realm of the political, so I'm not going to open that can of worms in this reply. Happy to further discuss any of the above.

[Gary L]

On 18/10/2023 at 22:27, jonboy said:

Listen to yourself.  You are ignoring the most powerful green house gas that has been circulating this planet for the last 18 months in concentrations not seen before in a place it shouldn’t . That has happened not because of co2 concentration but because of a volcanic eruption. 

Until that effect is properly quantified you can't say that the excess warming over that period is down  to co2.

I haven't said our climate isn't warming I have said let's not jump to conclusions on this most recent surge which could be temporary as that excess water vapour disperses. 

So I suggest you fully understand the complexity of the science before you Jesus christ me.

While the eruption has contributed to the record temperatures this year, the main driving force is the ongoing anthropogenic induced warming. There was an article published in nature that calculated the contribution from the eruption to this years warming to be about 0.063C. The eruption increased the chance of the 1.5C threshold being breached by ~ 7%.

 

Tonga eruption increases chance of temporary surface temperature anomaly above 1.5 °C

WWW.NATURE.COM

---

Nature Climate Change - The Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha’apai eruption in January 2022 injected large amounts of water vapour into the atmosphere. Here, the authors show...

 

[SnowBear]

This I find interesting, rock carvings once submerged in the Amazon have reappeared and can be studied where rainfall has dropped to near record levels. 

So what is significant about this. Well, it means the drought and lack of rain fall at least in that particular location is not unprecedented, and may have been at that level for protracted periods of time.

How this could relate to our current situation I don't fully know, but if we look at the history of the Native Americans such as the Olmecs, Maya and Toltecs etc and later the Inca and Aztecs who inhabited that land for over 4,000 years before they were "discovered" they were frequently on the move as the climate changed and droughts and dry lines ebbed and flowed. Whole civilisations would up sticks and travel to new locations. 

These ancient civilisations created elaborate and extensive water irrigation often to only be abandoned a short time afterwards as they once again moved on to seek more favourable conditions to grow crops etc. 

Whatever the reason, right now that location has once again returned to the conditions needed for those rocks to reappear, conditions once seen by a long ago civilisation and long enough for them to carve those rocks and use them for arrow sharpening. 

Brazil drought reveals ancient rock carvings of human faces

WWW.BBC.CO.UK

---

The carvings of human faces on the shore of the Amazon are thought to be at least 1,000 years old.

 

Edited October 25, 2023 by SnowBear

[Sky Full]

On 19/10/2023 at 10:18, Mixer 85 said:

What I find baffling is that some folk in here believe that the current warming is going to lead to a complete catastrophe and the extinction of our species. This is ludicrous and has no support from the scientific literature.

………

Regarding the catastrophic outlook some believe justify such tyrannical actions, there have been periods in the past that have been much warmer and quite benign, where life has flourished. What makes this period of warming so different and so catastrophic? Honestly I’d be a lot more alarmed if temperatures were trending colder, then we’d have a real humanitarian catastrophe on our hands.

Yes - human life might still be viable on a planet with runaway greenhouse warming, but crucially it definitely wouldn’t be ‘life as we know it’.  Indefinitely preserving life on earth as it exists currently is an impossible task but preserving it unchanged for humanity for another 1000 years is probably what we are trying to do in combatting climate change.

[alexisj9]

1 hour ago, SnowBear said:

This I find interesting, rock carvings once submerged in the Amazon have reappeared and can be studied where rainfall has dropped to near record levels. 

So what is significant about this. Well, it means the drought and lack of rain fall at least in that particular location is not unprecedented, and may have been at that level for protracted periods of time.

How this could relate to our current situation I don't fully know, but if we look at the history of the Native Americans such as the Olmecs, Maya and Toltecs etc and later the Inca and Aztecs who inhabited that land for over 4,000 years before they were "discovered" they were frequently on the move as the climate changed and droughts and dry lines ebbed and flowed. Whole civilisations would up sticks and travel to new locations. 

These ancient civilisations created elaborate and extensive water irrigation often to only be abandoned a short time afterwards as they once again moved on to seek more favourable conditions to grow crops etc. 

Whatever the reason, right now that location has once again returned to the conditions needed for those rocks to reappear, conditions once seen by a long ago civilisation and long enough for them to carve those rocks and use them for arrow sharpening. 

Brazil drought reveals ancient rock carvings of human faces

WWW.BBC.CO.UK

---

The carvings of human faces on the shore of the Amazon are thought to be at least 1,000 years old.

 

Have you heard of rivers changing course, that is possibly the likely cause.all it takes is a flood and then after settling the river finding less resistance else where. Probably happens quite frequently with the Amazon as it goes.

[SnowBear]

Interesting pre-print here, obviously remember this isn't peer reviewed yet. 

A study from Australia by the BoM and UNSW. 

Long-term surface impact of Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai-like stratospheric water vapor injection

(Pre-print - AU - Aug 2023)

 

Just a moment...

WWW.RESEARCHGATE.NET

 

[SnowBear]

14 minutes ago, alexisj9 said:

Have you heard of rivers changing course, that is possibly the likely cause.all it takes is a flood and then after settling the river finding less resistance else where. Probably happens quite frequently with the Amazon as it goes.

Yes, but I don't think that would be enough to see whole civilisations and tribes to up root and move hundreds of miles. 

The Maya for example moved from Guatemala up through Central America and eventually came to the Yacatan as the dry line (drought line) advanced over the course of 100 years or so. 

Each time they would try to overcome the advancing dry line with elaborate irrigation schemes to allow the to continue to grow maize, but were soon abandoned, or even unfinished as the schemes were not enough to solve the drought problem. 

In my view a localised river course change would not be a big enough reason to move over the large distances the natives moved, sometimes hundreds of miles at a time. 

[Methuselah]

58 minutes ago, alexisj9 said:

Have you heard of rivers changing course, that is possibly the likely cause.all it takes is a flood and then after settling the river finding less resistance else where. Probably happens quite frequently with the Amazon as it goes.

In addition to those factors, humans also have a predilection for exponential population growth, causing resources to run out.

[WYorksWeather]

1 hour ago, SnowBear said:

Interesting pre-print here, obviously remember this isn't peer reviewed yet. 

A study from Australia by the BoM and UNSW. 

Long-term surface impact of Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai-like stratospheric water vapor injection

(Pre-print - AU - Aug 2023)

 

Just a moment...

WWW.RESEARCHGATE.NET

 

It's an interesting study. Unfortunately, they don't quantify the global temperature change. There does appear to be some significant regional variability though with varying trends across the seasons. Eyeballing from the charts in Fig.7, I'd say there's probably an overall positive temperature anomaly globally, but unlikely to be a large one given the small area fractions. In other words, regions like the Arctic, Central Eurasia etc. cover a small area of the Earth's surface, so even a fairly substantial warming on the order of 1-2C regionally, could well be <0.1C globally.

The question is whether any positive global temperature anomaly is sufficient to explain an appreciable chunk of the gap between last year's La Nina and this year's El Nino. If we go by Berkeley Earth, last year finished around 1.1C, and this year will be around 1.5C. Over a single year, the long-term warming trend is negligible (on the order of 0.02C). Around 0.2C of the gap is likely explainable by the La Nina to ENSO neutral transition (El Nino should have more effect next year, as the effect is lagged, so we're only really seeing the impact of ENSO neutral for most of this year).

We then have marine fuels, Hunga Tonga, solar cycle, and internal variability for the remaining 0.2C as possible explanations. The hope will be Hunga Tonga, solar cycle or internal variability, or a combination thereof can explain the gap. Those are temporary, whereas marine fuels warming is simply 'unmasking' more GHG warming, and that would be permanent on a human timescale.

 

[WYorksWeather]

1 hour ago, Sky Full said:

Yes - human life might still be viable on a planet with runaway greenhouse warming, but crucially it definitely wouldn’t be ‘life as we know it’.  Indefinitely preserving life on earth as it exists currently is an impossible task but preserving it unchanged for humanity for another 1000 years is probably what we are trying to do in combatting climate change.

I think the main thing is to look at the temperatures humans or human-like creatures have historically survived in and adapted to successfully. The reason 1.5C/2.0C have been set as markers is somewhat arbitrary, but it does fit historically.

In terms of historic precedents for civilisation, we have the Holocene Climatic Optimum several thousand years ago (estimated at 1C above pre-industrial, or similar to 2015/16). At that time, humans had begun farming and living in cities, so we know that organised civilisation is possible at that level.

Beyond that, and looking further back, anatomically modern humans were present in the Eemian (around 2C above pre-industrial) and must have thrived reasonably well, otherwise we wouldn't be here. That's an environment with trees growing up to the Arctic circle, hippos in the Rhine and the Thames, and sea levels around 6 metres or more above current levels, according to the available evidence.

I think it is reasonable to say that up to 2C, there's a very good chance that our societies / civilisations can successfully adapt to the change, though it will cause a lot of social problems and/or be expensive to do so, and some species we're familiar with will certainly be lost.

Beyond 2C, I think it is an open question, as humans as we would recognise them have never experienced such conditions.

I'd just like to address the concept of runaway warming though. It depends on what you mean by runaway. My understanding is that based on the latest science, a Venus-style runaway is impossible. We can't heat the Earth enough to boil the oceans even if we use all of the coal, oil and gas in the Earth's crust.

The issue is more around tipping points - where a new climate regime emerges that is a runaway on a regional scale, and cannot be reversed on a human timescale. Things like flooding of island nations, dieback of the Amazon, melting of ice sheets, collapse of the AMOC, things like that. They would have a global impact, but would be most keenly felt at a regional scale.

[The PIT]

Looks like the warming from Tonga will linger four to five years. Plus it created a ozone hole

How the Tongan eruption created a mini ozone hole | Stuff.co.nz

WWW.STUFF.CO.NZ

---

Just days after the big blast, the protective layer above the Pacific thinned in a never-observed-before way.

 

[matty40s]