And the winner is
A big congratulations to 2016 for being the hottest year on record, beating out rival 2015, which beat rival 2014. Every year is a new record broken! Isn’t this exciting, folks?
In a powerful testament to the warming of the planet, two leading U.S. science agencies Wednesday jointly declared 2016 the hottest year on record, surpassing the previous record set just last year — which, itself, had topped a record set in 2014.
Average surface temperatures in 2016, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, were 0.07 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than 2015, and featured eight successive months (January through August) that were individually the warmest since the agency’s record began in 1880.
The average temperature across the world’s land and ocean surfaces was 58.69 Fahrenheit, or 1.69 degrees above the 20th century average of 57 degrees, NOAA declared. The agency also noted that the record for the global temperature has now successively been broken five times since the year 2000. The years 2005 and 2010 were also record warm years, according to the agency’s dataset.
Are they sure that’s not a hoax perpetrated by China? Maybe China has been running around putting electric blankets on everything?
The record comes just two days before Donald Trump, who has tweeted that global warming is a “hoax,” assumes the presidency and with it, control over the two science agencies that just announced these records.
The other is NASA.
Here’s a NASA figure showing that long term trend, now updated through 2016:
(NASA)
Quite a steep climb starting around 1980, isn’t it.
NASA further noted in its analysis that compared with the late 19th century, the planet has now warmed about 1.1 degrees Celsius, or 2 degrees Fahrenheit. That’s very significant because the global community has been striving to limit overall warming to considerably below a 2 degree Celsius rise, and even, if possible, to hold it to a 1.5 degree Celsius increase. That is now only about .4 degrees away, based on these figures.
“It is the second year in a row that the annual global temperature has been more than 1 Celsius degree warmer than the pre-industrial level, and shows that the world is moving ever closer to the warming threshold of 1.5 Celsius degrees, beyond which many scientists have concluded the impacts of climate change will be unacceptably dangerous,” said Bob Ward, who is director of policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, part of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Last year’s warmth was manifested across the planet, from the warm tropical ocean waters off the coast of northeastern Australia, where the Great Barrier Reef experienced its worst coral bleaching event on record and large scale coral death, to the Arctic, where sea ice hit regular monthly record lows and overall temperatures were also the warmest on record, at least from January through September of 2016.
I’m sure Trump has a plan to fix it.
BUT BUT BUT SNOWBALLS ON THE SENATE FLOOR
I finally had to quit using a multiple choice question on the warmest year on record because of the need to update every year in every test it shows up in – use a fill in the blank, never have to update again!
Seriously, I had already updated my lecture on this, because the preliminary data that had been released earlier had said “2016 is shaping up to be the warmest year on record”. If I had to rework everything because I was jumping the gun, well, that would have been the better outcome, right? Not getting hotter every year?
Meanwhile, all our weathercasters are chirpping with pleasure about the unnaturally warm winter we’re having, and how wonderful all these 70 degree days in November are…in another reality, I would join them in enjoying the warm weather, but in this reality…I want to punch them in the face. Good thing there’s a TV screen between us, right?
Of course. now that the recent El Nino event is over, we’re almost certainly going to hear claims that “global warming has stopped”, just like we did after the unusually powerful El Nino event in 1998. And it’s still bullshit. The vast majority of the heat accumulated by the planet due to climate change goes into the oceans. The fluctuations we see in the surface temperatures from year to year are mainly due to heat sloshing back and forth between air and oceans through phenomena like El Nino/La Nina. If we compare apples to apples (El Nino years to El Nino years, La Nina years to La Nina years, and neutral years to neutral years) we find the same warming trend. If we compare the average surface temperature from one 15 year period to the next, the surface temperature is a good enough indicator of the overall warming trend, but over shorter intervals the signal is easily drowned out by the “noise”.
The problem is that the expression “global warming” seems to imply good news, it doesn’t, “climate change” is probably more accurate. The economic implications of changes in rainfall distribution or ocean currents seem to be misunderstood by a large proportion of the population. Then there’s the regular appearance of opinion pieces in the MSM by climate change sceptics/deniers. The essential qualification is not to have any in climate science. If lawyers or economists pontificated on quantum physics they would be considered complete crackpots, however with climate science those arrogant ignoramuses are taken seriously, as if they actually understood the discipline. There are still huge amounts of capital invested in coal and oil, so expect more climate change denial from the plutocracy’s paid parrots. It’s the old industrialists’ tactic of fighting a rearguard action against public policy, whether it’s cigarettes, asbestos, heavy metals or pollution.
See also this
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/
Actually I’m more worried about the ocean acidification. The warming MIGHT be mitigated by reflecting some sunlight into space, but to avoid killing all the shelled animals in the ocean can only be done by not increasing the amount of CO2.
Are you sure? Quantum physics is one of those things that new agers love to have non-experts opinions on.
Anyway, as an Environmental Scientist, I can tell you conclusively that everyone I meet thinks they are an expert on this subject. They’ve heard about it on TV, may have read something on the Internet, and have formed an opinion, and the experts are nowhere near as qualified to speak. I have to deal with this at work, too, where our environmental committees are chaired and peopled by individuals with no more training in environmental science than my dog/cat comedy team that entertains me at home, but they have an opinion, and are willing to serve, so there they are. Input from people such as myself, actually an environmental scientist, tend to be not actually just one voice in the crowd, but only about 1/4 of a voice in the crowd – of less merit than the business and economics teachers, and the other individuals who have no background in what is happening, how to fix it, or why it matters, but only in “how much will it cost?”
Of course, my question back is “How much will it cost if we don’t?”
The last Homo sapiens is going to deny global warming with its dying breath while succumbing to its effects, and feel infinitely smug and self-righteous while doing so..
iknklast,
“How much will it cost if we don’t?”
Yes, indeed. Unfortunately the taxpayers will be presented with the bill, not the industrialists. It’s the old ploy of transferring the costs, the ‘externalities’, both human and financial, onto the government. I’m a retired accountant, so I’ve observed the plutocratic species in its natural habitat.
Here in Australia, there are disturbing reports of the effects of climate change by farmers and tourist operators, however the majority vote for climate change denying parties, it’s amazing. Recently two tourists diving on the Barrier Reef died suddenly, nobody wanted to mention the “i” word ie irukandji, a deadly species of jellyfish that’s invisible to swimmers. Warming ocean currents have allowed the animal to travel further south into areas it rarely entered in the past with dire consequences for the tourism industry. When business starts losing money, conservative politicians just might take notice.
Iknklast, re face-punching, I’m there with you. Those who are eager to see Alaska become a new wine producing region don’t deem to realize, or care, that there will be lots of bright new deserts, many of which are now occupied by farming regions. Change, let alone sudden disruption of, the climate and weather regime within which human civilization arose, is not likely to be good, any more than a random blow to a running engine is likely to improve its performance. It drives me nuts whenever I hear people looking forward to the milder winters promised by increased heat. So far, no face punching.
Not to mention those huge rivers in south Asia that irrigate crops for billions of people, and depend on all those glaciers.
“The Tibetan Plateau covers an area of approximately 2,500,000 km2. The glaciers in the Himalayans and Karakoram ranges cover a total area of approximately 40,800km2 and are the sources of the major river systems of the Tibetan Plateau region. These glaciers supply water to almost 1.5 billion people in Asia; almost a quarter of the world’s population. Estimates indicate that approximately six to 45 per cent of flows in the major rivers are dependent on glacial melt; this increases to 70 per cent in summer.
Reports indicate that the glaciers in the Himalayas are melting rapidly. An increase in glacial melt could cause significant disruptions to the region’s future water security. The countries that depend most on water from the Tibetan Plateau are Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Thailand and the countries of the Mekong sub-region, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam.”
http://www.futuredirections.org.au/publication/climate-change-in-the-tibetan-plateau-region-glacial-melt-and-future-water-security/
Yes: defund every scientific research institution looking into it!
And the Larsen -c ice shelf in Antarctica is cracking. It’s water based ice, so won’t raise sea level, but could destabilize some of the continental ice.
@Iknklast – the Brunt Ice Shelf too:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38643420
You know, Karellen, sometimes I think it’s best my Environmental Science class has declining numbers. I’m not sure I can teach it much longer without going totally over the edge. I have to maintain a positive attitude while presenting some of the worst information available in science today. Bad news, everybody. By the time you enrolled for this class, there was no stopping the steamroller.
I remember from 1988 a professor of mine who taught Russian and Soviet history. He was an emigre, from Russia, recounting the horrors of Soviet history. Yet he had a cheerful disposition despite everything. I always wondered how he could maintain it. Maybe because these horrors were in the past. Our current crisis is still unfolding. From a human perspective, the changes seem small and gradual. By the time they become obvious, at least to those who haven’t been paying attention, or to those who have been in or believing the denialist camp, it will be far too late.