May was the second-hottest on record.

[Arkady]

Global temperatures for May were the second hottest for May since the instrument record began 137 years ago. This continues a trend of 2017 being just shy of the hottest year in that time:

The January-May global temperature is averaging 0.922 degrees Celsius above the baseline, making this the second-hottest January-May period on record.

This is troubling, since it emphasizes the acceleration of the warming. Last year was freakishly warm, thanks to a very strong El Nino, and now the El Nino has ended. Based on past experience, we'd expect that to mean this year would be considerably cooler, not just relative to the peak of the El Nino, but even relative to other recent years. For example, after the strong El Nino of 1998 (at that point, a global temperature record), the following year was 0.19 degrees Celsius cooler, making it only the fourth-warmest on record (at that point). Or, more dramatically, after the strong El Nino of 1983 (to that point, the hottest year on record), the following year cooled so much that it was only the 59th-hottest on record. Other things being equal, we'd have expected a fairly cool year this year. Instead, we're having a blistering hot year.

 

[marvin martian]

Very few people care about this scam anymore. You backed the wrong horse. You'd probably like to have that money back that you spent on "carbon credits", huh?

 

[Sickofleft]

If we had stayed in the Paris Accords it would have snowed in May.....

 

[Deleted member 21794]

It's too late. Al Gore gave us ten years to get our act together. We're doomed. The only light at the end of the tunnel I see is that Leo DiCaprio, Elon Musk and others are willing to travel around on private jets and yachts for as long as it takes to find more ways to fleece Americans find some solutions.

 

[Dawg]

If we had stayed in the Paris Accords it would have snowed in May.....

I had to have a long sleeve shirt this morning

 

[Sickofleft]

I had to have a long sleeve shirt this morning

Sure sign of a coming Ice age.....................

 

[SouthernBoyI]

Just think
All the ladies may start going nekkid.

SB

 

[Capitalist]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Hottest temperature recorded EVER: 1913
Coldest temperature recorded EVER: 2015

How now brown cow?

 

[NinaS]

I had to have a long sleeve shirt this morning

Wussy.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

Global temperatures for May were the second hottest for May since the instrument record began 137 years ago. This continues a trend of 2017 being just shy of the hottest year in that time:

The January-May global temperature is averaging 0.922 degrees Celsius above the baseline, making this the second-hottest January-May period on record.

This is troubling, since it emphasizes the acceleration of the warming. Last year was freakishly warm, thanks to a very strong El Nino, and now the El Nino has ended. Based on past experience, we'd expect that to mean this year would be considerably cooler, not just relative to the peak of the El Nino, but even relative to other recent years. For example, after the strong El Nino of 1998 (at that point, a global temperature record), the following year was 0.19 degrees Celsius cooler, making it only the fourth-warmest on record (at that point). Or, more dramatically, after the strong El Nino of 1983 (to that point, the hottest year on record), the following year cooled so much that it was only the 59th-hottest on record. Other things being equal, we'd have expected a fairly cool year this year. Instead, we're having a blistering hot year.

It simply does not make sense to make conclusions based on a temperature trend that constitutes 0.00000027% of Earth's timeline. Even if we choose to ignore 99.98% of Earth's timeline and focus on just the past 1,000,000 years, we're talking about records that account for just 0.000137% of that timeline. And on that timeline, we've seen higher temperature spikes at least three times:

 

[Arkady]

It simply does not make sense to make conclusions based on a temperature trend that constitutes 0.00000027% of Earth's timeline.

First, I'd point out that you're off by an order of magnitude. The instrument record starts in 1880, which means it's 137.5 years long. The Earth is about 4.543 billion years old. So that's around 0.00000302663%. So you're sporting an extra zero. But, that's beside the point. The more important question is why do you think it doesn't make sense to make conclusions based on a trend that constitutes a small fraction of the Earth's timeline? Don't we do so all the time? I mean, almost any trend at all that we've ever discussed here has occurred over a timeline that's a small fraction of the timeline of the planet. Why create a special one-time rule saying a trend needs to have taken place over a large share of the timeline of the Earth before we can draw meaningful conclusions about it?

Even if we choose to ignore 99.98% of Earth's timeline and focus on just the past 1,000,000 years, we're talking about records that account for just 0.000137% of that timeline. And on that timeline, we've seen higher temperature spikes at least three times:

I'm not clear on why you'd imagine that is a good thing. The fact that we've had higher temps in the past is worrisome -- if temperatures had NEVER been much higher than today, it would suggest the existence of very strong feedback mechanisms that may prevent such warmth from even being possible on this planet -- basically, it would suggest there may be feedback mechanisms that will save us from ourselves. Unfortunately, we know that temperatures can rise much higher than they are today -- we know from prior eras, like the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum that it's possible for forces to push global temperatures much, much higher than ever seen in the history of our species. In other words, we'd be fools to count on some unidentified feedback mechanism to save us from ourselves.

The warming we're currently experiencing is happening MUCH faster than at any other time in the reconstructed climate record. Normally, even during the "rapid" temperature increases that happen when the world comes out of an ice age, temperatures rise at between 0.08 and 0.14 degree Celsius per century. During the last century, we've had 0.7 degrees of warming. And it's speeding up badly. Here's what the monthly temperature trend looks like since 1880:



As you can see, using that formula, the current rate of increase is about
1.7738 degrees Celsius per century. And the acceleration is expected to continue, just as that graph would suggest, to the point that (absent major emissions reductions), we're expecting something in the ballpark of 2.7 degrees of warming in the next century.

So, at the moment, we're looking at warming that's already between 13 and 22 times as fast as the "fast" warming one typically sees coming out of an ice age. There's never been anything like this in the reconstructed climate record, going back at least a few million years. And, as I mentioned, there's no reason to expect that there's some latent feedback mechanism that will save us from ourselves, since we've seen how global temperature can go much higher than this.

 

[Arkady]

Very few people care about this scam anymore. You backed the wrong horse. You'd probably like to have that money back that you spent on "carbon credits", huh?

Actually, the majority of educated people all around the world care about this. I know you may not have much familiarity with such people, in your little social bubble, but there are various polls that have been done that can confirm for you.

 

[Arkady]

It's too late. Al Gore gave us ten years to get our act together.

It doesn't work like that. There were ten years to avoid some of the negative consequences, longer to avoid others. Every day that goes back, more problems are "locked in," but there's never a point where no good can come from acting. Think of it in medical terms, to understand the concept. If you started smoking at 2o and hadn't quit by 30, then you did a whole lot of damage that could have been avoided if you'd quit earlier, and there's nothing you can do about it. But you can avoid still more damage that will be done if you don't quit until you're 40.

We're doomed.

Some people are. Some people will die as a result of various problems associated with climate change -- people who would have lived if we acted sooner. Most of us are going to be around for a long time, though, and we can still decrease the chances of us or those we love dying preventable climate-change-related deaths. We can also reduce the diminution of quality of life that will be associated with climate change.

There's a lot of phony fatalism going on these days among right-wingers who realize they sound dumb denying climate change, but still want some way to resist any efforts to do something about it. They went straight from arguing there's no point in reducing emissions because they're not harmful, to arguing that there's no point in reducing emissions because they've already doomed us. They try to back into a justification for policies they support for reasons unrelated to the science. It's hard to take them seriously.

 

[Arkady]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Hottest temperature recorded EVER: 1913
Coldest temperature recorded EVER: 2015

How now brown cow?

You seem to imagine the issue is one of spot temperatures at some particular instant in some particular place. That is not the issue. The issue is global averages. Try to keep up.

 

[Dawg]

Wussy.

You wanting to grab one?

 

[marvin martian]

It doesn't work like that. There were ten years to avoid some of the negative consequences, longer to avoid others. Every day that goes back, more problems are "locked in," but there's never a point where no good can come from acting. Think of it in medical terms, to understand the concept. If you started smoking at 2o and hadn't quit by 30, then you did a whole lot of damage that could have been avoided if you'd quit earlier, and there's nothing you can do about it. But you can avoid still more damage that will be done if you don't quit until you're 40.



Some people are. Some people will die as a result of various problems associated with climate change -- people who would have lived if we acted sooner. Most of us are going to be around for a long time, though, and we can still decrease the chances of us or those we love dying preventable climate-change-related deaths. We can also reduce the diminution of quality of life that will be associated with climate change.

There's a lot of phony fatalism going on these days among right-wingers who realize they sound dumb denying climate change, but still want some way to resist any efforts to do something about it. They went straight from arguing there's no point in reducing emissions because they're not harmful, to arguing that there's no point in reducing emissions because they've already doomed us. They try to back into a justification for policies they support for reasons unrelated to the science. It's hard to take them seriously.

You're confused. That's done to mock hypocritical, alarmist Chicken Littles like you, not out of any sense of fatalism, real or otherwise. I would have though that would be obvious to a "smart" person such as yourself. You didn't pick up on it?

 

[Deleted member 21794]

First, I'd point out that you're off by an order of magnitude. The instrument record starts in 1880, which means it's 137.5 years long. The Earth is about 4.543 billion years old. So that's around 0.00000302663%. So you're sporting an extra zero. But, that's beside the point. The more important question is why do you think it doesn't make sense to make conclusions based on a trend that constitutes a small fraction of the Earth's timeline? Don't we do so all the time? I mean, almost any trend at all that we've ever discussed here has occurred over a timeline that's a small fraction of the timeline of the planet. Why create a special one-time rule saying a trend needs to have taken place over a large share of the timeline of the Earth before we can draw meaningful conclusions about it?

I divided 137 by 5,000,000,000 and got 0.00000027 on my iPhone. But like you said, let's let that go. I don't make conclusions from minute trends in random or semi-random or any other system that appears to be random. If I did, I'd have extrapolated the 86% rise in the Nasdaq and projected I'd be flying around in a private jet by now. As the graph I posted shows, temperature spikes come and go.

I'm not clear on why you'd imagine that is a good thing. The fact that we've had higher temps in the past is worrisome -- if temperatures had NEVER been much higher than today, it would suggest the existence of very strong feedback mechanisms that may prevent such warmth from even being possible on this planet -- basically, it would suggest there may be feedback mechanisms that will save us from ourselves. Unfortunately, we know that temperatures can rise much higher than they are today -- we know from prior eras, like the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum that it's possible for forces to push global temperatures much, much higher than ever seen in the history of our species. In other words, we'd be fools to count on some unidentified feedback mechanism to save us from ourselves.

I count at least ten temperature spikes on the 800,000 year graph. Why would I NOT believe there is a mechanism or dynamic that doesn't reverse temperature increase trends when that is precisely what has happened time and time again?

We'd also be fools to think we can control the climate with corporate welfare and providing slush funds to third world countries. What the global temperature chart from NASA tells us is that temperatures to up, and they came back down- no Al Gore, no Barack Obama, no Paris Accord, etc.

As you can see, using that formula, the current rate of increase is about
1.7738 degrees Celsius per century. And the acceleration is expected to continue, just as that graph would suggest, to the point that (absent major emissions reductions), we're expecting something in the ballpark of 2.7 degrees of warming in the next century.

Awesome! Higher temps = more places to farm. But why would I expect any trend to continue on its current path? Trends change all the time. And we already know temperature trends change on Earth without human intervention. Then of course there's the credibility of the climate change activists.

So, at the moment, we're looking at warming that's already between 13 and 22 times as fast as the "fast" warming one typically sees coming out of an ice age. There's never been anything like this in the reconstructed climate record, going back at least a few million years. And, as I mentioned, there's no reason to expect that there's some latent feedback mechanism that will save us from ourselves, since we've seen how global temperature can go much higher than this.

An atypical warming. So what?

 

[Capitalist]

You seem to imagine the issue is one of spot temperatures at some particular instant in some particular place. That is not the issue. The issue is global averages. Try to keep up.

You seem to imagine every spot on the earth is thermally isolated from adjacent spots.

A clear abdication of critical thinking.

You'd likely assert the coldest temps ever occurred during the early molten period and the hottest temps during the earth snow ball periods.

Why would a warming earth break cold temperature records?

Go for it.

 

[Arkady]

You didn't pick up on it?

If the only thing a person has to offer is mindless satire, the least I can do is salvage something of value by acting like it wasn't intended sarcastically.

 

[marvin martian]

If the only thing a person has to offer is mindless satire, the least I can do is salvage something of value by acting like it wasn't intended sarcastically.

Editing other peoples' posts is cowardly and dishonest. Shame on you.