• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hottest September on record: Could 2020 be the world's warmest year ever?

Bergslagstroll

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
6,924
Reaction score
1,547
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The alarming warming trend continue with september being the warmest september on record and 2020 on track of being the warmest year of record.


There the last years have all being the among the warmest on record.

 
Not going to happen. 2020 will resume cooling from 2019.

UAH Global Temperature Update for September 2020: +0.57 deg. C
October 1st, 2020
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for September, 2020 was +0.57 deg. C, up from from the August, 2020 value of +0.43 deg. C.

The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
For comparison, the CDAS global surface temperature anomaly for the last 30 days at Weatherbell.com is +0.38 deg. C.
With La Nina in the Pacific now officially started, it will take several months for that surface cooling to be fully realized in the tropospheric temperatures. Typically, La Nina minimum temperatures (and El Nino maximum temperatures) show up around February, March, or April. . . .
 
The alarming warming trend continue with september being the warmest september on record and 2020 on track of being the warmest year of record.
Ugh.

Just to be clear though, it should be "hottest year during the instrumental record period," not "hottest ever."

At any rate, you need to be delusional at this point not to accept that anthropogenic climate change is real, and we're clearly seeing its effects.
 
Ugh.

Just to be clear though, it should be "hottest year during the instrumental record period," not "hottest ever."

At any rate, you need to be delusional at this point not to accept that anthropogenic climate change is real, and we're clearly seeing its effects.
No one is saying that anthropogenic climate change is not real, it is! Human activity can and does effect the climate.
The open questions, are how large of a role does Human emitted CO2 play in the observed changes?
Are the CO2 emissions attributed to Humans large enough, that if reversed, would have a sufficient impact to be justified?
To address these questions, we have to start with how large a role does all the CO2 in the atmosphere have.
Physics, The IPCC and most researchers agree, that Earth is 33C warmer than it would be if the atmosphere were completely transparent.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
Of that 33C, CO2's attribution is thought to be 20% (+6% -9%), or about 6.6C.
Now that is the attribution for old CO2, that has been there for eons, so it's energy imbalance warming is fully equalized.
If we look at doubling s of CO2, there have been 8.09 doubling s since CO2 was 1 ppm. (There could be many more doubling s,
but it is a good place to start.)
6.6C /8.09 doubling s, means that each doubling, has a fully resolved response of .815C.
How valid is the 8.09 doubling s value I used? We can check based on the energy imbalance.
The energy imbalance that causes the 33C, is stated as 150 W m-2, 20% of 150 W m-2 is 30 W m-2,
30 W m-2 /8.09=3.708 W m-2 per doubling.
If we assume that 100% of the CO2 increases since pre-industrial era, is from Human emissions,
Human emissions are ~412ppm-280 ppm=132 ppm, or about 55% of the doubling effect.
55% of the above doubling sensitivity of .815C, is .45C.
How can this be? The number is much lower that almost all the experts claim.
It starts with the ratio of long term CO2 energy imbalance, and the resulting equalized temperature.
In the greenhouse effect "thought experiment" from NASA, total forcing of 150 W m-2
results in a fully equalized temperature increase of 33C. The ratio is 33C/150 W m-2, or .22C per W m-2.
IF we look at a 2XCO2 ECS of 3C, and go with the 2XCO2 forcing imbalance of 3.71 W m-2,
the ratio would be 3C/3.71 W m-2, or .80C per W m-2.
How can the models be so far off?
The models start with the assumption that the vast majority of the warming from the last century is from added CO2,
when in reality, it looks like is from aerosol emissions first slowing the warming, and then speeding up the warming,
as we cleared the aerosols.
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/6/663/htm
remotesensing-11-00663-g015.png

If as much as half of the recent warming is attributable to aerosol changes, it is still anthropogenic, but subtracted away
from CO2's attribution.
 
Not going to happen. 2020 will resume cooling from 2019.

UAH Global Temperature Update for September 2020: +0.57 deg. C
October 1st, 2020
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for September, 2020 was +0.57 deg. C, up from from the August, 2020 value of +0.43 deg. C.

The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
For comparison, the CDAS global surface temperature anomaly for the last 30 days at Weatherbell.com is +0.38 deg. C.
With La Nina in the Pacific now officially started, it will take several months for that surface cooling to be fully realized in the tropospheric temperatures. Typically, La Nina minimum temperatures (and El Nino maximum temperatures) show up around February, March, or April. . . .

Why do you believe that atmospheric temperatures are more relevant then surface temperatures? Also even atmospheric temperatures sees a clear increase.
 
Why do you believe that atmospheric temperatures are more relevant then surface temperatures? Also even atmospheric temperatures sees a clear increase.
It's not because of the science. It's because UAH is biased, and is slightly cooler than other measures. UAH is well known for not using the proper adjustments. RSS uses the same data with proper corrections.

UAH only goes back to 1978. That lets him ignore about half of the instrumental record.

As you noted, it isn't a measurement of surface temperatures. It also ignores ocean temperatures, and we know that the oceans are soaking up massive amounts of the excess heat trapped in the atmosphere by the increase in GHGs.

Despite that, UAH ultimately doesn't help his position, as it still shows temperatures rising significantly -- 1.4C per decade. That's why Jack typically cherry-picks 1998 (a strong El Nino year) as his starting point.

Of course, he spent the few years screaming about how "temperatures are declining!" That doesn't work out, either. Temperatures declined slightly in 2017 and 2018 (in part because 2016 was another strong El Nino year), but went up in 2019, and almost certainly again in 2020. 2020 may not be quite as hot as 2016, but it may be the 2nd hottest year on record.

UAH Lower Troposphere Anomalies, 1980-2010 Baseline With Trend Line.png
UAH Lower Troposphere Anomalies, 1980-2010 Baseline and Moving Average.png
UAH, Anomaly ºC and Decade Average.png
 
It's not because of the science. It's because UAH is biased, and is slightly cooler than other measures. UAH is well known for not using the proper adjustments. RSS uses the same data with proper corrections.

UAH only goes back to 1978. That lets him ignore about half of the instrumental record.

As you noted, it isn't a measurement of surface temperatures. It also ignores ocean temperatures, and we know that the oceans are soaking up massive amounts of the excess heat trapped in the atmosphere by the increase in GHGs.

Despite that, UAH ultimately doesn't help his position, as it still shows temperatures rising significantly -- 1.4C per decade. That's why Jack typically cherry-picks 1998 (a strong El Nino year) as his starting point.

Of course, he spent the few years screaming about how "temperatures are declining!" That doesn't work out, either. Temperatures declined slightly in 2017 and 2018 (in part because 2016 was another strong El Nino year), but went up in 2019, and almost certainly again in 2020. 2020 may not be quite as hot as 2016, but it may be the 2nd hottest year on record.

View attachment 67298463
"as it still shows temperatures rising significantly -- 1.4C per decade"
Um, You mean 0.14C per decade, as your graph shows a ~.75 C increase over 40 years,
and so clearly could not contain a per decade warming component greater than 1C!
 
It's not because of the science. It's because UAH is biased, and is slightly cooler than other measures. UAH is well known for not using the proper adjustments. RSS uses the same data with proper corrections.

UAH only goes back to 1978. That lets him ignore about half of the instrumental record.

As you noted, it isn't a measurement of surface temperatures. It also ignores ocean temperatures, and we know that the oceans are soaking up massive amounts of the excess heat trapped in the atmosphere by the increase in GHGs.

Despite that, UAH ultimately doesn't help his position, as it still shows temperatures rising significantly -- 1.4C per decade. That's why Jack typically cherry-picks 1998 (a strong El Nino year) as his starting point.

Of course, he spent the few years screaming about how "temperatures are declining!" That doesn't work out, either. Temperatures declined slightly in 2017 and 2018 (in part because 2016 was another strong El Nino year), but went up in 2019, and almost certainly again in 2020. 2020 may not be quite as hot as 2016, but it may be the 2nd hottest year on record.

2020 will mark the resumption of cooling.
 
2020 will mark the resumption of cooling.
It probably should, but several factors may prevent it from being cooler.
Our poor understanding of the climate cycles could produce a Bessel function secondary peak,
450px-Bessel_Functions_%282nd_Kind%2C_n%3D0%2C1%2C2%29.svg.png

or Anthropogenic adjustments by zealots, could both produce a slightly warmer 2020, than 2016.
 
It probably should, but several factors may prevent it from being cooler.
Our poor understanding of the climate cycles could produce a Bessel function secondary peak,
450px-Bessel_Functions_%282nd_Kind%2C_n%3D0%2C1%2C2%29.svg.png

or Anthropogenic adjustments by zealots, could both produce a slightly warmer 2020, than 2016.
We shall see.
 
We shall see.
I am not sure we will, if the people doing the "corrections" want it to be warmer, it likely will look warmer, in the record.
It may not actually be any warmer, but it will look like in in the record.
They will dismiss the UAH, and RSS, as being less accurate, and carry on with their agenda.
 
I am not sure we will, if the people doing the "corrections" want it to be warmer, it likely will look warmer, in the record.
It may not actually be any warmer, but it will look like in in the record.
They will dismiss the UAH, and RSS, as being less accurate, and carry on with their agenda.

Its a giant worldwide conspiracy!

One day you might wake up and realize what you are implying.

But I doubt it.
 
Its a giant worldwide conspiracy!

One day you might wake up and realize what you are implying.

But I doubt it.
Nothing is adjusted outside the error bars, but the errors accumulate if they are systematic.
 
Nothing is adjusted outside the error bars, but the errors accumulate if they are systematic.
In GISS. And in HADCRUT. And BEST. And the Japanese agency whos name evades me at the moment.

Giant worldwide conspiracy that no one notices except... you.
 
In GISS. And in HADCRUT. And BEST. And the Japanese agency whos name evades me at the moment.

Giant worldwide conspiracy that no one notices except... you.
They do not agree now, why will it mater in the future.
 
Euro news, no agenda there. Just more propaganda.
 
I think the chances are still hovering around 70%.
Last I saw, but Sept might have narrowed that confidence interval down and shifted it up:

View attachment 67298306
Even so, it's unusually hot for a non-El Nino year, record breaking actually. Of course, some here will still pretend that the world is cooling. ...lol
 
Spanked again, so you whine about sources.
You posted a graph that was not cited, and showed a .25C spread among the listed data sets,
in response to my saying the data sets do not agree on the level of warming.
Thanks for validating my point, but you should still cite your graph.
 
You posted a graph that was not cited, and showed a .25C spread among the listed data sets,
in response to my saying the data sets do not agree on the level of warming.
Thanks for validating my point, but you should still cite your graph.
Maybe I’ll just post idiotic claims without attribution like you do instead.
 
Back
Top Bottom