State of the climate: How the world warmed in 2018

[Bergslagstroll]

2018 was a remarkable and very worrying year.

"In this article, Carbon Brief explains why last year proved to be so remarkable across the oceans, atmosphere, cryosphere and surface temperature of the planet.

A number of records for the Earth’s climate were set in 2018:

It was the warmest year on record for ocean heat content, which increased markedly between 2017 and 2018.
It was the fourth warmest year on record for surface temperature.
It was the sixth warmest year in the lower troposphere – the lower part of the atmosphere.
Greenhouse gas concentrations reached record levels for CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide.
Sea ice was well below the long-term average at both poles for most of the year. The summer Arctic sea ice minimum was the sixth lowest since records began in the late 1970s."

https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-how-world-warmed-2018

 

[Jack Hays]

2018 was a remarkable and very worrying year.

"In this article, Carbon Brief explains why last year proved to be so remarkable across the oceans, atmosphere, cryosphere and surface temperature of the planet.

A number of records for the Earth’s climate were set in 2018:

It was the warmest year on record for ocean heat content, which increased markedly between 2017 and 2018.
It was the fourth warmest year on record for surface temperature.
It was the sixth warmest year in the lower troposphere – the lower part of the atmosphere.
Greenhouse gas concentrations reached record levels for CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide.
Sea ice was well below the long-term average at both poles for most of the year. The summer Arctic sea ice minimum was the sixth lowest since records began in the late 1970s."

https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-how-world-warmed-2018

[FONT=&quot] Natural Warming[/FONT]
[h=1]Mao et al 2019 Show an Upcoming 1-Deg C + Decline in Global Land Surface Temperatures by the Early 2100s[/h][FONT=&quot]This is a quick introduction to the 2019 paper The “Ocean Stabilization Machine” May Represent a Primary Factor Underlying the Effect of Global Warming on Climate Change by Mao et al. (pdf here). I believe many visitors here would find interest in their projected decrease (yup, decrease) in global land surface temperatures by the early…
[/FONT]

 

[Jack Hays]

2018 was a remarkable and very worrying year.

"In this article, Carbon Brief explains why last year proved to be so remarkable across the oceans, atmosphere, cryosphere and surface temperature of the planet.

A number of records for the Earth’s climate were set in 2018:

It was the warmest year on record for ocean heat content, which increased markedly between 2017 and 2018.
It was the fourth warmest year on record for surface temperature.
It was the sixth warmest year in the lower troposphere – the lower part of the atmosphere.
Greenhouse gas concentrations reached record levels for CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide.
Sea ice was well below the long-term average at both poles for most of the year. The summer Arctic sea ice minimum was the sixth lowest since records began in the late 1970s."

https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-how-world-warmed-2018

[h=2]New Paper: Modern Warming Was Driven By ‘Primarily Natural’ Factors. Global Cooling Has Now Begun.[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 21. January 2019

 

[Jack Hays]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[h=1]Op-ed disguised as a science paper: “Record-breaking ocean temperatures point to trends of global warming”[/h][FONT=&quot]From the “don’t trust it, it’s from ‘Skeptical Science’ team operative John Abraham who’s a mechanical engineer” department comes this op-ed masquerading as a science paper at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Trenberth still hasn’t found his missing heat. Record-breaking ocean temperatures point to trends of global warming 2018 continues record global ocean warming INSTITUTE…
[/FONT]
4 days ago January 18, 2019 in Opinion.

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=2]Is ocean warming accelerating faster than thought?[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on January 21, 2019 by niclewis | 34 comments[/FONT]
by Nic Lewis
*** UPDATE : response to comments by Zeke Hausfather appended
There are a number of statements in Cheng et al. (2019) ‘How fast are the oceans warming’, (‘the paper’) that appear to be mistaken and/or potentially misleading. My analysis of these issues is followed by a reply from the paper’s authors.
Contrary to what the paper indicates:

• Contemporary estimates of the trend in 0–2000 m depth ocean heat content over 1971–2010 are closely in line with that assessed in the IPCC AR5 report five years ago
• Contemporary estimates of the trend in 0–2000 m depth ocean heat content over 2005–2017 are significantly (> 95% probability) smaller than the mean CMIP5 model simulation trend.

---

Continue reading →

 

[Threegoofs]

 

[Jack Hays]

. . .

From the link in #5:

Nic Lewis closing comment:
I thank the authors for their constructive response. I concur that OHC uncertainties are large in the early years of the 1971–2010 period.
None of the authors’ responses refute any of my criticisms concerning factual errors and misleading statements in the paper.
In particular, presenting my method of calculating AR5 0–2000 m warming rates over 1971–2010 as alternative to their method is like claiming that calculating 4 – 2 = 1 is an alternative to calculating 4 – 2 = 2.

 

[Threegoofs]

From the link in #5:

Nic Lewis closing comment:
I thank the authors for their constructive response. I concur that OHC uncertainties are large in the early years of the 1971–2010 period.
None of the authors’ responses refute any of my criticisms concerning factual errors and misleading statements in the paper.
In particular, presenting my method of calculating AR5 0–2000 m warming rates over 1971–2010 as alternative to their method is like claiming that calculating 4 – 2 = 1 is an alternative to calculating 4 – 2 = 2.

Yes. He’s determined that it’s wrong.

He just needs to find a reason why.

Science!

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes. He’s determined that it’s wrong.

He just needs to find a reason why.

Science!

You are free to review the link in #5.

 

[Jack Hays]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[h=1]Is ocean warming accelerating faster than thought? In a word, no.[/h][FONT=&quot]by Nic Lewis There are a number of statements in Cheng et al. (2019) ‘How fast are the oceans warming’, (‘the paper’) that appear to be mistaken and/or potentially misleading. My analysis of these issues is followed by a reply from the paper’s authors. Contrary to what the paper indicates: Contemporary estimates of the trend…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]

 

[Into the Night]

2018 was a remarkable and very worrying year.

And now for some manufactured numbers...

"In this article, Carbon Brief explains why last year proved to be so remarkable across the oceans, atmosphere, cryosphere and surface temperature of the planet.

These numbers from from 'Carbon Brief', a propaganda rag for the Church of Global Warming.

A number of records for the Earth’s climate were set in 2018:

Just like every year. Void argument fallacy.

It was the warmest year on record for ocean heat content, which increased markedly between 2017 and 2018.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the ocean. We don't have enough thermometers to even begin a sensible statistical analysis. Argument from randU fallacy.

It was the fourth warmest year on record for surface temperature.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth either.

It was the sixth warmest year in the lower troposphere – the lower part of the atmosphere.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the troposphere.

Greenhouse gas concentrations reached record levels for CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide.

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of any of these gases. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

Sea ice was well below the long-term average at both poles for most of the year.

Both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent was greater in 2018 than in 2017. See the Natl Snow and Ice data center.

The summer Arctic sea ice minimum was the sixth lowest since records began in the late 1970s."

No, it wasn't. See the Natl ice and snow data center.

 

[Into the Night]

China can't measure the temperature of the Earth's oceans or the temperature of the Earth either. Heat is not a 'content'. It is not possible to store or trap heat. Heat has no temperature.

 

[Threegoofs]

China can't measure the temperature of the Earth's oceans or the temperature of the Earth either. Heat is not a 'content'. It is not possible to store or trap heat. Heat has no temperature.

Ok, thanks for letting me know.

I’ll alert all the scientists in the world about this.

 

[Jack Hays]

Early 20th century global warming

Posted on January 23, 2019 by curryja | Leave a comment
by Judith Curry
A careful look at the early 20th century global warming, which is almost as large as the warming since 1950. Until we can explain the early 20th century warming, I have little confidence IPCC and NCA4 attribution statements regarding the cause of the recent warming.
Continue reading →

In order to have any confidence in the IPCC and NCA attribution statements, much greater effort is needed to understand the role multi-decadal to millennial scales of internal climate variability.
Much more effort is needed to understand not only the early 20th century warming, but also the ‘grand hiatus’ from 1945-1975. Attempting to attribute these features to aerosol (stratospheric or pollution) forcing haven’t gotten us very far. The approach taken by Xie’s group is providing important insights.
Once we do satisfactorily explain these 20th century features, then we need to tackle the 19th century — overall warming, with global sea level rise initiating ~1860, and NH glacier melt initiating ~1850. And then we need to tackle the last 800 years – the Little Ice Age and the ‘recovery’. (See my previous post 400 years(?) of global warming). The mainstream attribution folk are finally waking up to the importance of multidecadal ocean oscillations — we have barely scratched the surface re understanding century to millennial scale oscillations, as highlighted in the recent Gebbie and Huybers paper discussed on Ocean Heat Content Surprises.
There are too many climate scientists that expect global surface temperature, sea ice, glacier mass loss and sea level to follow the ‘forcing’ on fairly short time scales. This is not how the climate system works, as was eloquently shown by Gebbie and Huybers. The Arctic in particular responds very strongly to multidecadal and longer internal variability, and also to solar forcing.
Until all this is sorted out, we do not have a strong basis for attributing anything close to ~100% of the warming since 1950 to humans, or for making credible projections of 21st century climate change.

 

[Threegoofs]

Early 20th century global warming

Posted on January 23, 2019 by curryja | Leave a comment
by Judith Curry
A careful look at the early 20th century global warming, which is almost as large as the warming since 1950. Until we can explain the early 20th century warming, I have little confidence IPCC and NCA4 attribution statements regarding the cause of the recent warming.
Continue reading →

In order to have any confidence in the IPCC and NCA attribution statements, much greater effort is needed to understand the role multi-decadal to millennial scales of internal climate variability.
Much more effort is needed to understand not only the early 20th century warming, but also the ‘grand hiatus’ from 1945-1975. Attempting to attribute these features to aerosol (stratospheric or pollution) forcing haven’t gotten us very far. The approach taken by Xie’s group is providing important insights.
Once we do satisfactorily explain these 20th century features, then we need to tackle the 19th century — overall warming, with global sea level rise initiating ~1860, and NH glacier melt initiating ~1850. And then we need to tackle the last 800 years – the Little Ice Age and the ‘recovery’. (See my previous post 400 years(?) of global warming). The mainstream attribution folk are finally waking up to the importance of multidecadal ocean oscillations — we have barely scratched the surface re understanding century to millennial scale oscillations, as highlighted in the recent Gebbie and Huybers paper discussed on Ocean Heat Content Surprises.
There are too many climate scientists that expect global surface temperature, sea ice, glacier mass loss and sea level to follow the ‘forcing’ on fairly short time scales. This is not how the climate system works, as was eloquently shown by Gebbie and Huybers. The Arctic in particular responds very strongly to multidecadal and longer internal variability, and also to solar forcing.
Until all this is sorted out, we do not have a strong basis for attributing anything close to ~100% of the warming since 1950 to humans, or for making credible projections of 21st century climate change.

Sounds like a denier.

 

[Jack Hays]

Sounds like a denier.

Sounds like a scientist.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

There you also starting to see the costs of climate change for example that the 10 worst climate-driven disasters of 2018 cost 85 billion dollars.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davide...ters-of-2018-cost-us-85-billion/#4f1d11f32680

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Sounds like a denier.

Denier propaganda are fo all tastes, just like fast food. That you have propagande that claim that there will be global cooling. Propaganda that acknowledge global warming but claims it’s not because of the greenhouse gases. Propaganda that acknowledge global warming but claims that it’s uncertain how much is from greenhouses gases. While also propaganda that claims that global warming from greenhouses gases is real but it will not be that bad.

While the fossil fuels companies, that have paid for propaganda, have for a long time known about manmade global and its devastating effects.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...d-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings

 

[Jack Hays]

While the fossil fuels companies, that have paid for propaganda . . .

That is a lie.

 

[Threegoofs]

That is a lie.

And you know, because you spread the propaganda on an hourly basis for free...

 

[Bergslagstroll]

That is a lie.

There are plenty of evidence of fossil fuel companies' massive disinformation campaigns.

"Growing public evidence demonstrates that Exxon and other oil companies understood climate risks by the 1980s, yet spent millions to sow uncertainty and misinformation about climate science.

The documents that follow—industry histories, scientific articles, oral testimonies, patents—span more than half a century of industry research and industry action. They offer compelling evidence that oil executives were actively debating climate science in the 1950s, and were explicitly warned about climate risks a decade later. Just as importantly, they offer glimpses into why the industry undertook this research, and how it used the results to sow scientific uncertainty and public skepticism."

https://www.smokeandfumes.org/fumes/moments/0

"For nearly three decades, many of the world's largest fossil fuel companies have knowingly worked to deceive the public about the realities and risks of climate change.

Their deceptive tactics are now highlighted in this set of seven "deception dossiers"—collections of internal company and trade association documents that have either been leaked to the public, come to light through lawsuits, or been disclosed through Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests.

Each collection provides an illuminating inside look at this coordinated campaign of deception, an effort underwritten by ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, Shell, Peabody Energy, and other members of the fossil fuel industry."

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...siers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.XEn7nlxKjIV

 

[Jack Hays]

There are plenty of evidence of fossil fuel companies' massive disinformation campaigns.

"Growing public evidence demonstrates that Exxon and other oil companies understood climate risks by the 1980s, yet spent millions to sow uncertainty and misinformation about climate science.

The documents that follow—industry histories, scientific articles, oral testimonies, patents—span more than half a century of industry research and industry action. They offer compelling evidence that oil executives were actively debating climate science in the 1950s, and were explicitly warned about climate risks a decade later. Just as importantly, they offer glimpses into why the industry undertook this research, and how it used the results to sow scientific uncertainty and public skepticism."

https://www.smokeandfumes.org/fumes/moments/0

"For nearly three decades, many of the world's largest fossil fuel companies have knowingly worked to deceive the public about the realities and risks of climate change.

Their deceptive tactics are now highlighted in this set of seven "deception dossiers"—collections of internal company and trade association documents that have either been leaked to the public, come to light through lawsuits, or been disclosed through Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests.

Each collection provides an illuminating inside look at this coordinated campaign of deception, an effort underwritten by ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, Shell, Peabody Energy, and other members of the fossil fuel industry."

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...siers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.XEn7nlxKjIV

Sorry, all debunked. Here's an example.

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[h=1]The "Exxon Climate Papers" show what Exxon and climate science knew and shared[/h][FONT=&quot]If they withheld or suppressed climate research from the public or shareholders, it is not apparent in these documents. Guest essay by Andy May New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has accused ExxonMobil of lying to the public and investors about the risks of climate change according to the NY Times and has launched…
[/FONT]

 

[Threegoofs]

Sorry, all debunked. Here's an example.

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[h=1]The "Exxon Climate Papers" show what Exxon and climate science knew and shared[/h][FONT=&quot]If they withheld or suppressed climate research from the public or shareholders, it is not apparent in these documents. Guest essay by Andy May New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has accused ExxonMobil of lying to the public and investors about the risks of climate change according to the NY Times and has launched…
[/FONT]

The guest essay is probably written by an oil company lobbyist...

 

[Jack Hays]

The guest essay is probably written by an oil company lobbyist...

You would be more successful here if you were more familiar with the factual record. From the link at #22:

[FONT=&quot]". . . I’ve reviewed the 22 internal documents from 1977 to 1989 made available by ExxonMobil here. I’ve also reviewed what I could find on 104 publications (most are peer-reviewed) with ExxonMobil personnel as authors or co-authors. For some of the peer-reviewed articles I only had an abstract and for some I could find the reference but no abstract or text without paying a fee. Below this short essay is an annotated bibliography of all 22 internal documents and 89 of the published papers. The documents are interesting reading, they fill in the history of modern climate science very well. Much of the current debate on climate change was being debated in the same way, and often with the same uncertainties, in 1977.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Between 1977 and the fifth IPCC report in 2013 ExxonMobil Corporate Research in New Jersey investigated the effect of increasing CO2 on climate. If they withheld or suppressed climate research from the public or shareholders, it is not apparent in these documents. Further, if they found any definitive evidence of an impending man-made climate catastrophe, I didn’t see it. The climate researchers at ExxonMobil participated in the second, third, fourth and fifth IPCC assessment reports making major contributions in mapping the carbon cycle and in climate modeling. They calculated the potential impact of man-made CO2 in several publications. They investigated methods of sequestering CO2 and adapting to climate change. They also investigated several potential biofuels.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The internal documents are generally summaries of published work by outside researchers. Some of the documents are notes from climate conferences or meetings with the DOE (Department of Energy). For many of the internal documents one has to read carefully to separate what is being said by the writer and what he is reporting from outside research. Exxon (and later ExxonMobil) did some original research, particularly making ocean and atmospheric measurements of CO2 from their tankers. But, most of what they produced was by funding research at Columbia University or the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. All of their internal research and the work at Columbia was published as far as I can tell, so it is difficult to accuse them of hiding anything from the public or shareholders. . . . "[/FONT]

 

[Threegoofs]

You would be more successful here if you were more familiar with the factual record. From the link at #22:

[FONT=&quot]". . . I’ve reviewed the 22 internal documents from 1977 to 1989 made available by ExxonMobil here. I’ve also reviewed what I could find on 104 publications (most are peer-reviewed) with ExxonMobil personnel as authors or co-authors. For some of the peer-reviewed articles I only had an abstract and for some I could find the reference but no abstract or text without paying a fee. Below this short essay is an annotated bibliography of all 22 internal documents and 89 of the published papers. The documents are interesting reading, they fill in the history of modern climate science very well. Much of the current debate on climate change was being debated in the same way, and often with the same uncertainties, in 1977.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Between 1977 and the fifth IPCC report in 2013 ExxonMobil Corporate Research in New Jersey investigated the effect of increasing CO2 on climate. If they withheld or suppressed climate research from the public or shareholders, it is not apparent in these documents. Further, if they found any definitive evidence of an impending man-made climate catastrophe, I didn’t see it. The climate researchers at ExxonMobil participated in the second, third, fourth and fifth IPCC assessment reports making major contributions in mapping the carbon cycle and in climate modeling. They calculated the potential impact of man-made CO2 in several publications. They investigated methods of sequestering CO2 and adapting to climate change. They also investigated several potential biofuels.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The internal documents are generally summaries of published work by outside researchers. Some of the documents are notes from climate conferences or meetings with the DOE (Department of Energy). For many of the internal documents one has to read carefully to separate what is being said by the writer and what he is reporting from outside research. Exxon (and later ExxonMobil) did some original research, particularly making ocean and atmospheric measurements of CO2 from their tankers. But, most of what they produced was by funding research at Columbia University or the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. All of their internal research and the work at Columbia was published as far as I can tell, so it is difficult to accuse them of hiding anything from the public or shareholders. . . . "[/FONT]

So he might well be a lobbyist.

Thanks for the info