How Bad Is Global Warming?

[Blue]

Climate Science Denial Shifts to a New Tactic Among Trump Appointees
By: Jeff Masters , 5:29 PM GMT on February 03, 2017

Our planet has just experienced three consecutive warmest years on record—2014, 2015, and 2016—which has made it difficult to find politicians who continue to deny the reality of global warming and climate change. However, denial of climate science has shifted to a new tactic: to claim that the indisputable heating of the planet is primarily a natural phenomenon, and that there is major uncertainty among scientists on the issue. These assertions are false. Based on the evidence, more than 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening; scientists’ “best estimate” is that ALL of the global warming since 1950 has been human-caused, primarily through an increase in carbon dioxide due to the burning of fossil fuels. Many prominent members of the Trump administration, who all have ties to the fossil fuel industry, have been making false claims about scientists’ understanding that global warming is human-caused. For example:

- During his hearing in January 2017 to become the new EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt claimed: “There is a diverse range of views regarding the key drivers of our changing climate among scientists.”

- Former Exxon-Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, who is now President Trump’s Secretary of State, claimed in his confirmation hearing: “I agree with the consensus view that combustion of fossil fuels is a leading cause for increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. I understand these gases to be a factor in rising temperatures, but I do not believe the scientific consensus supports their characterization as the ‘key’ factor.”

- On the February 21, 2014, edition of MSNBC’s The Daily Rundown, host Chuck Todd asked future Vice President Mike Pence if he was “convinced that climate change is man-made.” Pence responded: “I don't know that that is a resolved issue in science today.” Pence similarly stated on the May 5, 2009, edition of MSNBC’s Hardball that “I think the science is very mixed on the subject of global warming.”

- Rick Perry, Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Energy, told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee in January: “I believe the climate is changing. I believe some of it's naturally occurring and some of it is caused by man-made activity.”

Figure 1. Global annual temperatures up to the year 2015 (thin light red, with an 11-year moving average shown as a thick dark red line) have increased steadily, even though the total amount of energy from the sun (the annual Total Solar Irradiance, thin light blue, with an 11-year moving average shown as a thick dark blue line) has decreased slightly. Climate in past eras has seen many instances of global warming, which have been caused by an increase in heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide or an increase in the amount of solar energy being absorbed by the Earth. Since solar energy cannot be to blame for the increase in global temperatures since 1950, scientists are confident that the steadily rising levels of heat trapping gases like carbon dioxide due to human activities is causing the observed global warming. Image credit: skepticalscience.com.

The best science says: ALL of the warming since 1950 is human-caused
Based on the evidence, more than 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening. That’s about the same certainty with which scientists link smoking cigarettes to lung cancer. The latest 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report—the enormous consensus scientific summary of the science of climate change prepared once every six years--had this to say about the observed warming of Earth since 1950:

“The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.” In other words, ALL of the observed warming after 1950 (0.6°C, 1.1°F) is due to humans. A total of 0.85°C (1.5°F) total global warming has been observed since 1880. The IPCC further quantified that human activity is extremely likely (at least 95% chance) to be responsible for more than half of Earth's temperature increase after 1950.

Can't imbed the graph for some reason. It's at the link.

https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffM ... appointees

[Luther Blissett]

Don't worry that the last time CO2 levels were as high as they are today humans didn't even exist, cuck.

[Luther Blissett]

The terrible, horrible, no good, very bad Arctic winter is about to get worse

Weird. Strange. Extreme. Unprecedented.

These are some of the words that describe what’s been happening in the Arctic over the past year as surge after surge of warm air has stalled, and at times reversed, sea ice pack growth. And the unfortunate string of superlatives is set to continue this week.

Arctic sea ice is already sitting at a record low for this time of year, and a powerful North Atlantic storm is expected to open the floodgates and send more warmth pouring into the region from the lower latitudes. By Thursday, it could reach up to 50 degrees F above normal. In absolute temperature, that’s near the freezing point and could further spur a decline in sea ice.

Scientists have said the past year in the Arctic is “beyond even the extreme” as climate change remakes the region. Sea ice hit a record low maximum last winter (for the second year in a row, no less) and the second-lowest minimum ever recorded last fall. After a fairly rapid refreeze in late September, the region experienced a dramatic shift. Extraordinary warmth has been a recurring theme.

Sea ice growth reversed in November. Temperatures reached the melting point at the North Pole in December. Preliminary data from January indicates the Arctic was up to 35 degrees F above normal in some locations, including a mid-January mild wave.

That brings us to early February, which is setting up for another bout of mild weather in the Arctic.

A massive storm is swirling toward Europe. It’s a weather maker in itself, churning up waves as high as 46 feet and pressure dropping as low as is typical for a Category 4 hurricane as of Monday. The storm is to the southeast of Greenland and its massive comma shape has made for stunning satellite imagery. The storm is expected to weaken as it approaches Europe, but it will conspire with a high pressure system over the continent to send a stream of warm air into the Arctic through the Greenland Sea.

Temperatures are forecast to reach the melting point in Svalbard, Norway, an island between the Greenland and Karas Seas. The North Pole could also approach the melting point on Thursday.

It’s just the latest signal that the Arctic is in the middle of a profound change. Sea ice extent has dropped precipitously as has the amount of old ice, which is less prone to breakup. Beyond sea ice, Greenland’s ice sheet is also melting away and pushing sea levels higher, large fires are much more common and intense in boreal forests, and other ecosystem changes are causing the Earth to hyperventilate.

Together, these all indicate that the Arctic is in crisis. It’s the most dramatic example of how carbon pollution is reshaping the planet and scientists are racing to understand what comes next.

[DrEvil]

Sounder ~ before the slings and arrows bury your post above, I'd like to say yes, science is not about proving orthodoxy. Thanks for saying so.

Most here are probably too young to have witnessed the many urgent warnings from scientists in the '70s of imminent and catastrophic global cooling. The kind that is said to have caused 600,000 famine deaths in France in 1709 - 1710.

As that period, the Maunder Minimum, is accepted to have been closely linked to cratering sunspot activity, it's baffling how the IPCC considers solar activity to be a negligible factor in climate change.

I think you meant to say "the many sensationalist stories in the media", as opposed to the actual climate scientists who were not saying that. Already back then the consensus was warming. Yes, there were a few arguing for cooling, but they were in the minority, and another 45 years of mounting evidence has pretty much killed off that theory.

As for solar activity: it is accounted for in the models, and it can't explain the magnitude of the changes we are seeing.

Sounder wrote:
Yes, baffling, or another sign of contrivance. Lack of interest or ability to account for undersea volcanoes produces another hole in the computer modeling.

I'm assuming you're referring to Maya Tolstoy's paper published in Geophysical Research Letters.
Here's what she has to say about it:

"The fact that we have fewer eruptions means that less carbon dioxide should be entering the system, but what we're seeing is carbon dioxide going up," she said, noting that the evidence was just one more reason for alarm at human-induced climate change. "This definitely supports the fact that anthropogenic impacts are affecting our climate."

https://news.vice.com/article/sea-floor ... ly-thought

Her research concerns the impact of underwater volcanoes on glacial cycles, basically: cold = lower water = less pressure on underwater volcanoes = more eruptions, and vice versa.
Right now it's warm = higher water = more pressure = fewer eruptions, and still carbon dioxide is going up. Weird, huh? It's almost as if something else than volcanoes is causing it.

We must not facilitate the death of common sense.

Absolutely, how about you try it?

[km artlu]

>> Doc Evil
Right up to, but excluding, your final sentence, that was quite the civil refutation. A bit sad that at RI these days I would perceive that quality as outstanding. It certainly does render your data and your points of view easier to digest.

[Sounder]

It is all very fine to have a theory in regard to motive forces for undersea volcano activity, that may or may not be correct, but the truth is we do not know how much undersea volcano activity there is, so I see no reason to accept this theory until empirical evidence is shown to support said theory.

[DrEvil]

>> Doc Evil
Right up to, but excluding, your final sentence, that was quite the civil refutation. A bit sad that at RI these days I would perceive that quality as outstanding. It certainly does render your data and your points of view easier to digest.

You're right, I should have skipped that last sentence. I try to be civil, I really do, but oh my god it's hard sometimes, and some (most?) of the time I fail miserably, especially on this subject.

Sounder wrote:
It is all very fine to have a theory in regard to motive forces for undersea volcano activity, that may or may not be correct, but the truth is we do not know how much undersea volcano activity there is, so I see no reason to accept this theory until empirical evidence is shown to support said theory.

Here's the full article:
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/deep ... 2_clim.pdf

[stillrobertpaulsen]

Published on Thursday, February 09, 2017 by Common Dreams
Trump Named Climate Villain Number One in Landmark Youth Suit
'Climate science, not alternative facts, will determine the outcome of our court trial'
by
Lauren McCauley, staff writer

Julia Olson, executive director and chief legal counsel at Our Children's Trust, stands with some of the youth plaintiffs from the landmark lawsuit Juliana v. United States. (Photo courtesy of Robin Loznak)

Youth plaintiffs suing the federal government for failing to act on climate change have a new villain in their cross-hairs: U.S. President Donald Trump.

The 21 plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States filed a notice (pdf) in federal court on Thursday amending their landmark suit to substitute Donald J. Trump for former President Barack Obama.

"I look forward to taking on the Trump administration, as I think our new president, of all people, needs to have his power checked," said Kiran Ooommen, a 20-year-old plaintiff from Eugene, Oregon.

In the case, which is slated to reach trial this fall, Ooommen and his co-plaintiffs argue that by failing to act on climate change, the U.S. government has violated the youngest generation's constitutional rights and their rights to vital public trust resources.

The original complaint alleges that the government locked in a fossil-fuel based national energy system for more than five decades with full knowledge of the extreme dangers it posed. Now, explains Our Children's Trust, the non-profit supporting the legal action, "the plaintiffs have been further emboldened by President Trump's blatant climate denialism, inspiring them in their fight to secure climate justice and a safe future."

"The policies of the U.S. government that ignore the threat of climate change are only going to get worse under the new presidency, based on Trump's apparent lack of understanding of climate science and his plans to invest further in the fossil fuel industry," Ooommen added. "I cannot imagine a better time than now to remind the federal government of its constitutional obligation to protect the life, liberty and property of the people, not big business."

Pointing to the president's recent orders fast-tracking the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, as well as his pledges to roll back emissions regulations, "cancel" the Paris Climate Agreement, and expand drilling on federal lands, 20-year-old plaintiff Alex Loznak of Roseburg, Oregon said, "These policies could spell disaster for the planet as it approaches critical tipping points such as the destabilization of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. At this historic juncture, the courts must act as a check on President Trump's power, and preserve the climate system upon which civilization and human life depend."

Added fellow Roseburg resident Jacob Lebel, "Climate science, not alternative facts, will determine the outcome of our court trial and that gives me hope for my children's generation and the future of this country."

[stillrobertpaulsen]

Interesting discussion:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXsFHdIlj2g

[Luther Blissett]

It blows my mind that certain Florida cities are so fast-growing and that populations are urbanizing there along the coasts. They absolutely cannot survive, their loss is already locked-in even if we ended all carbon combustion tomorrow, banned plastics, stopped flights and shipping and industry.

Not sure whether to post this or in either of the two main extinction threads.
Human race 'will be extinct within 100 years'
Welcome to the Anthropocene, fellow human.

Looming Climate Catastrophe: Extinction in Nine Years?

Reports from the Arctic are getting pretty grim.

The latest, from a blog called Arctic News, warns that by 2026 — that’s just nine years from now — warming above the Arctic Circle could be so extreme that a massively disrupted and weakened jet stream could lead to global temperature rises so severe that a massive extinction event, including humans, could result.

This latest blog post, written by Arctic News editor Sam Carana, draws on research by a number of scientists (linked in his article), who report on various feedback loops that will result from a dramatically warmer north polar region. But the critical concern, he says, is methane already starting to be released in huge quantities from the shallow sea floor of the continental shelves north of Siberia and North America. That methane, produced by bacteria acting on biological material that sinks to the sea floor, for the most part, is currently lying frozen in a form of ice that is naturally created over millions of years by a mixing of methane and water, called a methane hydrate. Methane hydrate is a type of molecular structure called a clathrate. Clathrates are a kind of cage, in this case made of water ice, which traps another chemical, in this case methane. At normal temperatures, above the freezing temperature of water, these clathrates can only form under high pressures, such as a 500 meters or more under the ocean, and indeed such clathrates can be found under the sea floor even in places like the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, where the temperature is 8-10 degrees above freezing. But in colder waters, they can exist and remain stable at much shallower levels, such as a in a few hundred feet of water off the coast of Alaska or Siberia.

The concern is that if the Arctic Ocean waters, particularly nearer to shore, were to warm even slightly, as they will do as the ice cap vanishes in summer and becomes much thinner in winter, at some point the clathrates there will suddenly dissolve releasing tens of thousands of gigatons of methane in huge bursts. Already, scientists are reporting that portions of the ocean, as well as shallow lakes in the far north, look as though they are boiling, as released methane bubbles to the surface, sometimes in such concentrations that they can be lit on fire with a match as they surface.

As Carana writes:

“As the temperature of the Arctic Ocean keeps rising, it seems inevitable that more and more methane will rise from its seafloor and enter the atmosphere, at first strongly warming up the atmosphere over the Arctic Ocean itself – thus causing further methane eruptions – and eventually warming up the atmosphere across the globe.”

That is scary enough, as a sufficient burst of methane, a global warming gas 86 times more powerful than CO2, could lead to a rapid rise in global temperatures by 3 degrees Celsius or more, enough to actually reverse the carbon cycle, so that plants would end up releasing more carbon into the atmosphere rather than absorbing it.

Is this scenario or a giant methane “burp” from the Arctic sea floor just a scare story?

Not according to many scientists who study the earth’s long history of global warming periods and of evolution and periodic mass extinction events.

As Harold Wanless, a Professor of Geology and a specialist in sea level rise at the University of Miami explains, prior warming periods have often proceeded in dramatic pulses, not smoothly over drawn-out periods.

“We don’t know how this period of warming is going to develop,” he said. “That’s the problem. The warming Arctic Ocean is just ice melting, but the melting permafrost in Siberia, and the methane hydrates under the shallow waters of the continental shelf can happen suddenly. Every model gets the trend, but they don’t give you the rate that it happens or when something sudden happens.”

Wanless, who has for some time been predicting ice melting rates and resulting sea level rises that are far in excess of what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been predicting — as much as 10 feet by 2050 and 15 or 20 feet by the end of this century, vs. just three feet for the IPCC — says, “Scientists tend to be pretty conservative. We don’t like to scare people, and we don’t like to step out of our little predictable boxes. But I suspect the situation is going to spin out of hand pretty quickly.” He says, “If you look at the history of warming periods, things can move pretty fast, and when that happens that’s when you get extinction events.”

He adds, “I would not discount the possibility that it could happen in the next ten years.”

Making matters worse, Wanless adds, is the fact that a large enough methane eruption in the arctic, besides contributing to accelerated global warming, could also lead to a significant reduction of the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere (currently about 21%). This is because methane in the atmosphere breaks down fairly quickly, over the course of a decade or so, into water vapor and CO2, but in doing do, it requires oxygen atoms, which it would pull out of the atmosphere. That reduction in oxygen would lead to reduced viability and growth rates of plants and animals, as well as to a significant reduction in crop productivity. This dire trend would be enhanced by a second threat to atmospheric oxygen, which is the oxygen-producing plankton in the ocean. If sea temperatures rise much, and increased acidification of the ocean continues apace as the oceans absorb more CO2, plankton, the earth’s main producers of new oxygen, could shut down that source of new free oxygen.

So there you have it my fellow humans: it’s at least possible that we could be looking at an epic extinction event, caused by ourselves, which could include exterminating our own species, or at least what we call “civilization,” in as little as nine years.

What is particularly galling, in thinking about this, is the prospect that eight of those last years might find us living in a country led by Donald Trump, a climate-change denier who seems hell-bent on promoting measures, like extracting more oil from the Canadian tar sands, the North Dakota Bakkan shale fields and the Arctic sea floor, as well as re-opening coal mines, that will just make such a dystopian future even more likely than it already is.

The only “bright side” to this picture is that it may not matter that much what Trump does, because we’ve already, during the last eight Obama years and the last eight Bush years before that, dithered away so much time that the carbon already in the atmosphere — about 405 ppm — has long since passed the 380 ppm level at which, during the last warming period of the earth, sea levels were 100 feet higher than they are today.

That is to say, we’re already past the point of no return and it’s just the lag being caused by the time it takes for ice sheets to melt and for the huge ocean heat sinks to warm in response to the higher carbon levels in the atmosphere that is saving us from facing this disaster right now.

It is at this stage of the game either too late to stop, or we should be embarking on a global crash program to reduce carbon emissions the likes of which humanity has never known or contemplated.

Hard to imagine that happening though, particularly here in a country where half the people don’t even think climate change is happening, or if they do notice things getting warmer, think that’s just a peachy thing that will reduce their heating bills.

[Luther Blissett]

The big melt: Global sea ice at record low

There is now less sea ice on Earth than at any time on record. Ice in the Arctic and Antarctic melted to record low levels in January, scientists reported this week.

Sea ice is frozen ocean water that melts during the summer and refreezes in winter. It floats on top of the ocean.

Arctic sea ice this January averaged 5.17 million square miles, the lowest for the month in the 38-year sea ice record, the National Snow and Ice Data Center said.

That is 100,000 square miles less than the previous January record low set just last year.

January air temperatures climbed above average over nearly all of the Arctic Ocean, NASA said, continuing a pattern that started in fall. In some parts of the Arctic, temperatures reached a whopping 9 degrees above average for the month.

At the bottom of the world, sea ice is also at all-time record low levels around Antarctica, the data center said. The lack of ice in the Antarctic, where it is currently summer, is most pronounced in the Amundsen Sea, where only a few scattered patches of ice remain.

Sea ice in the Arctic affects wildlife such as polar bears, seals and walruses. It also helps regulate the planet’s temperature by influencing the circulation of the atmosphere and ocean. It can affect weather in the U.S.

The amount of summer sea ice in the Arctic has steadily declined over the past few decades because of man-made global warming, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"Greenhouse gases emitted through human activities and the resulting increase in global mean temperatures are the most likely underlying cause of the sea ice decline," the snow and ice data center said.

Sea ice thickness also substantially declined in the latter half of the 20th century, the snow and ice data center said.

Antarctic ice fluctuates wildly year to year, and the link to man-made global warming there is not clear, NASA ice expert Walt Meier said.

Using paleoclimatic data, studies suggest sea ice is shrinking to levels not seen in thousands of years.

[Iamwhomiam]

We've discussed a carbon tax before in this and other threads and I have long supported instituting such a tax to lower fossil fuel usage. However, as I envision a carbon tax I would prefer a portion the monies raised to be used to lower the retail costs of investing in alternative energy sources and the remainder for investing in new alternative energy production.

The pollution primarily from Ohio coal burning energy producing power plants brought great destruction to the lakes and forests of our northeastern states forced them to sue Ohio and to remedy future pollution the states created the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or REGGI, a carbon trading program that sold credits allowing corporate polluters to exceed their normal limits, which are designed to become scarcer and more costly as time progresses, encouraging quick conversion to more efficient and less polluting electrical energy production no dependent upon fossil fuels.

Imagine my surprise to read this editorial in the NY Times today:


A Rare Republican Call to Climate Action

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD FEB. 13, 2017


Luke Sharrett/Bloomberg

The most important thing about a carbon tax plan proposed last week may be the people behind it: prominent Republicans like James Baker III, George Shultz and Henry Paulson Jr. Their endorsement of the idea, variations of which have been suggested before, may be a breakthrough for a party that has closed its eyes to the perils of man-made climate change and done everything in its power to thwart efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

This gang of Republican elder statesmen — they call themselves the Climate Leadership Council — is not made up of the usual environmentalists, which is why their proposal might gain traction, though probably not right away.

Their proposal would tax carbon emissions at $40 a ton to start and would be paid by oil refineries and other fossil fuel companies that would pass costs on to consumers with higher gas and electricity prices. The money raised would be returned to Americans through dividend checks; a family of four would get about $2,000 a year to start. This would help people adjust to higher energy prices and give them an incentive to reduce consumption or switch to renewable sources of energy. Most lower-income and middle-class families would get back more than they pay in taxes. To avoid placing American industry at a disadvantage, imports from countries that do not impose a comparable tax would be subject to a per-ton tax on the carbon emitted in the production of their products, while exports to those nations would not be.

Scientists and economists have long argued that putting a price on carbon would encourage conservation and investment in renewable energy. Ireland, Sweden and British Columbia already have carbon taxes. The European Union, Quebec, California and Northeastern states like New York and Massachusetts have adopted cap-and-trade systems that use emission permits to lower emissions over time.

The last serious effort to impose a national price on carbon came in 2009 with cap-and-trade legislationby Edward Markey and Henry Waxman, both then Democratic House members. The bill passed the House, but never received a vote in the Senate. Since then, Republican control of one or both houses of Congress has thwarted ambitious climate legislation. As a result, President Obama turned to administrative actions to reduce emissions, including the Clean Power Plan and higher fuel-economy standards for cars and trucks. Those regulations and standards are now on the chopping block under the Trump administration.

The new Climate Leadership Council argues that conservatives should support a carbon tax because it is a more market-friendly approach than Mr. Obama’s regulations. And after a carbon tax is put in place, the council says, the government should eliminate most of those rules, since they won’t be needed. But there are legitimate fears that the tax alone might not achieve emission reductions on the scale needed to save the planet from out-of-control warming, and that regulations and other policies like public investments in renewable energy will be needed, too.

Neither President Trump nor Republicans in Congress have embraced the proposal. Many conservatives believe they’ll be able to dismantle Mr. Obama’s regulations through administrative, legal or legislative maneuvers, without compromising. Plus, many are philosophically opposed to, and politically fearful of, any new taxes.

Their dismissal of the council’s proposal is myopic and puts their party out of step with the country. A large majority of Americans want the government to address climate change — 78 percent of registered voters support taxing emissions, regulating them or doing both, according to a Yale survey conducted after the election. The Republican elders are offering their party an opening to change the conversation. It should take the cue.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/opinion/a-rare-republican-call-to-climate-action.html?_r=0

[Iamwhomiam]

News | January 18, 2017
NASA, NOAA data show 2016 warmest year on record globally

From NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies


Global temperature anomalies averaged from 2012 through 2016 in degrees Celsius. Credit: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio. Data provided by Robert B. Schmunk (NASA/GSFC GISS).

Earth’s 2016 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern recordkeeping began in 1880, according to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Globally-averaged temperatures in 2016 were 1.78 degrees Fahrenheit (0.99 degrees Celsius) warmer than the mid-20th century mean. This makes 2016 the third year in a row to set a new record for global average surface temperatures.

The 2016 temperatures continue a long-term warming trend, according to analyses by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. NOAA scientists concur with the finding that 2016 was the warmest year on record based on separate, independent analyses of the data.

This color-coded map displays a progression of changing global surface temperatures anomalies from 1880 through 2016. The final frame represents global temperature anomalies averaged from 2012 through 2016 in degrees Celsius. Credit: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio. Data provided by Robert B. Schmunk (NASA/GSFC GISS).

Because weather station locations and measurement practices change over time, there are uncertainties in the interpretation of specific year-to-year global mean temperature differences. However, even taking this into account, NASA estimates 2016 was the warmest year with greater than 95 percent certainty.

“2016 is remarkably the third record year in a row in this series,” said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt. “We don’t expect record years every year, but the ongoing long-term warming trend is clear.”

The planet’s average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.

Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year – from January through September, with the exception of June – were the warmest on record for those respective months. October, November, and December of 2016 were the second warmest of those months on record – in all three cases, behind records set in 2015.

Phenomena such as El Niño or La Niña, which warm or cool the upper tropical Pacific Ocean and cause corresponding variations in global wind and weather patterns, contribute to short-term variations in global average temperature. A warming El Niño event was in effect for most of 2015 and the first third of 2016. Researchers estimate the direct impact of the natural El Niño warming in the tropical Pacific increased the annual global temperature anomaly for 2016 by 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit (0.12 degrees Celsius).

Weather dynamics often affect regional temperatures, so not every region on Earth experienced record average temperatures last year. For example, both NASA and NOAA found the 2016 annual mean temperature for the contiguous 48 United States was the second warmest on record. In contrast, the Arctic experienced its warmest year ever, consistent with record low sea ice found in that region for most of the year.

https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/1048

The planet's long-term warming trend is seen in this chart of every year's annual temperature cycle from 1880 to the present, compared to the average temperature from 1880 to 2015. Record warm years are listed in the column on the right. Credit: NASA/Earth Observatory.Joshua Stevens.

NASA’s analyses incorporate surface temperature measurements from 6,300 weather stations, ship- and buoy-based observations of sea surface temperatures, and temperature measurements from Antarctic research stations. These raw measurements are analyzed using an algorithm that considers the varied spacing of temperature stations around the globe and urban heating effects that could skew the conclusions. The result of these calculations is an estimate of the global average temperature difference from a baseline period of 1951 to 1980.

NOAA scientists used much of the same raw temperature data, but with a different baseline period, and different methods to analyze Earth’s polar regions and global temperatures.

GISS is a laboratory within the Earth Sciences Division of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. The laboratory is affiliated with Columbia University’s Earth Institute and School of Engineering and Applied Science in New York.

The full 2016 surface temperature data set and the complete methodology used to make the temperature calculation are available at:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

Media contacts

Sean Potter
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1536
sean.potter@nasa.gov

Michael Cabbage / Leslie McCarthy
Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York
212-678-5516 / 212-678-5507
mcabbage@nasa.gov / leslie.m.mccarthy@nasa.gov

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2537/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally/

Full, repeating gif:

[Luther Blissett]

US Defence Secretary James Mattis says climate change is already destabilising the world
'I agree that the effects of a changing climate — such as increased maritime access to the Arctic, rising sea levels, desertification, among others — impact our security situation'

The US Defence Secretary, General James ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis, has warned that climate change is already destabilising parts of the world.

In written responses to questions put during his confirmation hearings, which were not published but were obtained by the ProPublica news website, the former Marine Corps officer indicated he had very different views to other leading members of the Trump administration.

While the new head of the Environmental Protection Agency recently denied that carbon dioxide is causing global warming – an idea scientists have compared to disputing gravity – General Mattis made clear climate change was a serious problem.

“Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today,” he told senators.

“It is appropriate for the Combatant Commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their areas into their planning.”

ProPublica said his responses had been given to them by “someone involved with coordinating efforts on climate change preparedness across more than a dozen government agencies”. The documents were confirmed as genuine by Senate staff, it added.

Asked by Senator Jeanne Shaheen if he believed “climate change is a security threat”, General Mattis replied: “Climate change can be a driver of instability and the Department of Defence must pay attention to potential adverse impacts generated by this phenomenon.”

Ms Shaheen then asked how the military should prepare “to address this threat”.

“As I noted above, climate change is a challenge that requires a broader, whole-of government response,” General Mattis replied.

“If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department of Defence plays its appropriate role within such a response by addressing national security aspects.”

He added: “I agree that the effects of a changing climate — such as increased maritime access to the Arctic, rising sea levels, desertification, among others — impact our security situation.

“I will ensure that the department continues to be prepared to conduct operations today and in the future, and that we are prepared to address the effects of a changing climate on our threat assessments, resources, and readiness.”

[Luther Blissett]

From Virtual Jeff.

Carbon dioxide levels hit ‘point of no return’

The year 2016 set yet another devastating record for global warming.

Carbon dioxide levels rose more than 2 parts per million (ppm) for the second year in a row, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Levels rose 3 ppm to 405.1 ppm in 2016, putting CO2 at its highest levels in over 10,000 years. This increase matched the record rise recorded in 2015, when CO2 levels officially passed 400 ppm, which climate scientists call the “point of no return.” After this mark, they claim, climate change is irreversible.

“This is a real shock to the atmosphere,” Peter Tans, lead scientist of NOAA’s Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network, said in a statement. “The rate of CO2 growth over the last decade is 100 to 200 times faster than what the Earth experienced during the transition from the last Ice Age.”

The 400 ppm level, known as the “carbon threshold,” was long used by scientists as a warning that once we passed this mark, the climate cycle would be thrown into turmoil. From 10,000 years ago to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in 1760, CO2 levels averaged around 280 ppm.

And we’ll probably never see levels drop below 400 ppm in our lifetime, according to Tans. If the world stopped burning fossil fuels right this second, the carbon dioxide would still be trapped in the atmosphere for the next few decades.

Additionally, 2016 was the hottest year ever recorded, since measurements began in 1880. And the record-breaking temperatures have continued into 2017, with February recording the month’s second-highest-ever temperatures across the globe.

“The need for concerted action on climate change has never been so stark nor the stakes so high,” David Reay, an emissions expert at the University of Edinburgh, told the Guardian.

On Tuesday, the World Meteorological Organization published its annual State of the Global Climate, noting that increasing temperatures have pushed Earth into “truly uncharted territory.”