From University of Alabama, Huntsville:
Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.11 C per decade
October temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.43 C (about 0.77 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for October.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.64 C (about 1.15 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for October.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.21 C (about 0.38 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for October.
Tropics: +0.53 C (about 0.95 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for October.
September temperatures (revised):
Global Composite: +0.25 C above 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.34 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.17 C above 30-year average
Tropics: +0.52 C above 30-year average
(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)
Notes on data released Nov. 3, 2015:
Powered by an El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event, temperatures in October set records globally, in the Northern Hemisphere and the Tropics, while temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere pushed toward the upper end of the dataset, said Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. October 2015 was the warmest October in the 36-year satellite temperature record, pushing past October 1998 during what was then called the El Niño of the Century.
Warmest Octobers, Global
Date Warmer than seasonal norms
2015 +0.43 C
1998 +0.40 C
2003 +0.29 C
2005 +0.28 C
2014 +0.26 C
Warmest Octobers, Northern Hemisphere
Date Warmer than seasonal norms
2015 +0.64 C
1998 +0.48 C
2003 +0.46 C
2005 +0.35 C
2013 +0.33 C
Warmest Octobers, Tropics
Date Warmer than seasonal norms
2015 +0.53 C
1987 +0.40 C
1998 +0.37 C
2009 +0.34 C
2003 +0.33 C
In the Northern Hemisphere, October 2015 registered the third largest deviation from seasonal norms in the 443 month satellite temperature record, making it the third “warmest” month in the Northern Hemisphere since December 1978. October 2015 trailed only April 1998 (+0.85 C) and February 1998 (0.69 C) as the “warmest” month in the Northern Hemisphere.
“We thought this El Niño had the potential to be a record setter for some of the quantities we track, and it isn’t disappointing,” Christy said. “Not only is this a strong El Niño, but the transient warming we see from it is superimposed on top of the slowly rising global base temperature. The satellite temperature dataset shows an overall warming of about 0.39 C during the past 36 years. Put a strong El Niño on top of that and we shouldn’t be surprised at what we saw in October.”
Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest average temperature anomaly on Earth in October was over east Antarctica in Queen Maud Land. The October temperature there averaged 3.97 C (about 7.15 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms. Compared to seasonal norms, the coolest average temperature on Earth in October was southwest of New Zealand on the edge of the southern ocean, where the average October 2015 temperature was 3.33 C (about 5.99 degrees F) cooler than normal.
The complete version 6 beta lower troposphere dataset is available here:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta3
Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at:
As part of an ongoing joint project between UAHuntsville, NOAA and NASA, Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, an ESSC principal scientist, use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available.
The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly temperature data is collected and processed, it is placed in a “public” computer file for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S. and abroad.
Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.
— 30 —
Agrees with NCEP real time. However major La Nina lurking ( see weatherbell.com public video) and SCRIPPS now seeing it. Temps should plummet after this enso like 06/07 09/10. Lots of propaganda tho coming before that. ITS A FIELD DAY FOR THE HEAT global temp wise but will hit a lower point on NCEP real time in 18-19 than 12.
Joe– You’re right. Nature seeks equilibrium, not its own destruction.
Historic ENSO records show that following strong/long El Nino events, strong/long La Nina events follow.
The coming La Lina event will also be enhanced by the 30-year PDO cool cycle (started in 2008), which was not in effect following the 97/98 Super El Nino.
The coming La Lina event will also be enhanced by the weakest solar cycle since 1906, which is approaching the end of its 11~year very weak cycle.
It’ll be interesting see what ad hoc excuses the warmunists will come up with to account for the coming La Nina cool spike downwards….
Add to your fall in AMO.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1980
The battle hymn of the warmistas:
Some of those who gleefully quoted the satellite record when it was an unrelenting embarrassment to “true believers” now attack the same messenger when he brings them something they don’t wish to hear. Who didn’t think the current El Nino would not spike global temperature? The ’98 record peak still stands and by that definition “the pause” continues. What has now been added to the satellite record books is “highest October temperature” in the satellite record having occurred in 2015. No one should be trying to make that reality “go away” just because is may be discomforting. That’s what “true believers” have been doing that so infuriates the rest of us. Even if the 1998 peak should be surpassed sometime later in this El Nino cycle, the satellite record of the past 18 years has already demonstrated that the AGW-based climate models are grotesquely wrong and that there really is no basis for the current global warming hysteria.
Warmest October since 1980 hardly gets me into a tizzy.
Wish we could compare right now to the 1930s.
I’ve only seen a couple of people attacking this data. Perhaps you are seeing what you want to see?
Believe it or not, and as far as I can tell from the UK MetOffice website, there are 3 “30 year period” averaged datasets of weather to represent climate namely 1961-1990 (The one I am most familiar with in reports from the IPCC etc), 1971-2000 and 1981-2010. So which dataset is the correct “30 year” averaged weather dataset to determine “climate”? I guess whichever one shows more cooling in the past and warming in the present.
It has long been standard procedure in meteorology to use the average of the most recent three full decades (ending with a year xxx0) to represent “norms” of climate.
Then why does the IPCC use the 1961 – 1990 dataset (As far as I can tell that is the “baseline” dataset used in projections etc)? That to me suggests a type of “moving the goal posts” type of approach with announcements such as this. Why not use the entire 3 datasets, 90 years, after all we are trying to detect weather trends on a planet that is ~4.5 BILLION years old with one dataset of weather spanning 30 years. The idea is preposterous.
They represent the ‘norms’ only as far as the warmists have defined it. That was never the position when I went to school.
Give what we know about oceanic cycles, it would appear to be unarguable that a period shorter than those cycles should be used. personally, I consider climate should be assessed upon at least a centennial scale.
The UK Met Office will continue to use the 30-year period 1961-1990 until the next complete non-overlapping 30-year period, which will be 1991-2020.
The logic seems to be that quoted anomalies do not jump around when the means change by a few fractions of a degree with each new decade.
Whilst I consider that it is scientifically incorrect to claim the warmest on record when the amount by which the previous record has been exceeded is less than the measurement errors inherent in the measuring system as a whole, and why I am not at all concerned by a few hundredths of a degree, I would like to know where in the Northern Hemisphere it was warm.
What we are seeing is weather, not climate, and weather as influenced by a strong El Nino. This obviously impacts upon weather fronts and the distribution thereof. I recall reading only a week or so ago that Germany had had one of its coolest September on records. In Southern Spain, October has been cold. It may be that some parts in Eastern Europe have been warm just like some parts of the US have been cold and some parts warm.
Whilst, I do not question this data set (apart from its short duration and continuing to make sure that it correctly accounts for orbital drift and equipment loss of sensitivity/degrading over time), personally, I would like to see more regional data so that we have a better handling on trends where people actually live.
Weather is natural, and CHANGEABLE. “Climate” is a human construct (The IPCC 30 year average of weather apparently) and thus we are able to predict/control it?
Patrick:
You say
No, that is a misunderstanding foisted by warmunists when they want to ignore inconvenient data but not otherwise. And it needs to be refuted whenever it is promulgated.
The IPCC AR5 Glossary defines climate as being
Climate
So,
climate is ‘average weather’ over any “period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years” but the period needs to be stated.
Indeed, this thread is about one datum of the climate for the month of October 2015.
The 30 years refers to a standard period to which climate data is compared: it is NOT climate. And its length is arbitrary: it was adopted in 1958 as part of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) because it was thought that there was insufficient data for use prior to 30 years before 1958. It is an unfortunate choice because 30 years is not a multiple of the solar cycle length, ot the Hale cycle length, or any other climate cycle length.
Richard
Thank you. And thus it is still, rubbish.
Patrick
Not only is weather changeable, so too is climate. I consider that many misunderstand what Climate is, and they are far too ready to suggest a small change in one parameter (temperature is Climate change).
Climate (which is regional not global) consist of many parameters, and temperature is just one of these parameters. Materially all these parameters are variable and never in stasis, and they may interrelate with one another such that a change in one parameter may cause another parameter to change as well. Change of any one or more of these parameters is not in itself Climate change, indeed since change is an inherent ongoing characteristic, it follows that mere change in and of itself, is not climate change. It is simply what Climate is and what it does.
it is only when more than one of these parameters changes beyond the realms of natural variability and remains beyond those bounds for a protracted period of time that there may be evidence of Climate change. It is suggested that Climate is some nominal average over a 30 year period, but that is way too short a period to measure a natural phenomena on a planet that has had an atmosphere for nearly 4.5 billion years, and which is subject to glacial periods and inter-glacials. One has to look at all the natural phenomena and their cycles to get an idea as to what Climate is in any given epoch. certainly, from what we know of oceanic cycles and the like, it is clear that it needs to be measured at least over a period of a 100 years or more.
There is even an argument that the MWP and the LIA were not fundamentally different Climates but rather they set the upper and lower bounds of natural variability for the Climate in the region under review. For example we know that in the LIA, it was not universally cold for year on year and that there was much variability within this cool period such that cold years were inter spaced with warm years. I am not saying that that is my view, but I understand that short term variability of that nature could simply be regarded as part and parcel of the extreme bounds, at either end of the spectrum, of natural variability of Climate.
My point remains. Its rubbish!
One should not get carried away with the warmest month ‘ever’. It means nothing at all, and carries with it no significance. Of course it will be played for all its worth in the PR game in the run up to Paris, but all genuine scientists know that this is just coincident and not the result of CO2.
We know that temperatures, at least in short term variability, are strongly influenced by El Nino and La Nina events. The previous short term warm periods in this data sets were in 2010 and 1998 driven by El Nino.
Now unless the current 2015/16 El Nino lines up precisely on a month by month basis say with the 1997/8 Super El Nino we can expect to see some particularly warm months in the course of the next 6 months which may well exceed the previous highs for the months in question. But that has no significance and is simply an alignment issue between the impact of TWO NATURAL cycles/events.
What is important is whether coincident with this current strong El Nino there is a long lasting step change in temperatures, as was coincident upon the Super El Nino of 1997/8. if there is no such step change, the following La Nina will almost certainly bring temperatures back down (probably down to the say 2001 to 2003 level), and it is then likely that the ‘pause’ will continue and still be intact going into 2019 when AR6 is being prepared.
Thus if there is no step change in temperatures coincident upon this current strong El Nino, we can already foresee that by the time AR6 is being prepared the ‘pause’ will be more than 21 years in duration. As the ‘pause’ lengthens, Climate Sensitivity must fall. This means that we may anticipate papers discussing Climate Sensitivity published say in late 2017, 2018 and early 2019 will be showing ever decreasing figures for Climate Sensitivity. The short term euphoria of the warmists which we currently see, will by then have evaporated.
It’s the sun.
————–
Warming is not due to enhanced downward longwave flux,
but arises from increased incident solar fluxes accompanying
declining aerosol loads.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0082.1?af=R
Global temps are going up for another 4 to 5 months yet due to the near-Super El Nino and the lag. The Nino 3.4 index hit +2.7C last week.
There is also a 3 month lag and temperatures have only started to respond to the El Nino conditions of three months ago. We will probably see UAH global temps go over +0.65C in February to April 2016. Tropics will be in the +0.8C range.
http://s3.postimg.org/yly8vbfpv/UAH_RSS_Volc_adj_vs_ENSO_Oct15.png
I’m doubting on the tropics to respond that well due to a scattering jet, but we’ll see. Great chart btw, should be a global standard.
I have compared the gridded RSS TLT anomalies of different El Nino regions for Oct 2015 with the 1997/1998 El Nino maxima:
El Nino1+2 Max Feb 1998 2.11 °C, Oct 2015 1.01 °C
El Nino 3 Max Feb 1998 1.58 °C, Oct 2015 0.49 °C
El Nino 3.4 Max Apr 1998, 1.29 °C, Oct 2015 0.40 °C
El Nino 4 Max Feb 1998, 1.50 °C, Oct 2015 0.39 °C
My comment: the party is not over. The global record in Oct 2015 is mainly caused by the slowly rising global base temperature.
Satellite information has indeed brought major insights into temperature variability both in time and space. BUT, what on earth does an average temperature represent? The atmosphere is never in thermodynamic equilibrium. How can it be given its chaotic nature ? So producing `average` figures for 12 months is meaningless. Unfortunately, this is playing into the hands of the ignorant media and politicians, and the latter will advocate policies not thought out and to their benefit only. The `average` is the curse of humanity.
It is meaningless.
Richard Courtney has explained at length (on several occasions) why the GATA (global average temperature anomaly) is a contrived construction of data devoid of meaning or substance. When there was a parliamentary Inquiry into Climategate, Richard even made submissions to Parliament explaining this. Of course, the Inquiry never looked in detail at the science and turned out to be a complete whitewash 9no surprise there).
If you really want to know some more detail, I could probably trace a link. Or next time you see Richard Courtney comment (and he is a frequent commenter), you could ask him for a link. His submissions (and appendix) are well worth a read.
Question is will anyone bother to do the math and publish into the media when its the coldest November on satellite record?
They received no money from the carbon fuel industry or special interest groups but “All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.” Isn’t this an oxymoron?
As you say, Government sure receives a lot of money from the carbon fuel industry. I wonder just how much tax does the carbon fuel industry (and its offshoots) pay in tax (including employment taxes)?
If this trend continues, politicians will have to stop flying in private jets.
Even with the new UAH V6.0 global temperature departure of 0.43°C for October I still get a negative trend line slope for the last 18 years and 6 months.
Well, let me try this.
From AD 950 to 1250 the earth experienced the MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD (MWP).
If today’s AGW charlatans lived at that time and had today’s analytical knowledge, tools and instruments, they could easily say, “the last 25 (or 50 or 75 or 100 or 125) years are the warmest on record.”
Of course, they could not blame that very warm period on SUVs and coal fired power plants, so they most likely would have found those individuals in league with the devil and burned them at the stake.
So, how did the MWP end ???
That’s right, in the LITTLE ICE AGE.
All these discussions about which time period should be serve as the basis of comparison is just plain stupid. It has ALL HAPPENED BEFORE , well before any possible human induced causes, and the climatic changes – if any – we are witnessing today are by historical (as in geologic time) standards a joke.
FOLKS, FOLLOW THE MONEY !!
Check out, below, what the worlds most prominent climatologists were saying not that long ago;
https://youtu.be/1kGB5MMIAVA
Was the MWP or the LIA a change in climate regime, or simply an oscillation setting the upper and lower bounds of natural variation on a regional basis which lasted for perhaps a centennial basis (or thereabouts)which in the scope of an inter glacial period is not such a substantial period of time. Especially when one considers that even in the MWP there were years when it was not that warm, and in the LIA there were years when it was not that cold. Whilst these periods were generally warm, or generally cool, there was still quite large amounts of variability from one year to another.
If one argues that the MWP and LIA are not global but regional only (eg. mid to high northern latitudes), it becomes very difficult to argue that they represented a genuine climate shift and it is more likely that they represented the extremes that any region can experience given the scope of natural variation that might impact upon the climate in the region in question.
certainly, I do not consider that one can assess Climate over a 30 year period. To me that is patently absurd. As you say, we have seen far higher temps, and far lower temps and these were not driven by CO2 (since supposedly that did not change over the past few thousand years), so the null hypothesis that there is nothing to suggest that the present change is anything other than naturally driven remains sound and not displaced.
Perfectly normal October here in the mid-Appalachians — alittle above avg. Great fall color too.
Does anyone care about the data any longer at this place? Most people are simply following a belief, whether it is that all warming since 1950 is natural or all is man made. A lot of people are confounding science with religion or simply using science to support their beliefs.
The data does not support a believe in dangerous global warming, nor a believe in greenhouse gases as the primary planetary temperature determinant.
But the data does not support a believe in the climate of the Earth being what it should be in the absence of anthropogenic forcings.
It is a fact that glaciers have retreated to a point last seen 5,200 years ago. Otherwise we would have not found Ötzi the ice-man in the Alps, the Quelccaya Glacier plant in Peru, or the South-Cascade Glacier rooted tree-trunk in Washington State, all of them buried in ice 5,200 years ago until now. While this does not mean that the planet’s climate is as warm now as it was then, it demonstrates beyond doubt that glacier dynamics determinants are abnormal, specially considering that glaciers were at their maximum extent for the past 10,000 years only 250 years ago. That greenhouse gases are having a significant effect on climate cannot be refuted unless one is willing to abandon the search for the truth in pursuit of other agendas.
While the alarmism is unjustified, and the warming mostly beneficial, this does not mean that it is baseless. A lot of people here should review their position or abandon any pretense that their posture is supported by scientific evidence.
Javier:
You assert
NO! It absolutely does NOT demonstrate anything “abnormal” about glacier behaviour.
On the contrary. It demonstrates beyond any possibility of doubt that glaciers have advanced and retreated during the holocene and there is nothing unusual or unprecedented in present glacier retreat. Indeed, present glacier retreat is is trivial when compared to that of transition from the last ice age only 10,000 years ago (i.e. a ‘blink of an eye’ in geological time) and the present retreat began 250 years ago which was before the industrial revolution.
Richard
Richard,
You can put all the boldface you want, it won’t make you any more right. The Holocene reached its maximal 60°N insolation about 10,500 years ago and Earth’s maximal obliquity (axial tilt) about 9,500 years ago. For the last 7,000 years the Holocene has been on a multi-millennial downward trend in temperatures. For the last 5000 years the Holocene has been so cold compared to the Holocene Climatic Optimum, that it has been termed the Neoglacial period. Current glacier retreat is not normal within a 7,000 years cooling trend in the Holocene. There is no natural reason why glaciers should go back to a stage that was left behind 5,000 years ago.
This is an example of what I just said. All this is simple common knowledge that any person interested in climate should know since it does not require any scientific training to understand. You either chose to ignore it or don’t care enough to learn the background over which current global warming is taking place.
Javier:
OK. I accept that you want to believe your illogical nonsense. However, for the benefit of others, please explain why the recent glacier retreat began BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION if it is not natural.
As I said, the observations demonstrate beyond any possibility of doubt that glaciers have advanced and retreated during the holocene and there is nothing unusual or unprecedented in present glacier retreat.
Richard
Richard,
So you think that because it started as a natural process at the end of the LIA that makes it immune to greenhouse induced warming? On what basis do you think non-natural warming does not cause enhanced glacier retreat?
You are wrong on the second part. Glaciers have advanced and retreated during the holocene, but not this much in 5,000 years. This is unusual. We should not be encountering things buried in ice 5,000 years ago.
It is so difficult to understand that there has to be some contribution from greenhouse gases to present warming? It is completely unreasonable and unscientific to defend the opposite.
Javier:
You repeatedly ask
You admit that the start of the glacier retreat was natural then you assume it is “enhanced” by “non-natural warming”. Why do you assume that when there is no evidence of any “non-natural warming”?
You are making the assertion of “enhanced glacier retreat”. It is for you to justify your assertion, and there is no reason for others to accept it when you have no evidence for it.
Furthermore, there is no evidence for any recent global warming (natural or non-natural) for more than 18 years. Lack of warming cannot “enhance” anything.
Clearly, you are having difficulty understanding your error so I will try to to explain by comparison.
You ask me and JohnTyler,
“On what basis do you think non-natural warming does not cause enhanced glacier retreat?”
I ask you,
“On what basis do you think Santa Claus does not cause enhanced glacier retreat?”
I will answer your question when you answer mine.
Richard
Richard,
Science has evidence for it, therefore I have it too.
Besides the evidence already presented (Ötzi, the Quelccaya Glacier plant, and the South-Cascade Glacier rooted tree-trunk), there are direct measurements of delta-18O in Huascarán glacier ice-core that show the 5200 abrupt cooling and cooling trend until present warming:
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/Huascaran%20glacier_zpseki9rkkg.png
This is not a hockey stick reconstruction. It is a direct measurement in an ice core, from the following article in Science:
http://research.bpcrc.osu.edu/Icecore/publications/Thompson%20et%20al%20Science%201995.pdf
If the mounting evidence for 5,000 years unprecedented glacier melting is not enough for you, then you can take a look at a global glacier reconstruction meta-study from glacierologists Koch and Clague.
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/Glacier%20fluctuations_zpslp2fbufk.png
I have marked the glacier extent maximum (yellow) and minimum (black) trends so you don’t miss them. Present glacier extent minimum is way out of what should be expected, and lower than the minima during the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods.
http://kochj.brandonu.ca/pages_2006.pdf
The most likely explanation for this anomaly in glacier extent is not that our global temperatures are now higher than the past 5,000 years as some believe, but that current high CO2 levels have a disproportionate effect on glacier dynamics. This should be expected from greenhouse gas theory as its effects should be most noticeable the less water vapor in the atmosphere, and the air over glaciers is extremely dry due to its low temperatures. While our temperatures have gone back a couple of thousand years from global warming, our glaciers have gone back 5,000 years due to high GHG concentrations in the atmosphere.
I am sorry if the evidence doesn’t fit your core beliefs. You can still reject the evidence to maintain your core beliefs, but you cannot continue claiming that you base your beliefs in science. You will have to accept that you base your beliefs in faith.
There is global warming, and GHGs contribute to it. The role of GHGs is grossly exaggerated as natural factors also contribute to it. It is indefensible that all warming is man-made as it is indefensible that none of the warming is man-made. And you sir, are wrong about this issue.
Javier:
There is no evidence for man-made global warming; none, zilch, nada.
Three decades of research conducted world wide at a cost of over $5 billion per year has failed to find any such evidence. In the 1990s Ben Santer claimed to have found some such evidence but that was soon seen to be an artifact of his having chosen a part of a data set (the late John Daly provided this excellent summary of the affair.
If you think you have found some evidence for anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) then publish it because your finding would certainly result in you being awarded at least lone Nobel Prize.
I repeat
You ask me and JohnTyler,
“On what basis do you think non-natural warming does not cause enhanced glacier retreat?”
I ask you,
“On what basis do you think Santa Claus does not cause enhanced glacier retreat?”
I will answer your question when you answer mine.
I am still awaiting your answer to my question which is as sensible as yours.
Richard
There is not and will not be evidence that can satisfy you, because I have provided evidence and you have not been able to disprove it or provide an alternative explanation for it. Again this is proof that you are not evidence-driven, but belief-driven. Not much point in talking to you. You just repeated a belief mantra.
Don’t be silly. I haven’t done any research on climatology, just read and kept my mind more open than you. Besides the scientific journals are packed full on evidence on AGW. The candidate line for that Nobel would be huge.
I thought it was a joke question. Amazing you are serious about it. While heat melts glaciers and there is no way to distinguish heat from different origins, Santa Claus is a folklore figure based on a person who died more than a thousand years ago and therefore there is no known way it can affect glaciers.
I don’t find this conversation productive. You requested the evidence and I provided it. You are welcome.
Javier:
I would accept any evidence for anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW).
I repeat, there is no evidence for AGW; none, zilch , nada.
You only have to cite one piece of evidence to prove me wrong.
But you cannot prove me wrong because you admit you don’t have any evidence. That is no surprise because – as I said – anybody who found such evidence would obtain at least one Nobel Prize following much research over three decades that has failed to find any.
You now say
OK, you have taken your ball home. But I respond to your twaddle for the benefit of onlookers.
My question was serious because – as you say – “While heat melts glaciers and there is no way to distinguish heat from different origins” but you were claiming any change to glacier retreat was a result of AGW. Even by your standards, that inconsistency is daft.
There is as much evidence for AGW as there is for Santa Claus; i.e. none.
You provided no evidence and admitted that you have no evidence but conclude by claiming you “provided” evidence.
You now say you are leaving. Good riddance.
Richard
The receding glacier that Obama visited in Alaska where he said, ” this is proof of global warming,” began receding at the time of the American Revolution; the late 1700s.
Please tell us how this was possible given that humans had no affect on climate until, supposedly, the last 100 years.
Further, to your point about Otzi; how did he wind up when dead, under tens of feet of ice?
Clearly, when he died, THERE WAS NO ICE THERE !! The climate was as warm, if not warmer, than today. And if that is so, pray tell, where did all that CO2 come from that warmed the climate at that time?
Also, there have been several (many ? ) periods in geologic time when glaciers receded.
So, what caused these events?
No one claims that the climate cannot be changing. But clearly, there are other dynamics at play that affect climate and are not yet understood. And if a CHAOTIC mechanism is not understood, then one cannot claim to have an explanation for what is presently transpiring. For all anyone knows, it could be factors that are totally removed from greenhouse gases (to the extent that the greenhouse gases are the CAUSE, not the RESULT of warming.).
When climate scientists can EXPLAIN – not merely describe – the historical climate record, then one can begin to give credence to their suppositions.
Until then, it is all politics and their striving for research grants and speaking fees.
John,
Because glacier retreat started as a natural process in the natural warming post-LIA. However glacier retreat is proceeding too much to be completely natural. We should not be reaching 5,000 years old ice if it was only a natural process.
Ötzi died just at the onset of a severe global cooling period equivalent to the LIA that took place for natural causes 5,200 years ago. CO2 was very low at that time. The climate was warmer because the amount of insolation in the polar regions and specially in the northern hemisphere was higher. The heat was the same that melted the ice sheets after the glacial period.
Within the Holocene in the last 7,000 years the picture is quite clear. All major variability (with one exception) has come from millennial cycles, and has all been of cooling nature. During each cooling, glaciers advanced and when the cooling ended temperatures partially recovered and glaciers retreated, but all within a general downward temperature trend.
There are no warming events in the last 7,000 years, just cooling events followed by recovery within a progressive cooling. After the LIA we are having a recovery, but superimposed on it we have greenhouse gases-induced warming. It is not possible to quantify each contribution but it is clear that we are having more warming that what corresponds to this time of the Holocene. But we should not be alarmed. It is a positive thing, not a negative. It won’t become dangerous because it is not as much as alarmists believe and the Earth has cooling mechanisms, like higher frequency of El Niño activity.
Don’t forget that Hannibal about 2200 years ago (I can’t remember my history but circa a bit before 200 BC) led his army over the Pyrenees and the Alps including elephants. That journey could not be done with elephants today.
Likewise there have been recent finds (last 20 years) as glaciers have retreated in Norway of old clothing and combs representing a settlement where the Norse were living in the period 0 to 200BC.
And of course, all the finds in the last 30/80 years of Viking settlements in Greenland.
So there is a lot of evidence for the natural advancement and retreat of glaciers from which there can be no doubt that Northern Europe is not as warm today as it was in Roman times, nor much of it as warm as it was in the Viking/Medieval Warm Period.
That being the case and given that that warming was all naturally driven, the retreat of glaciers does not prove that the recent post 1950 warming must have been enhanced by some anthropogenic cause. Maybe it has, but presently there is no scientific evidence that it has.
Richard Verney,
There is scientific evidence that it has, and I have presented it in this comment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/03/global-temperature-report-october-2015-warmest-october-in-the-satellite-temperature-record/#comment-2064403
It is currently awaiting moderation (?), but should be available shortly.
UAH Global temperatures.
1997 10 0.1
1997 11 0.09
1997 12 0.26
1998 1 0.49
1998 2 0.67
1998 3 0.48
1998 4 0.74
2015 6 0.33
2015 7 0.18
2015 8 0.28
2015 9 0.25
2015 10 0.43 C
Please note the values previously were generally higher in 2015 because the El Nino is now in it’s second year. This means despite higher immediate temperatures in the lower atmosphere more energy is lost from the Tropical upper oceans. Near continuous El Ninos would eventually lead to very significant losses in ocean energy in future. That means gradually the overturning and up welling of ocean currents will become increasingly cooler.
The current strong El Nino is around 2.5 months ahead compared with 1997/98 and this is reflected in satellite data. Hence, the strong El Nino now will likely peak this month (November) and global temperatures didn’t start to jump up in 1997 until December. This time it will likely peak around February 2016, whereas last time it peaked in April 1998. This does mean we should get 2 or 3 more months consecutively with increasingly higher temperatures than October’s 0.43 C.
So comparing both El Nino’s at roughly same stage of ENSO leads to October still being slightly warmer than average mid point between December and January.
I’m feelin that sameway too, without even looking at the data just me sitting here in the tropics looking at global weather patterns, this El Nino seems in its advanced end phase. add that to a meandering northern jet stream, and looks like a cliff drop within 2 months.
Why is it always the hottest month/year/decade everywhere except the United States, Canada, and Northern Europe?
Where there is excess heat?
The sudden upward jump in global temperature anomaly is also seen in the GFS based University of Maine (UM) Climate Change Institute (CCI) and WxBell estimates.
Daily UM CCI estimates showed a peak just as high back in March, but it did not sustain for a full month like the October peak. The preliminary daily estimates have slowly been trending downward going into November.
Glorious global weather changes.
Dr Christie said it in his intro, on top of a gentle warming trend. He was being kind! Although not quite aligned with the 98 event, 0.4 should have risen to circa 0.8 if the warming trend would have been 0.2 per decade as predicted. As it is we’ve had circa 0.03 rise over 17 years. Which is hardly even a trend of even 0.015 per decade. This a factor of nearly 100 magnitude wrong in sensitivity to co2.
Yup, Compared to the Little Ice Age which just ended in 1880. this is about s fearsome as wailing that August has been the warmest month since January. Congrats to those who want to perpetuate this stupid argument by getting down onto the soon to be frozen weeds with the CAGW crowd.
I’m concerned. (Sarc) The Earth is 4 billion years old…I’m a whopping 56 years old…my lifespan is known as a blink of a blink of an eye…and we just saw the warmest October in about 2/3rds of my lifetime. Hhhmmm… Really? Less than my lifespan? LOL. Recall that we had an ice age…..and what followed was a period so warm that prehistoric tree stumps are found where tundra is now. Seems to me we have no impact. Nature does as it pleases…
And we will probably have the coolest November, so efing what? Why is the NOAA hiding data and emails from congressional investigators, hmmmm? May be because is fudged data, and their HOAX may be exposed.