Some overheated rhetoric from Jonathan Overpeck

From the UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA and the “El Nino is just a heat vent for greenhouse gases” department.

Record jump in 2014-2016 global temperatures largest since 1900

Heat generated by greenhouse gas emissions and stored in the Pacific Ocean was released by the 2015-2016 El Niño, University of Arizona geoscientists found.

Global surface temperatures surged by a record amount from 2014 to 2016, boosting the total amount of warming since the start of the last century by more than 25 percent in just three years, according to new University of Arizona-led research.

2016 is officially the new warmest year on record, edging out previous record holder 2015 by 0.07°F, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2016 was the third year in a row that global average surface temperature set a new record. CREDIT NASA

“Our paper is the first one to quantify this jump and identify the fundamental reason for this jump,” said lead author Jianjun Yin, a UA associate professor of geosciences.

The Earth’s average surface temperature climbed about 1.6 degrees F (0.9 C) from 1900 to 2013.

By analyzing global temperature records, Yin and his colleagues found that by the end of 2016, the global surface temperature had climbed an additional 0.43 degrees F (0.24 C).

Co-author Jonathan Overpeck said, “As a climate scientist, it was just remarkable to think that the atmosphere of the planet could warm that much that fast.”

The spike in warming from 2014 to 2016 coincided with extreme weather events worldwide, including heat waves, droughts, floods, extensive melting of polar ice and global coral bleaching.

The new research shows that natural variability in the climate system is not sufficient to explain the 2014-2016 temperature increase, said co-author Cheryl Peyser, a UA doctoral candidate in geosciences.

In the current paper, the researchers also projected how frequent such big temperature spikes would be under four different greenhouse emission scenarios. Record-breaking temperature jumps and the accompanying extreme weather events will become more frequent unless greenhouse gas emissions decline, the team found.

Figuring out the mechanism for the temperature spike built on previous work by Peyser, Yin and others.

The earlier work showed that although the Earth’s surface warming had slowed from 1998 to 2013, heat from additional atmospheric greenhouse gases was being sequestered in the Pacific Ocean. The strong 2015-2016 El Niño roiled the ocean and released all the stored heat, causing a big jump in the Earth’s surface temperatures.

“Our research shows global warming is accelerating,” Yin said.

The research paper, “Big Jump of Record Warm Global Mean Surface Temperature in 2014-2016 Related to Unusually Large Oceanic Heat Releases,” by Yin, Overpeck, Peyser and Ronald Stouffer, a UA adjunct instructor in geosciences, is online in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. Overpeck is dean of the School for Environment and Sustainability at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

The Visiting Scientist Program of Princeton University, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Science Foundation funded the research.

In early 2017, Yin and Overpeck were having lunch at Wilko, a restaurant near the University of Arizona campus, and Yin mentioned how fast the globe was warming.

Overpeck said, “I knew it was warming a lot, but I was surprised at how much it warmed and surprised at his insight into the probable mechanism.”

The two scientists began brainstorming about expanding on Peyser and Yin’s previous work.

The researchers analyzed observations of global mean surface temperatures from 1850 to 2016, ocean heat content from 1955 to 2016, sea level records from 1948 to 2016 and records of the El Niño climate cycle and a longer climate cycle called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation — 15 different datasets in all.

The analysis showed the 0.43 F (0.24 C) global temperature increase from 2014 to 2016 was unprecedented in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Although some release of heat from the Pacific Ocean is normal during an El Niño, the researchers found much of the heat released in 2014-2015 was due to additional warming from increases in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Yin said, “The result indicates the fundamental cause of the large record-breaking events of global temperature was greenhouse-gas forcing rather than internal climate variability alone.”

The researchers also projected how often a 0.43 F (0.24 C) global temperature increase might occur in the 21st century depending on the amount of greenhouse gases emitted worldwide between now and 2100. The team used four representative concentration pathway, or RCP, models that project future climate change between 2006 and 2100.

For the low-emission RCP scenario in which greenhouse gas emissions peak by 2020 and decline thereafter, temperature jumps of at least 0.43 F (0.24 C) might occur from zero to one time in the 21st century, the team found.

For the highest-emission RCP scenario in which greenhouse gas emissions rise unabated throughout the 21st century, spikes of record warm temperatures would occur three to nine times by 2100. Under this scenario, such events would likely be warmer and longer than the 2014-2016 spike and have more severe impacts. The world is on track for one of the higher emission scenarios, Peyser said. Adapting to the increases in the frequency, magnitude and duration of rapid warming events projected by the higher emission scenario will be difficult, the scientists write.

Yin said, “If we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we can reduce the number of large record-breaking events in the 21st century — and also we can reduce the risk.”

###

The paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL076500/abstract

Big Jump of Record Warm Global Mean Surface Temperature in 2014-2016 Related to Unusually Large Oceanic Heat Releases

Jianjun Yin, Jonathan Overpeck, Cheryl Peyser, Ronald Stouffer

Abstract

A 0.24°C jump of record warm global mean surface temperature (GMST) over the past three consecutive record-breaking years (2014-2016) was highly unusual and largely a consequence of an El Niño that released unusually large amounts of ocean heat from the subsurface layer of the northwestern tropical Pacific (NWP). This heat had built up since the 1990s mainly due to greenhouse-gas (GHG) forcing and possible remote oceanic effects. Model simulations and projections suggest that the fundamental cause, and robust predictor of large record-breaking events of GMST in the 21st century is GHG forcing rather than internal climate variability alone. Such events will increase in frequency, magnitude and duration, as well as impact, in the future unless GHG forcing is reduced.


Now, when the temperature drops over the next year, what will they say?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
98 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 25, 2018 10:15 am

His basic reasoning is physically wrong. GHG cannot heat the ocean, they can only retard atmospheric cooling via long wave IR to space.. Oceans are only warmed by incoming solar short wave radiation.

Reply to  ristvan
January 25, 2018 11:49 am

100% correct; but the BBC will tell you otherwise. This paper is complete nonsense, because it’s the sun what did it.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
January 26, 2018 3:09 am

Even assuming the basic data are correct there seems to me a Grand Canyon-wide gap in the logic that takes them to the conclusion that CO2 is to blame.
All my math/science teachers drilled into me “always show your working”! Climate scientists never seem obliged to show theirs. Odd, that!

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
January 29, 2018 8:35 am

zero correct

RWturner
Reply to  ristvan
January 25, 2018 11:54 am

You don’t think CO2 is a conscious and deterministic being, capable of deciding where it heats and where it cools? Heretic.

Reply to  ristvan
January 25, 2018 12:15 pm

And Co2 doesn’t retard long wave enough to stop cooling at night, water vapor does.comment image
This is clear calm skies all night, and the temp difference doesn’t drop proportionally to the change in cooling rates.
You can see in net radiation the balance changes quickly, and the rate of cooling drops.comment image

Toneb
Reply to  micro6500
January 25, 2018 12:19 pm

“And Co2 doesn’t retard long wave enough to stop cooling at night, water vapor does.”
No CO2 does AS WELL.
But nice to see you still pedling your sky-dragon slaying physics micro.

Reply to  micro6500
January 25, 2018 2:19 pm

No Tone, They both do, but water reduces it’s output by the amount Co2 increased, Canceling Co2, because it’s function is fixed to dew point.
But that physics seems beyond your ability to comprehend.

ATheoK
Reply to  micro6500
January 25, 2018 2:54 pm

“Toneb January 25, 2018 at 12:19 pm

“And Co2 doesn’t retard long wave enough to stop cooling at night, water vapor does.”

No CO2 does AS WELL.
But nice to see you still pedling your sky-dragon slaying physics micro.”

You are the one peddling fallacies, toneb.
A pitiful 400ppm of CO2 working a minuscule sampling of infra red frequencies.
While comparatively vast amounts of water vapor, far exceeding CO2 miniscule 400ppm effect in even the driest environments.
Water is much more interactive, bent molecule versus straight molecule,.
Far greater volume of moisture, far greater range of infrared frequencies; water’s a whale in atmospheric effect; CO2 is a tiny mouse by comparison. And only within a few microns of CO2 interactive infra red frequencies.

Reply to  ATheoK
January 25, 2018 2:59 pm

More important is the energy stored as heat of evaporation, that’s what makes for nonlinear cooling rates, and because that is fixed a temperature it regulates to temperature.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  micro6500
January 25, 2018 2:56 pm

Toneb is correct. That’s why desert temps do not drop very much at night and why cold fronts that come across the Gulf of Mexico do not drop the sea surface temperature at all.

Hivemind
Reply to  micro6500
January 25, 2018 4:55 pm

“That’s why desert temps do not drop very much at night…”
That isn’t right. Desert temperatures can drop from being the highest temperatures on Earth during the day, to below freezing at night. They have the same amount of CO2, but nearly no moisture, demonstrating that it is the H2O that is controlling the temperature.

Reply to  Hivemind
January 25, 2018 4:58 pm

I think he was being sarcastic.

Editor
Reply to  micro6500
January 25, 2018 5:35 pm

I live in a semi desert of Eastern Washington where it can reach 100F in the day only to cool down to 55 at a clear night. A sign of low humidity.
I have been in the Philippines where it can be 92 in the day cooling down to 82 at a clear night. A sign of HIGH humidity.
Overpeck and his gang doesn’t know that much about the world we live in.

old construction worker
Reply to  micro6500
January 26, 2018 4:12 am

Tom in Florida: Toneb is correct. That’s why desert temps do not drop very much at night and why cold fronts that come across the Gulf of Mexico do not drop the sea surface temperature at all. That’s BS. Tom, I think you should check out Hi and Low temperatures in Yuma, AZ. It can be 100F during the day and drop down to 60’s during the night.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  micro6500
January 26, 2018 5:20 am

old construction worker January 26, 2018 at 4:12 am
Please refer to the remark of micro6500 January 25, 2018 at 4:58 pm above.

K. Kilty
Reply to  micro6500
January 26, 2018 8:21 am

Anyone who lives at high elevation and with generally dry air can attest to this–make ice at night when the air temperature is above 40F.

Toneb
Reply to  micro6500
January 27, 2018 7:20 am

“You are the one peddling fallacies, toneb.”
I am “peddling” empirical science.
The “fallacy” is inside your head – for no other reason than you do not like it.
I am to believe that you are correct and that ~150 years off observation/theory that has filed to find fault with that … is wrong, am I?
Yes, of course it is.
Stands to reason.
But if it makes you happy.
I believe you.
After all hand-waving assertion wins every time.

Reply to  Toneb
January 27, 2018 7:28 am

There’s data showing this tone you can’t ignore the actual data. Well I suppose that’s exactly what you’re doing.
Do you not understand that when there’s a potential difference, there well be a flow of energy unless it is blocked somehow. Well, we are measuring both the potential and the flow, and it isn’t what you think.
No hand waving, just physics. The same kind used to make all your electronics works. See I know how to use nonlinear devices to build more complex functions, including regulators. I spent 15 years as a simulation subject matter expert, and I was expected to solve circuits correctly so I could explain what the sum was saying and why.
You haven’t a fricking clue.

Toneb
Reply to  micro6500
January 27, 2018 7:29 am

“But that physics seems beyond your ability to comprehend.”
micro:
Remind me again why it is you can “comprehend” it.
While the world’s climate scientists cannot.
What special expertise do you have?

Reply to  Toneb
January 27, 2018 7:29 am

I just did.

Toneb
Reply to  ristvan
January 25, 2018 12:17 pm

“Oceans are only warmed by incoming solar short wave radiation.”
Correct …. if are using “warmed” in the literal sense.
However they are slowed down in cooling via DWLWIR…….
DWLWIR is extra energy directed at the ocean surface.
No thermodynamical process is 100% efficient.
It is not all redirected into greater evaporation.
There is turbulence present at the surface (unless you are proposing a glass-like surface over the entirety of oceans).
The extra heat is mixed down a few mill, which then reduces the deltaT between the warmer waters below by which the oceans heat escapes to space (as LWIR cannot be emitted by the body only at the surface via radiation and sensible/LH exchange). So the flux being reduced (2nd LoT ) less energy is available to escape.
This from Nick Stokes
https://moyhu.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/can-downwelling-infrared-warm-ocean.html
and
http://home.earthlink.net/~drdrapp/ocean.heating.v3.pdf
and
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JC004825/pdf
In short the effect works, (as does the atmospheric GHE), by the reduction in cooling.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Toneb
January 25, 2018 12:26 pm

Extra energy, extra energy. Why does this bother me? Hmmmm. Where does the “extra energy” come from? If it was already absorbed and reradiated, is it truly extra? Is it truly extra energy, or just a point on a decaying trip back and forth?

Reply to  Toneb
January 25, 2018 12:48 pm

The amount of DWLWIR from Co2 has gone up a little bit, but it also represents only a tiny impact to the energy balance, and because water vapor is fixed to Temp and pressure, it responds with a negative feedback through a decrease in DWLWIR from WV. The temp in the morning is dependent on WV, and independent of Co2.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Toneb
January 25, 2018 4:37 pm

Toneb, may you sleep out under a dry, high-altitude desert sky without a shirt and freeze your nipples off.
At first you’ll be like “hey, this desert is awesome, so warm when the sun goes down. And ese stars are awesome. You can’t see this many stars where I live. I should have done this a long time ago. But then later you’ll be all like “man, my nipples are getting cold, i wish I’d brought a shirt.”

Toneb
Reply to  Toneb
January 26, 2018 12:08 am

“Extra energy, extra energy. Why does this bother me? Hmmmm. Where does the “extra energy” come from? If it was already absorbed and reradiated, is it truly extra? Is it truly extra energy, or just a point on a decaying trip back and forth?”
Jim:
It comes from the fact that there is a “retardation” in the outgoing side of the equation….
Energy in must = energy out
Solar SW is continually impacting Earth, arriving through the atmosphere, shall we say instantaneously.
Energy leaves via LWIR which cannot leave instantaneously (GHE).
That small amount of time that LWIR is “held up” in its escape to space is where the “extra energy” comes from.
Some addition to the “energy in” equation that is not equalised by the “energy out” side and so via the SB equation the Earth’s temperature rises to match.

Reply to  Toneb
January 26, 2018 4:59 am

Tone, thats utter nonsense.
There is an imbalance of energy as it’s stored as warm water and water vapor, but this idea that co2 retards emission is just stupid, and goes to show you have no understanding of the physics involved.

AndyG55
Reply to  Toneb
January 26, 2018 12:16 am

““retardation” ”
NO, there is not.
There is ZERO proof of any retardation…… except as shown by your comments
A tiny thin band is absorbed then thermalised to the rest of the lower atmosphere where convection, advection and conduction rule.
CO2 acts just as another conduit for atmospheric cooling.
There is absolutely NO CO2 warming signature in the whole of the satellite data era.
NONE, NADA…….. The sack is EMPTY !!

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Toneb
January 26, 2018 7:33 am

I’m sorry but retardation is not “extra energy”. If it was, you would have a build up of energy that never stopped and in warmist terms, you would have a tipping point where warming would continue unabated and in a short time everything would boil. Here is the deal, the earth (land or water) absorbs a unit of energy thus heating up, it then reradiates the energy thereby cooling down. A molecule of CO2 absorbs the reradiated energy thus heating up, and then reradiates it thereby cooling down. Everything balances. What your doing with ‘retardation’ is only going part way on the energy balance system and then saying, look warming!

Toneb
Reply to  Toneb
January 27, 2018 7:00 am

“Tone, thats utter nonsense.
There is an imbalance of energy as it’s stored as warm water and water vapor, but this idea that co2 retards emission is just stupid, and goes to show you have no understanding of the physics involved.”
Oh, how I larfed.
Micro and the other one.
If you say so.

Toneb
Reply to  Toneb
January 27, 2018 7:13 am

“I’m sorry but retardation is not “extra energy””
OK:
You have a water tank with 10 gals/hour flowing into it.
For balance water in must equal water out, else the tank will either deplete or overflow.
IE: 10 in = 10 out.
So you then “retard” the outflow by making it just 9 gals/hour.
You still put in ten so the tank measures an imbalance of an additional 1 gal/hr as there is only 9 going out.
And the water content rises.
A retardation in the FLOW, caused by a time constraint on the outflow = extra water in the system.
Extra energy in the climate system ….. which the oceans arestoring ~93% of.
Oh, BTW: I don’t expect you to understand that basic premise
Because no doubt you do not accept the empirical physics of the GHE.
And if you did your cognitive dissonance would explode your heads.

Reply to  Toneb
January 27, 2018 11:15 am

You have a water tank with 10 gals/hour flowing into it.
For balance water in must equal water out, else the tank will either deplete or overflow.
IE: 10 in = 10 out.
So you then “retard” the outflow by making it just 9 gals/hour.
You still put in ten so the tank measures an imbalance of an additional 1 gal/hr as there is only 9 going out.
And the water content rises.
A retardation in the FLOW, caused by a time constraint on the outflow = extra water in the system.
Extra energy in the climate system ….. which the oceans arestoring ~93% of.
Oh, BTW: I don’t expect you to understand that basic premise
Because no doubt you do not accept the empirical physics of the GHE.
And if you did your cognitive dissonance would explode your heads.

So here’s your problem, there’s more than one hole on the bucket, and they both vary differently.
There is always, as long as it’s clear, and even then from the cloud tops it’s clear to space, there is about 30% of the energy out, constant. That’s the optical window from 8-14u, other than the 10u water lines, but it’s right in the peak of room temp BB spectrum. This acts independently from the other bands with noncondensing GHG’s, which are different than condensing GHG’s.comment image
So when I measure -50F, with air temps of 50F, there’s a 100F difference, about 25-30W/m^2.comment image
Co 2 doesn’t do anything in this band. Absolute humidity varies it some, say the difference between a 60F delta to over 100F delta. But it doesn’t drop much, so if co2 blocks energy to space, and there’s a 30W/m^2 leak, and the temp isn’t falling with a 80F delta, there is something else happening, and in this case, condensing WV gives up energy to supplement surface energy as it’s being lost to space, but it only gives up enough to not drop below dew point.
You can see that here in net radiation.comment image

It is what keeps WV from doing that.

LOL
No, there’s an endless supply of more water vapor being evaporated.
And they do work in concert, they adjust to each other, they just don’t add up to more. Why is it so hard to get that?

Toneb
Reply to  Toneb
January 27, 2018 7:25 am

“Toneb, may you sleep out under a dry, high-altitude desert sky without a shirt and freeze your nipples off.”
So?
Of course WV is a GHG.
Climate science knows that full well.
However so is CO2.
Like I said, the two act together.
Without it your desert night-time would get a whole lot colder.
No least because as it does not condense out as does WV with an atmospheric life-cycle of around 10 days.
It is what keeps WV from doing that.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Lacis_la09300d.pdf

MarkW
Reply to  ristvan
January 25, 2018 12:25 pm

However, warmer air will retard how quickly the heat put into the ocean by the sun escapes.

Brett Keane
Reply to  MarkW
January 25, 2018 2:03 pm

MW, evaporation and its associated cooling bypasses any radiative bottling effects. Leading to the nightly overturning of the surface waters of the top c.100m IIRC. This bypassing, also applied elsewhere, is why ‘Radiativisti’ are missing the truth.
But they have nothing else to cling to.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
January 25, 2018 2:41 pm

Before evaporation rates can increase, the water has to first warm up.

Judy Cross
Reply to  ristvan
January 25, 2018 3:03 pm

Undersea volcanoes are probably a greater cause of ocean heating.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  ristvan
January 25, 2018 3:16 pm

Right. The oceans are the great reservoir of thermal energy on this planet. Their heat capacity exceeds that of the atmosphere by a factor of 1000, and of CO2 by 2,500,000. The oceans determine what the climate is.

Editor
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
January 25, 2018 5:27 pm

It appears that Overpeck and his gang, completely left out the sun and cloud factors in their modeling scenarios.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
January 26, 2018 5:38 am

re: Sunsettommy January 25, 2018 at 5:27 pm
They certainly have. It is quite obvious that sunlight activates the heat trapping quality of CO2. That is why in daylight when the sunlight hits the CO2 molecules they trap more heat making it warmer in the day. At night when there is no more sunlight the CO2 molecules are less active and the air cools. The same goes for why it is warmer in the summer with longer daylight hours and colder in the winter. with less daylight hours.

Editor
Reply to  ristvan
January 25, 2018 5:23 pm

Well he shot his own foot with this thumper:
“Co-author Jonathan Overpeck said, “As a climate scientist, it was just remarkable to think that the atmosphere of the planet could warm that much that fast.”
Gee he doesn’t realize how little capacity the atmosphere has in absorbing energy/heat as compared to just top part of the ocean for capacity.
He gets even worse with this obvious lie:
“The earlier work showed that although the Earth’s surface warming had slowed from 1998 to 2013, heat from additional atmospheric greenhouse gases was being sequestered in the Pacific Ocean. The strong 2015-2016 El Niño roiled the ocean and released all the stored heat, causing a big jump in the Earth’s surface temperatures.”
They don’t want you to know that there is a NET flow of CO2 to the atmosphere, not only that the ocean waters already have 99.98% of free CO2 of the system in it.
ristvan is correct, it is incoming SOLAR radiation that is the dominant cause of ocean warming.
They are insulting the idea of credible intelligent science research.

feliksch
Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 26, 2018 11:35 am

That is a nice sentence, so full of scientific insight: “The strong 2015-2016 El Niño roiled the ocean and released all the stored heat, causing a big jump in the Earth’s surface temperatures.”
I, admittedly a registered layman, always thought: It gets warmer and that is called “El Nino” if the origin is in the pacific. Now i’m told that little Mr. Nino comes out of his hole, stirs the pacific and drives heat out which raises the air-temperature. Why does Mr. Nino do this?

Reply to  feliksch
January 26, 2018 11:54 am

Now i’m told that little Mr. Nino comes out of his hole, stirs the pacific and drives heat out which raises the air-temperature. Why does Mr. Nino do this?

Maxwell’s demon has now been named!

Reply to  feliksch
January 26, 2018 12:00 pm

What he really does is move warm tropical water upwind to North America, where water laden warm tropical air is blown across the US to cool.

Reply to  ristvan
January 29, 2018 8:36 am

GHGs do not retard atmospheric cooling. That is a total crock.

ShrNfr
January 25, 2018 10:16 am

It’s wurst than we thought.

chadb
January 25, 2018 10:16 am

“Now, when the temperature drops over the next year, what will they say?”
Easy: “Hide the decline”

Andy Pattullo
Reply to  chadb
January 25, 2018 10:27 am

The heat will be hiding in a place that nobody can visit or measure, along with the logic that underpins global climate models.

Fred Brohn
Reply to  chadb
January 25, 2018 2:31 pm

The ocean ate it.

ResourceGuy
January 25, 2018 10:16 am

At this rate they are dangerously close to discovering the AMO. sarc

Latitude
Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 25, 2018 10:31 am

LOL…..+1

Sara
January 25, 2018 10:18 am

Overheated rhetoric is a kind way to describe it.

ResourceGuy
January 25, 2018 10:24 am

Memo to Griff and other silo thinkers

El Duchy
January 25, 2018 10:28 am

What happened to the 1930s? Much warmer than any decade in the last 100 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere. When these ‘experts’ declare a year (2017) warmer then they should post a list of all the sites they took temperatures from and what those temperatures were. A made-up graph proves nothing.

Editor
Reply to  El Duchy
January 25, 2018 10:45 am
ATheoK
Reply to  Paul Homewood
January 25, 2018 3:03 pm

Thank you Paul!

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Paul Homewood
January 25, 2018 9:40 pm

Trump should have everyone fired at the top of NOAA and start criminal proceedings against them.

tom s
Reply to  El Duchy
January 25, 2018 2:17 pm

They’re shysters and assholes with little scientific methodology. In otherwords…THEY SUCK!

El Duchy
January 25, 2018 10:29 am

Why is it never warm wherever I happen to be – Portugal, Canada, UK.?

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  El Duchy
January 25, 2018 12:11 pm

Are you Al Gore’s personal assistant? Find a new job!

AndyG55
January 25, 2018 10:38 am

“largest since 1900”
Oh, ok, so there was a larger jump before 1900, when CO2 was at pre-industrial levels.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  AndyG55
January 25, 2018 10:45 am

Pay no attention to that Assistant Professor Wizard behind the curtain.

TA
January 25, 2018 10:52 am

It looks to me like there are quite a few years equal to or greater than 2014 and 2015, if you go by the UAH satellite chart:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2017_v6.jpg

taxed
January 25, 2018 10:58 am

So two years of weather has now become climate has it. ?

Bryan
January 25, 2018 11:06 am

Did anybody tell Kevin Trenberth yet?

David Wells
January 25, 2018 11:12 am

Education education education waste of time and money

TERRY
January 25, 2018 11:15 am

One thing i know is that for every Yin there must be a Yang. Sorry couldn’t resist.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  TERRY
January 25, 2018 12:27 pm

I was going to ask Yang has to say about this, I am sure his opinion is opposed to Yan’s.

Anthony Mills
January 25, 2018 11:21 am

Ristvan: GHG increases the sky emissivty and hence the amount of LW radiation received by the ocean surface.Basic radiation physics.Examine the ocean surface energy balance .

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Latitude
January 25, 2018 9:48 pm

If you go to your link and read both the main text on the left AND the disclaimer box on the right you will begin to understand that the main text on the left is all bullshit because it is based on computer models.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Anthony Mills
January 25, 2018 11:48 am

You ignore the real mover of heat evaporation and updrafts. The radiation balance is epiphenomenal.

Gunga Din
January 25, 2018 11:43 am

From the UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA and the “El Nino is just a heat vent for greemhouse gases” department.

Just pointing out a typo.
(I’m intimately familiar with those little buggers!8-)
(Fixed) MOD

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Gunga Din
January 25, 2018 12:25 pm

Please Anthony: an edit function.

knr
January 25, 2018 11:52 am

stored in the Pacific Ocean, next to the UFO’s and Atlantis, the very best part of the deep ocean is that is so deep you can claim a great deal of things are ‘hidden ‘ in it knowing its hard to prove you ‘dead wrong ‘ . So ideal for ‘climate science’

CD in Wisconsin
January 25, 2018 12:02 pm

Quote: “….By analyzing global temperature records, Yin and his colleagues found that by the end of 2016, the global surface temperature had climbed an additional 0.43 degrees F (0.24 C).
Co-author Jonathan Overpeck said, “As a climate scientist, it was just remarkable to think that the atmosphere of the planet could warm that much that fast.”…’
Quote from RealClimate:
“…..As a conclusion, over the last couple of years, there has now been growing evidence that an event similar to the [Younger Dryas] is not “unique” but instead is a common theme across various deglacial events; this provides evidence against the necessity for a “catastrophic trigger,” and while it may be the case that a comet or some other catastrophe occurs at each termination, that seems improbable…..”.
if the YD was not result of a catastrophic event, the warming during the recovery from it (10 degrees in a decade from what I’ve read???) certainly was natural. Thus, with the statements from the author above, he is not putting the current warming into the perspective of the paleoclimatic history of the Earth. Comments?

RWturner
January 25, 2018 12:04 pm

Our paper is the first one to quantify this jump and identify the fundamental reason for this jump…Model simulations and projections suggest that the fundamental cause…

They literally think that models provide evidence of how the physical world works. Pretty soon, the models well show that the data needs more adjusting.

4 Eyes
Reply to  RWturner
January 25, 2018 2:56 pm

We’re the first! We’re the first! We deserve more funding.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  RWturner
January 25, 2018 9:57 pm

This isnt funny anymore. Im starting to get really pissed off over the bad science of AGW. It is starting to cost us all big money because of the new carbon taxes. The greenies even want to tax meat. THey even got funding to study the carbon footprint of sandwiches. I never thought I would see the day when we are living in the land of OZ. Agggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggh

Edwin
January 25, 2018 12:28 pm

Way back when I was in school in the last century I was taught that El Ninos had first been recorded by the Spanish several hundred years ago. Native Americans were probably affected by what is now called the ENSO phenomenon for centuries prior to that. Suddenly it is somehow related to GHGs. I vote to cut all university research funding by half next year, require every professor to teach full time and require every student to take courses in formal logic, Western Philosophy and real history.

ATheoK
Reply to  Edwin
January 25, 2018 3:06 pm

+100!

January 25, 2018 1:18 pm

So I suppose rising GHGs also cause La Ninas to be less negative. A Testable prediction if their hypothesis is true.

D. J. Hawkins
January 25, 2018 1:35 pm

Where are all the ENSO oscillations in the long term record? The peak for 1998 and 2016 are obvious enough, but why nothing much discernible before about 1988? Insufficient data?

Hivemind
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
January 25, 2018 5:05 pm

It was only relatively recently that we had enough knowledge about the mechanism that we could monitor the ENSO. That’s why we don’t have direct data on it before then. However, if you’re looking at the temperature record, the PDO should have pushed the world’s temperature up in the 1930’s, but it has been deleted from the NOAA records because it didn’t fit the narrative.

January 25, 2018 2:07 pm

“2017 was the warmest of any of the years that we bothered to look at”…….and that was none from the 1930s! If we say it was warmer, then it was warmer (than something).

tom s
January 25, 2018 2:11 pm

The warmer the better. I hope we gain another 3-4C before I die.

Cube
Reply to  tom s
January 28, 2018 6:10 pm

Where is all the promised warm? It’s been colder than my ex-wife’s heart here in the NE US.

Hivemind
January 25, 2018 4:51 pm

“…researchers also projected how frequent such big temperature spikes would be under four different greenhouse emission scenarios.”
But a projection is a prediction made by extending a trend line based on previous data. You cannot have four different projections because you only have one set of data.

kramer
January 25, 2018 5:39 pm

What is going on with his emails? Thought they were going to be released last year?

BallBounces
January 25, 2018 6:29 pm

The biggest potential calamity climate researchers could ever face would be reduced CO2 levels, a levelling off of temperatures, and an abatement of the “crisis”. I suspect they love being in imminent disaster mode, coming up with every more unlikely and tenuous scenarios.

willhaas
January 25, 2018 6:45 pm

Clearly the warming during other warm periods during the Holocene which were warmer than this one could have possible been caused by Mankinds burning of fossil fuels. The previous interglacial period, the Eemian, was warmer than this one with higher sea levels and more ice cap melting and could not possible have been caused by man’s burning of fossil fuels more than 150,000 years ago. It was not Man;s burning of fossil fuels that caused the end of the last ice age or the ice ages before that.

homeys44
January 25, 2018 9:05 pm

Good to see that alarmists are now admitting to the warming “steps” and admitting that they must be CO2 driven if their CAGW theories are at all valid. Thats the entire ball game at this point. Hopefully others will write papers on whether they agree or disagree with what this Overpeck paper has boldly laid out. We’ll also see if the Pause deniers fall in line with these new theories.

dennisambler
January 26, 2018 2:33 am
K. Kilty
Reply to  dennisambler
January 26, 2018 8:32 am

And you will note in the article that he “co-authored a Nobel Prize-winning report”. They just keep nibbling around the edges of misrepresenting the prize, don’t they?

michael hart
January 26, 2018 9:12 am

“As a climate scientist, it was just remarkable to think that the atmosphere of the planet could warm that much that fast.”

As everyone knows, it was not at all remarkable. Something very similar happened around the 1998 El Nino.
The only thing remarkable is that Jonathan Overpeck can apparently say that with a straight face. Not only do climate scientists not care about being truthful, they obviously don’t care that anyone can see them being manifestly untruthful in public. In some ways, Overpeck reminds me slightly of Nicolae Ceaușescu speaking to the crowds on 21 December 1989, shortly before the situation developed not necessarily to Ceaușescu’s advantage”

Gunga Din
January 26, 2018 9:16 am

Anytime anyone talks about “a record” this or that, one must ask himself, “Is this ‘record’ number what was actually observed at the time and place or has this ‘record’ number been adjusted by a person or a person’s computer program?”.
The data should be the foundation of an hypothesis is built upon. If the hypothesis is “wobbly”, change the hypothesis, not the foundation.

Yogi Bear
January 27, 2018 5:04 pm

“Such events will increase in frequency, magnitude and duration, as well as impact, in the future unless GHG forcing is reduced.”
That fully contradicts IPCC models, which predict increasing positive AO/NAO with rising greenhouse gas forcing, and positive AO/NAO is directly associated with faster trade winds.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html

%d bloggers like this: