Forecast suggests Earth’s warmest period on record

From the good ol’ UEA  <—- I suggest you check out link~ctm 

Public Release: 6-Feb-2019

Forecast suggests Earth’s warmest period on record

University of East Anglia

192123_web

Temperature figures table  Credit: Met Office

The forecast for the global average surface temperature for the five-year period to 2023 is predicted to be near or above 1.0 °C above pre-industrial levels, says the Met Office. If the observations for the next five years track the forecast that would make the decade from 2014 to 2023 the warmest run of years since records began.

Today’s figures released by the Met Office include data from a number of sources including the latest publication of provisional figures for 2018 and the publication of the latest Met Office decadal forecast to 2023.

Records for annual global average temperature extend back to 1850.

Professor Adam Scaife, Head of Long-Range Prediction at the Met Office said: “2015 was the first year that global annual average surface temperatures reached 1.0 °C above pre-industrial levels and the following three years have all remained close to this level. The global average temperature between now and 2023 is predicted to remain high, potentially making the decade from 2014 the warmest in more than 150 years of records.”

Averaged over the five-year period 2019-2023, forecast patterns suggest enhanced warming is likely over much of the globe, especially over land and at high northern latitudes, particularly the Arctic region.

Dr Doug Smith, Met Office Research Fellow said, “A run of temperatures of 1.0 °C or above would increase the risk of a temporary excursion above the threshold of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. Predictions now suggest around a 10 per cent chance of at least one year between 2019 and 2023 temporarily exceeding 1.5 °C.”

Alongside this forecast, 2018 is today cited to be nominally the fourth warmest year on record globally in data released by the Met Office, at 0.91±0.1°C above the long-term pre-industrial average. It follows 2015, 2016 and 2017, which are the three warmest years in the 169-year record of the HadCRUT4 dataset.

Professor Tim Osborn, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, which co-produces the HadCRUT4 global temperature figures with the Met Office Hadley Centre, said: “The warmth of 2018 is in line with the long-term warming trend driven by the world’s emissions of greenhouse gases.”

The effects of climate change are not limited to surface temperature. Warming of the climate system is seen across a range of climate indicators that build a picture of global changes occurring across the land, atmosphere, oceans and ice.

The Met Office decadal forecast show that global average surface temperatures may be close to reaching 1.5 °C, but this would be a temporary exceedance rather than the climatological level of warming in the Paris 1.5 °C threshold.

EurekAlert!

###

 

111 thoughts on “Forecast suggests Earth’s warmest period on record

    • I live in a near north suburb of Chicago. Last Tuesday the thermometer in my backyard read 24 degrees Fahrenheit below zero. Same old winter as always.

      • “the decade from 2014 to 2023 the warmest run of years since records began.”

        So effing what?

        The planet is 4 BILLION YEARS old and we have a surface record for say 150 years of which only the last 30 or so are from a fit for purpose instrument system.

        This is just more marketing schlock from UAE, the people who snickered about Mike’s Nature Trick and helped Hide the Decline.

        • I mean seriously, do they really expect us to believe they have a serious accurate global temperature in 1850? Who believes this crud?

          • Quite a few of our trolls do.

            They will tell you with utmost conviction that we can calculate the temperature of the earth to a tenth of a degree, from a few dozen thermometers, read twice a day and recorded to the nearest degree and concentrated almost entirely in central Europe and the east coast of the US and Canada.

        • That 2014 to 2023 warming would be based on 2014-2018 homoginized surface temperature data combined with 2019-2023 climate model runs. Would you beleive that prediction? I’ve got a bridge for sale . . . .

    • Misleading as usual since the warming TREND is well within past natural variations, and well below the IPCC’s per decade warming rate prediction/projection they first brought up over 25 years ago.

  1. They do not believe much in extrapolation, but they believe in forecasts longer that 6 days, which they have not been good at so far, apart from the Russian model. So, is it anything other than a political forecast?

  2. A forecast from the UK Met office? I now fully expect the actual temperature to be 1C BELOW “pre-industrial” levels.

  3. Oz to Dorothy “Pay no attention to that 1.5C behind the curtain.”
    ObiWan to the Emperical Storm Troopers “This is not the 1.5C you’re looking for.”

    The Met Office decadal forecast show that global average surface temperatures may be close to reaching 1.5 °C, but this would be a temporary exceedance rather than the climatological level of warming in the Paris 1.5 °C threshold.

  4. 1-1.5 °C warmer than pre-industrial wouldn’t be Earth’s warmest period of the Holocene Epoch, the Quaternary Period, Cenozoic Era or any other pre-industrial “period on record.”

  5. Dr Doug Smith, Met Office Research Fellow said, “A run of temperatures of 1.0 °C or above would increase the risk of a temporary excursion above the threshold of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. Predictions now suggest around a 10 per cent chance of at least one year between 2019 and 2023 temporarily exceeding 1.5 °C.”

    Hear, hear !
    I’m looking forward to more than the 10 per cent chance and more than just one year.
    Warm is good, cold is bad.

    • No it’s not.

      The monthly variations are due to surface water temp and vegetation experiencing summer and winter. The decadal variations are because vegetation and the ocean sink only half the emissions. The other half (China, if you will) is not sinking immediately.

  6. To win the debate with the general public skeptics must starting using the average Earth’s temperature not just the amount the average has or will increased or decreased. Telling folks we are going to increase from 58.3 degrees F (14.6 C) to 59 degrees is far better at presenting the story than saying a 1 degree increase. The AGW crowd really want the uninformed to believe that the climate will become so hot that the world will end if we don’t do something, and do something immediately.

    The Green New Deal is an opportunity to demonstrate just how out of touch the entire movement is with reality.

  7. Many of the colder parts of the world will welcome a two or three degree Celsius increase in averages. This will favour better harvests, less spent on heating and more pleasant outdoor conditions. Strange I never hear these benefits listed by alarmists. Having lived in six different climatic zones, including one where many days in the summer were above 40°C, a two, three and even four degree increase in temperature is no big deal. With proper irrigation we lived comfortably and coped with the hottest days.

    • The global temperature increases are caused by the warm polar winters, which are caused by warm ocean cycles. This accounts for most of the high anomalies on a daily basis. Keep in mind that 20 deg C warmer than “normal” (?) at polar latitudes is still well below freezing, but the anomalies are real so they count towards the global anomaly and outweigh the 5 deg below normal temps where we live. North of the Antarctic circle to the Arctic circle the temperatures haven’t raised considerably, with the nighttime lows being the only considerable upward trend.

      How an increase from 3 molecules of CO2 in every 10K molecules of atmosphere to 4 in 10K can warm the oceans so quickly when they contain 99.9% of the planetary heat and the atmosphere only .1% is the question warmists can’t answer. The oceans have to be warming from another cause, or simply releasing heat that has been stored there previously. We aren’t controlling the world’s air temperatures, no need for changing the world order.

      Most people I explain this to thank me.

  8. Is this the same MET office that is infamous for “getting it wrong” on their seasonal forecasts? and we are to believe they can get it “right” for anything longer term? seriously?

  9. “Records for annual global average temperature extend back to 1850.”

    ****************

    What…..a…….crock.

    • “The warmth of 2018 is in line with the long-term warming trend driven by the world’s emissions of greenhouse gases.”

      Uh, the Holocene shows a cooling trend. It will take a lot (or alot) of CO2 to push us above the Holocene Climate Optimum.

    • ……and

      forecast patterns suggest enhanced warming is likely over much of the globe, especially over land and at high northern latitudes, particularly the Arctic region.

      Be afraid; be very afraid!!

      I wonder if it is too late to jump on the GND bandwagon!!

  10. With China’s and India’s CO2 emissions accelerating (an acceleration that makes anything the US or Europe can do on emissions completely meaningless), the climate scientists are rightly scared that the global temps will not cooperate with the model projections.

    The End of the Climate Hustle is nigh.

    • But like newspaper “apologies” and “corrections” it isn’t what they say then that the punters hear and believe but what they say now. And if you continue to forecast doom that us what people will believe.

      Edwin (above) is right. We need to talk in real temperatures and we need to start nagging the scientists into being specific. What is this “pre-industrial average” they keep bleatimg about? Put a number on it, Professor Osborn. And how does that compare with the peak of the MWP or the depths of the LIA?

      They are talking in figures too small for living beings to bother with, temperature differences which animals and plants cannot experience. When I can vary a local temperature reading by 0.5°C by moving the sensor two feet or when the temperature variation in my garden can be from 28° in the shade behind the big fir tree and 45° in the sun trap beside the garage, their two places of decimals anomalies make precious little sense in the real world.

      And they know it. But as long as we let them get away with it …

  11. “2015 was the first year that global annual average surface temperatures reached 1.0 °C above pre-industrial levels….”. Pre- industrial levels are actually the same as The Little Ice Age levels is it not?

        • So what we have to too is to compare todays temperatures with the Pre-Little- Ice Age, The Warm Middle Age, temperatures?

        • There is no precise date for the end of the LIA (nor for its beginning). I would place its end at 1840. After several volcanic eruptions in the 1830s.

        • “Industrial Revolution, in modern history, the process of change from an agrarian and handicraft economy to one dominated by industry and machine manufacturing. This process began in Britain in the 18th century and from there spread to other parts of the world. Although used earlier by French writers, the term Industrial Revolution was first popularized by the English economic historian Arnold Toynbee (1852–83) to describe Britain’s economic development from 1760 to 1840. Since Toynbee’s time the term has been more broadly applied.” – Encyclopedia Britannica

      • But the Industrial Revolution began circa 1760. Other than the CET, what records are there that far back such that anyone can talk about a “pre-Industrial Level”?

    • “2015 was the first year that global annual average surface temperatures reached 1.0 °C ”

      So they are still trying to count the recent El Nino as part of climate.

  12. “Records for annual global average temperature extend back to 1850.”

    I call BS. There can’t possibly be any meaningfully accurate records that far back. It’s a guess at best cobbled together from woefully inadequate fragments of data taken from uncontrolled conditions/methods/instruments.

    Some locations/areas may go back reasonably reliably that far, but the globe – Pffft.

    • In 1850 the USA contained 31 states and 4 territories, Stanley didn’t find Livingstone until 1871, the Trans Siberian Railway wasn’t started until 1891, Burke and Wills crossed Australia from 1861. So large tracts of the world were unexplored in 1850 so anyone who claims that a global temperature was known in 1850 is a cheat, liar and charlatan, anyone who believes them is either gullible beyond credibility or a politician.

      • Yes, as I admit to alarmists when they try to smear me as being a climate denier (whatever the hell THAT is): I admit to the science that says the majority of recent global warming is man-made.

        “Oh, that’s GREAT”, they’ll answer, believing they’ve converted me to their religion.

        “So, would you like to discuss what I mean by those four words?”, I will reply, with the same enthusiasm my dog shows for a squirrel in the middle of the dogpark?

        “Huh?”, they reply.

        “Well, lets start with “recent”, then we’ll move to “global”, then “warming”. The “man-made” might take some time…

      • It is called kriging, and with a few measurements here and there you can get a trusty global average. I hear they are now extending the record to the first Homo sapiens.

          • But is is a very useful technique when used properly, which requires skills and long experience. Geoff.

          • Yes, it’s easy to fudge, ESPECIALLY when you lack ANY DATA at all from vast areas of the Earth’s surface, over land or water for years at a time.

            And it is the height of folly to believe the results of all this interpolation can result in numbers claiming accuracy to the hundredth of a degree.

  13. Good! We need some more of that old fashioned global warming. It’s shaping up to be a long, cold boring winter. After the adjustments, I am sure it will wind up being the 2nd or 3rd warmest winter on record.

  14. Oh dear, with temperatures 1.0 °C above pre-industrial levels, how terrible life is. So many more people enjoying life compared to what it was back in 1850. They had no catastrophes back then, but they labored away and died young.

  15. This “since pre-industrial levels” is a very clever new gimmick on the part of the alarmists. I’ve seen it for maybe a month now.
    WUWT readers will know that temperatures are now referenced to the coldest period in the last thousand years, maybe even the past 14 000 years.

    But the general public has no clue. They will be fooled. This gimmick will be very successful.

  16. “The warmth of 2018 is in line with the long-term warming trend driven by the world’s emissions of greenhouse gases …”.
    ================================================
    That statement is a half-truth: “… a deceptive statement that includes some element of truth …” probably self-deception as well as to deceive the public.
    As is well recognised the global greenhouse emissions before 1945 were relatively insignificant …
    https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/images/global_fossil_carbon_emissions_google_chart.jpg
    … and therefore cannot be credited for the global warming ~1910 -> ~1945:
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/hadcrut4_annual_global.png

  17. With the AMO heading into negative territory soon, a solar minimum and the distinct possibility of a multi-year La Nina …… these dudes are not going to be happy when the exact opposite of what they are predicting plays out. That is far more likely than their prediction. They would need another super El Nino to have a chance.

    If the PDO were to also go negative then the only question will be how low do we go.

  18. This is all very interesting when one considers that Adam Scaife, the head of long range prediction at the Met Office stated in October 2018: “the Met Office has stopped issuing seasonal forecasts. This is because it’s hard to predict with any level of local detail what the conditions of a season will be in the future. The Met Office now issues long-range weather forecasts, about a month into the future. These look at the UK as a whole, rather than focusing on specific regions.” Either they can predict or they can’t, which is it?

    • “Either they can predict or they can’t, which is it?”

      The UKMO is a meteorological forecasting organisation.
      Ergo they forecast the weather (can predict it) … as far as it can be with a reasonable prob of success.
      Climate is NOT weather.
      They are not trying to predict (wouldn’t be that anyway as we do not know the future direction we will take with CO2 emissions) climate in the sense of it’s future weather.
      “Climate” projections are necessarily limited to global average temp projections.
      There can then be speculation via modeling of the regional weather that may go along with that.

  19. They have yet to provide any evidence that rising 1.5C above the depths of the LIA would be disastrous.

    They just keep repeating the magic mantra over and over again.

  20. You do understand that the True Science Believers (not that they actually know anything about science, they just like to use the word) believe that we’ve had thermometers accurate to the tenth of a degree, everywhere (even in the oceans) since…well, forever.

  21. “Professor Adam Scaife, Head of Long-Range Prediction…”
    What a fantastic title, straight from Orwell!

  22. Accepting that the “record” goes back 170 years or so, I still assert that the word renders the statement meaningless.

    The earth is 4.5 billion years old. 170 years is about one minute out of a lifetime. The correct response to the assertion is: “So What?”.

    • “Another new study has found that the IPCC’s 2013 (2 metres by 2100) SLR claims are just more exaggerated nonsense.”

      The IPCC does not “claim” that at all.

      And as such you have the implications of the study precisely backwards (as regards the AR5 consensus) …..

      “The findings suggest a LARGER contribution from Antarctica than the IPCC’s fifth assessment report (AR5), explains Dr Nick Golledge, associate professor at Victoria University of Wellington’s Antarctic Research Centre and lead author of the paper. He tells Carbon Brief:

      https://www.carbonbrief.org/studies-shed-new-light-on-antarcticas-future-contribution-to-sea-level-rise

      “AR5 gave mean contributions for 2081-2100 of 4cm from Antarctica and 12cm from Greenland. In our new study, we suggest 14cm from Antarctica and 11cm from Greenland at 2100, so an increase to the Antarctic term and just above the upper bound of the AR5 uncertainty range (-6 cm to 12 cm).”

      From: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

      Global mean SL rise in 2100 Antarctic ice sheet contribution
      SRES A1B 0.60 [0.42 to 0.80] 0.04 [–0.05 to 0.13]
      RCP2.6 0.44 [0.28 to 0.61] 0.05 [–0.03 to 0.14]
      RCP4.5 0.53 [0.36 to 0.71] 0.05 [–0.04 to 0.13]
      RCP6.0 0.55 [0.38 to 0.73] 0.05 [–0.04 to 0.13]
      RCP8.5 0.74 [0.52 to 0.98] 0.04 [–0.06 to 0.12]

      “IOW NO SLR apocalypse at all. When will these fra-dsters be held to account and when will the people start to wake up?”
      No, what is required is for the likes of you to “wake up”.
      And not bring DK syndrome and deflection from the likes of the GWPF into your confirmation bias.

      The study they are claiming “predicted” 2m of SL rise by 2100 is NOT part of the IPCC’s consensus (it’s the 74 (52 – 98) cm.

  23. “2018 was the fourth warmest year on record” With the logarithmic effect of CO2 and the need to incorporate increasing water vapour into the models to make them work, how do the warmests explain a decrease in annual global temperature. If CO2 is the only driver for increasing temperatures apart from El Nino effects then how does the world temperature decline after an El Nino event- a hotter year, more water vapour, more global temperature increase. To a layman the seems illogical. The global warming hypothesis would mean that any increase in global temperature would be the start of the dreaded tipping point.

    • “2018 was the fourth warmest year on record” With the logarithmic effect of CO2 and the need to incorporate increasing water vapour into the models to make them work, how do the warmests explain a decrease in annual global temperature.”

      “increasing WV” is not incorporated into the models – they work on empirical physics and they develop the atmos WV content as part of their iteration through time.
      There are natural variations within the climate system (lots of heat transfer before being emitted as LWIR to space).
      The chief NV being the ENSO cycle.
      This rides on top of the GHE warming – but comes to zero over long enough time scales.

      “If CO2 is the only driver for increasing temperatures apart from El Nino effects then how does the world temperature decline after an El Nino event- a hotter year, more water vapour, more global temperature increase. To a layman the seems illogical. The global warming hypothesis would mean that any increase in global temperature would be the start of the dreaded tipping point.

      An EN is not a driver – as that is something that has a long-term influence on climate.
      An EN is followed by a LN and so the two cancel out.
      It is a movement of heat within the climate system and NOT an addition.
      The extra WV in the atmosphere is not self sustaining as it precipitates out (a H2O molecule has an average lifetime of 9/10 days in the atmosphere).
      So that part of the extra GHE fades similarly with the temporary atmospheric heat that an EN gives.
      CO2 does not precipitate out of Earth’s atmosphere, and so it’s GHE does not diminish except over century scales as it slowly sinks back into the biosphere.

  24. “global average surface temperature”

    Why is the average going up? Even a 6th grader knows that just giving you an average tells you nothing. Are the maximum temperatures going up? Are the minimum temperatures going up? Are the mid-range temperatures going up? Is it a combination of all of them? A data set of 4, 5, and 6 gives an average of 5. A data set of 5, 5, 6 gives an average of 5.33. The average went up because the minimum went up.

    So, is the earth turning into a cinder? If so, why are so many places on earth seeing the number of cooling-days going down instead of up? Why has Earth set consecutive record global grain harvests four out the past five years? Increasing maximum temperatures should be suppressing grain harvests.

  25. I recommend a look at ‘Not a lot of people know that’
    Feb 7th ‘Met office try to hide forecast fail’
    Tells it all.

  26. “..The Met Office decadal forecast show that global average surface temperatures may be close to reaching 1.5 °C, but this would be a temporary exceedance rather than the climatological level of warming in the Paris 1.5 °C threshold….”

    I’m not a scientist, so I’ve been wondering where the IPCC and the alarmist camp obtained the 1.5 degree and 2.0 degree Celsius catastrophe threshold temperatures from. Is there any science behind these numbers at all or did they simply pick them out of thin air? Where is the historical evidence of climate catastrophe from the Medieval, Roman and Minoan times if/when this “threshold” was met or exceeded?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

  27. I’m making a point, whenever I post on other sites, and this one too in future, of not calling them “alarmists”. That’s too nice. I’m inviting you all, the ones who have been called “d**iers” because you/we understand the actual data, to start calling them “climate liars”. If enough of us do it, the moniker will stick.

  28. I know it is anecdotal, but Chicago just went from rain (including thunder) to a flash freeze.
    Current temp 12F, forecasted to warm up enough for snow on Sunday.
    Still cleaning up the detritus Her winds of 40-45 mph caused on garbage day, some of it frozen into snow banks and/or gutters.
    Spring is right around the corner.

  29. Imagine my shock. So tired of hearing this “since records began” crap. Those records start when we were coming out of a period of the lowest temps in 10.000 years. Strange how they always fail to mention that minore detail. We are supposed to be getting warmer, I would be deeply concerned if we weren’t.

  30. The thing they have yet to show me, the thing that would bend me over to their argument is the answer to this question: “How are today’s temperatures different than they would have been in a natural recovery from a little ice age.”

    Because they will not look at that question for political reasons, they can not assert falsification of the null hypothesis that it is all consistent with natural variation. Oh, they hand wave and assert all sorts of things, but they can’t produce the natural warming of the early part of the 20th century in any of their models. They keep jiggering the 1930s cooler and cooler in the databases to try to flatten that part of the curve (since data must match the models after all.)

    We warmed much more quickly in a few decades circa 12,000 years ago then we cooled very quickly circa 11,000 years ago and again warmed more quickly circa 10,000 years ago with rates that make the 1850-2019 curve look like a table top. Knowing this how can anyone assert “hottest ever”?

    • When talking to a warmist Who complains about global warming I always ask two questions:

      What temperature is the earth.
      A question that no more than one in ten can answer.

      And.

      What temperature should it be.
      For some reason that question results in abuse and a refusal to answer.

      Can’t figure it out.

    • OweninGA

      “How are today’s temperatures different than they would have been in a natural recovery from a little ice age.”

      Keep hearing about this gradual ‘recovery from the LIA’. The HadCRUT4 data set, the one they’re talking about that starts in 1850, shows no warming trend at all over the first half of its 168 year record. There are the usual ups and downs, but no overall trend during the first 84 years of the record, from 1850 right up to 1934.

      Over the second half of the record, the 84 years from 1935 to 2018, the trend in HadCRUT4 is statistically significant warming at a rate of +0.088 ±0.015 °C/decade (2σ). There has been no gentle recovery from the LIA according to the surface temperature record. Instead there has been a steady increase in temperatures starting around the middle of the 20th century.

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/to:1935/plot/hadcrut4gl/to:1935/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1935/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1935/trend

  31. So from a base of 2018 (+0.91C above pre-indy ave) that means we will get a run of +0.1C (~10%) which may lead to a peak of +0.6C (~66%) over the next 5 years? Did I get that correct?

    I like to track predictions because that is what the scientific method is all about. Not the “snow is a thing of the past” or “Pacific islands are going to drown” or “the Arctic will be ice free in a decade”. Nope I want numbers and dates attached to them. The rest are just ways they embarrass themselves with schlock nonsense.

    Let’s check back in 5 years and see shall we 🙂

    • In order to get to the lower end of the predicted range, +1.03C above the 1850-1900 average between 2019 and 2023, HadCRUT4 would need to average +0.72C annually (it has a 1961-1990 anomaly base). Their forecast for 2019 is 1.1 +/- 0.12. To hit the lower end of that HadCRUT4 would need to be minimum +0.67C in 2019, meaning that +0.73C would be required annually 2020-2023 in order to hit the lower end of their 5-year average forecast.

      I think they’re too high. HadCRUT4 has only ever passed 0.73C twice (annual mean) and that was during the 2015/16 El Nino. All it takes is one big La Nina and their forecast would be really up against it.

  32. Meanwhile in the real United Kingdom, they are being battered by a weather bomb called Erik with 70 mile an hour winds and flooding.

    Maybe folk in the UK will compare the MET’s forecasts for the next 5 years with what is outside their doors and windows.

    And in North America it’s snow all the way !

    I’m glad I am in Australia

  33. A raising global temp for the next five years forecasted by East Anglia usual suspects …

    I immediately ordered a polar parka, mountain gloves and snow boots before all this stuff being out of stock.

  34. Peopled should be called out on this carp. Where were the pre-industrial thermometers? Where are they now in fact?

    I await with impatience the tropical jungles of Canada

  35. I have to leave home soon to go fix a water leak and the temp is at freezing with some wind. If I post an address, can I have some Global Warming delivered to that location?

  36. Yes, it’s easy to fudge, ESPECIALLY when you lack ANY DATA at all from vast areas of the Earth’s surface, over land or water for years at a time.

    And it is the height of folly to believe the results of all this interpolation can result in numbers claiming accuracy to the hundredth of a degree.

  37. Met office UK. Go the website and look at the historical records of U.K. annual temperature and sunshine hours. The direct correlation is remarkable. Do green house gases increase the hours of sunlight?

    • Since 1929, when the UK sunshine hours record begins, t-min (usually night time) temperatures in the UK have risen at more or less the same rate as t-max (usually daytime) ones. Shouldn’t night time temperatures cool if skies are getting significantly less cloudy? Clearer skies at night should allow radiation to escape to space faster and bring colder temperatures. More sunshine (less cloud) might help explain the rise in daytime temperatures in the UK, but it doesn’t explain the similar rise at night.

  38. Perhaps they didn’t get the memo from Jimmy & Gavin:
    Global Temperature in 2017, 18 January 2018, James Hansen & Gavin Schmidt et al
    “However, the solar variability is not negligible in comparison with the energy imbalance that drives global temperature change. Therefore, because of the combination of the strong 2016 El Niño and the phase of the solar cycle, it is plausible, if not likely, that the next 10 years of global temperature change will leave an impression of a ‘global warming hiatus’.”
    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2018/20180118_Temperature2017.pdf

    A fly in their soup?

    Cheers!

Comments are closed.