Lee esta nota de prensa en español aquí.
Earth’s global average surface temperature in 2021 tied with 2018 as the sixth warmest on record, according to independent analyses done by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Continuing the planet’s long-term warming trend, global temperatures in 2021 were 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (0.85 degrees Celsius) above the average for NASA’s baseline period, according to scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. NASA uses the period from 1951-1980 as a baseline to see how global temperature changes over time.
Collectively, the past eight years are the warmest years since modern recordkeeping began in 1880. This annual temperature data makes up the global temperature record – which tells scientists the planet is warming.
According to NASA’s temperature record, Earth in 2021 was about 1.9 degrees Fahrenheit (or about 1.1 degrees Celsius) warmer than the late 19th century average, the start of the industrial revolution.
“Science leaves no room for doubt: Climate change is the existential threat of our time,” said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson. “Eight of the top 10 warmest years on our planet occurred in the last decade, an indisputable fact that underscores the need for bold action to safeguard the future of our country – and all of humanity. NASA’s scientific research about how Earth is changing and getting warmer will guide communities throughout the world, helping humanity confront climate and mitigate its devastating effects.”
This warming trend around the globe is due to human activities that have increased emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The planet is already seeing the effects of global warming: Arctic sea ice is declining, sea levels are rising, wildfires are becoming more severe and animal migration patterns are shifting. Understanding how the planet is changing – and how rapidly that change occurs – is crucial for humanity to prepare for and adapt to a warmer world.
Weather stations, ships, and ocean buoys around the globe record the temperature at Earth’s surface throughout the year. These ground-based measurements of surface temperature are validated with satellite data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. Scientists analyze these measurements using computer algorithms to deal with uncertainties in the data and quality control to calculate the global average surface temperature difference for every year. NASA compares that global mean temperature to its baseline period of 1951-1980. That baseline includes climate patterns and unusually hot or cold years due to other factors, ensuring that it encompasses natural variations in Earth’s temperature.
Many factors affect the average temperature any given year, such as La Nina and El Nino climate patterns in the tropical Pacific. For example, 2021 was a La Nina year and NASA scientists estimate that it may have cooled global temperatures by about 0.06 degrees Fahrenheit (0.03 degrees Celsius) from what the average would have been.
A separate, independent analysis by NOAA also concluded that the global surface temperature for 2021 was the sixth highest since record keeping began in 1880. NOAA scientists use much of the same raw temperature data in their analysis and have a different baseline period (1901-2000) and methodology.
“The complexity of the various analyses doesn’t matter because the signals are so strong,” said Gavin Schmidt, director of GISS, NASA’s leading center for climate modeling and climate change research. “The trends are all the same because the trends are so large.”
NASA’s full dataset of global surface temperatures for 2021, as well as details of how NASA scientists conducted the analysis, are publicly available from GISS.
GISS is a NASA laboratory managed by the Earth Sciences Division of the agency’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. The laboratory is affiliated with Columbia University’s Earth Institute and School of Engineering and Applied Science in New York.
For more information about NASA’s Earth science missions, visit:
-end-
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A few hundredths of a degree warmer than the coldest period in the last 100 years is an existential threat?
Repeats of storms that have been happening for as far back as we have records is an existential threat?
Temperatures that are still 2 or 3C cooler than the average for the last 10 to 15K years is an existential threat?
Are these guys really this desperate?
So… When few people had thermometers – or even kept time records of readings – in the horse and wagon, steam locomotive, sailing ships and steamships of the 1880s – leaving vast expanses without any thermometers – at the end of “The Little Ice Age” the coldest period in our Holocene Interglacial…”The Earth is Warming” and it is detrimental to the existence of all life on Earth?
I am so tired of this narrative that warming equals anything bad happening. Only people that are ignorant of history believes that Climate Change of warming is detrimental. Climate has changed from the beginning of Earth. Anything that cannot adapt to the Climate… dies. Climate changed long before humans existed.
Quick, send in the Holy Trenders, they are needed PDQ.
The Holy Trenders of Antioch? NO, any one but them!
If Gavin Schmidt told me water was wet, I’d tell him to stick his head in a bucket full of it to prove it.
How long can he hold his breath?
Holy Tenders? Do you mean Lord Monckton?
I’ll guess that he would say. The new pause starts in December 2014, making it exactly 7 years and 1 month old. From that date the trend is -0.025°C / decade. Please don’t mention uncertainties in the trend, or if this is significantly different to the previous trend.
<yawn>
Like ants to sugar, they swarm right in…
Glad to be of service.
I guess there is a first time for everything.
The PDO went positive around 2014 leading to reduced cloud thickness and hence more solar energy reaching the surface. No other natural changes since then and hence no warming. Meanwhile, CO2/CH4 have continued to rise.
The same was true prior to 2014. A full 17 years will no warming.
I see the fact that Lord Monckton has time and again cleaned your clock is still causing you no end of emotional pain.
Cleaned my what? Oh , clock. Apparently means to punch someone in the face and utterly defeat them. Well if calling me Bellhop and telling me to stop whining is what passes for defeating someone I can’t argue with that.
LastWordBellman
Yep
Mr Mark:
M’lord will always (in your terms), “clean(ed) your clock” because he never answers any criticism with a straight answer, and when anyone persists he resorts to politically riddled ad hom (been there several times).
If that is the sort of advocate you feel the need to worship then it says a lot about you.
The man is impossible to deal with on an integrity based level.
As such he is rightly ignored, by all but those desperate to have their bias bolstered and ignore anything that may disturb it.
That is (largely) those here who lap-up his latest snake-oil selling recipe.
But then again we know how that goes with the QAnon mob and other conspiracy ideation that require bizarre down-the-rabbit-hole thinking to keep the dissonance going.
I am well aware that any “push-back” from people such as me that present the true science here will only serve to increase your push-back.
It’s the psychopathy at play.
It doesn’t matter – it’s just a Blog – a place for you to wear your ignorance proudly to the cheering crowd and spit out your hatred towards those that wish to shatter your worldview.
And why the US is in a very dangerous place currently (democratically).
Have a nice day and continue the good fight, after all your opponents are just commies committing a fraud (or else they don’t’ know basic physics) LOL
Baton digs deep, and pulls out … “QAnon”? WTH?
The irony from the Holy Trenders is thick.
Global Warming, aka Climate Change is the last refuge of the inept, the incompetent and the corrupt. From scientists, politicians, civl servants, NGOs and businesses.
When you cannot plan, project, prepare and get things correctly you run to blame the most powerful molecule in the universe.
NASA and NOAA equals government funded equals whatever the government wants to show from whatever data they want used to display it. In other words, bunkus wunkus, BS, propaganda, et al.
“Eight of the top 10 warmest years on our planet occurred in the last decade…” The planet is over 4 billion years old. That statement is completely false. What a sorry state we’re in when a NASA official spouts such garbage.
They are comparing the temps to those out of the end of the Little Ice Age. We should be thankful it is warmer.
This another of H.L Mencken’s imaginary hobgoblins from which we must led to safety…
Not warmer high temps but warmer night time low temps and winter low temps ? UHI?
Australia matched its hottest ever record yesterday.
a year of new heat records globally in 2021 continues into 2022
I see griff is still confusing weather for climate.
Given how short the weather records are, and given the fact that there are 10’s of millions of places making measurements.
The fact that there are thousands of high temperature records is not in the tiniest bit surprising.
One thing that griff always over looks when he’s hyperventilating about record highs, is that there are always as many if not more record cold temperatures.
It’s always 5 o’clock somewhere … and it’s also always above average somewhere in the world at the same time it’s always colder than average somewhere else.
And don’t forget…half of everybody is below average in intelligence!
Can you say A.N.E.C.D.O.T.E.?
2021 was cooler than 2020. In fact, it was cooler than the preceding 6 years! Get your facts straight.
https://scitechdaily.com/2021-continued-earths-warming-trend-the-past-8-years-have-been-the-warmest-in-the-global-record/
You are welcome to your own irrational opinions, but you don’t get to make up your own facts!
Griff, The link below is to Tony Heller showing a 53.1 in 1889, along with other readings higher than, or equal to, yesterdays figure. Go to the 2:45 mark for a re-brief.
https://youtu.be/fsy0ysTDRRc
Griff, even the Adjustment Bureau could not make this the hottest year ever for the earth, so despite some hot temps here and there, like our western canada “heat dome” you love to mention, the earth cooled even according to your scientology shamans. Without adjustments its probably a lot lower than that too.
So it was obviously colder in more of the world than it was hot.
But as we now know from new settled science, that is also due to CO2 right?
Back to you
So you’re saying yesterdays temperature was not unprecedented, mate?
Welcome to the real world
Griff, go do some research on the January 1896 Australian coast-to-coast heat-wave (which lasted the entire month of Jan.). Many temperatures of +51C were recorded by official persons using official equipment during this period.
51.7C – Geraldton, WA
51.1C – New Angledool, QLD
50.5C – Camden, NSW
Later in 1896, heat waves also occurred in India, Burma, Borneo, America, England, Germany and Spain.
We had a cyclone that stopped the built up heat from the wet season being released it happens. You don’t see any of us running around claiming the sky is falling.
Perhaps ask those who live here not play guess-a-mole from your UK housing estate.
Griff, just let me know when any place on Earth exceeds 134ºf. That is something I will be interested in.
Sorry griff, I asked you before what was the effect of reduced cloud thickness and you never answered. Why is that? Let’s see, how many years has it been since the PDO shift caused this cloud change? Oh right, that was between 2013-15. Almost 8 years.
You neglected to mention that the previous matched record occurred in January 1962 that is 62 years ago.
Just like you did awhile back with the hottest New Years Day in the UK when the previous record had been set in 1916, 106 years ago.
Dang! 60 years ago not 62
How convenient. Now they can make cherry pie.
Take the coldest period since the Little Ice Age and use it as a baseline to scare the ignorant. This is your government lying to you. If you fail to understand the implications of that fact, you (not the rest of us) deserve what you get. Let’s Go Brandon!
I pointed out on JPL’s Facebook page that the claim is scientifically meaningless and intentionally misleading. First, to make a distinction between these years, the global average temperature has to be stated to a precision of a hundredth of a degree. The measurements themselves are made mostly to a precision of a tenth of a degree. Second, is the error introduced by the estimation of temperatures for the overwhelming majority of surface locations that are unmeasured. Finally, the baseline temperature period was 1951-1980 which was a well-known period of cooling. So much so that climate scientists warned of a returning Ice Age.
This is just an attempt to use sensationalistic headlines to gain funding. Perhaps this is why no climate scientists call out this annual charade.
The Little Ice Age ended around 1870 just as this recordkeeping started. As we gradually warmed up from the LIA it is not surprising that as the years passed by, more and more new records were set. Since we have only recovered about 1.1 degrees Celsius, there may be some more to go.
I certainly hope so
And anyone demanding we return to those temperatures should be locked in a hole for espousing inter generational crimes against humanity
The headline is seriously misleading! The 2021 temperature anomaly is significantly lower than the preceding two years; it is the tied for the lowest in the last six years. It is tied with 2018, which was significantly lower than the 2016 El Nino high. I wouldn’t call that continuing the warming trend.
How low would it have had to drop before NASA Earth Observatory would acknowledge that the upward trend was NOT continuing? If it had reached the 2014 level, would they have said it was tied for the 7th highest temperature? They are really being disingenuous!
However, it didn’t even make the top 24 list!
Yet, 2020 appears tied with 2016 (an El Nino year) for the warmest ever. 2020 was a year that saw reductions in anthropogenic CO2 of 7-10% for the full year, and a decline of more than 18% during May, when the pandemic shut everything down. That meant reductions in ALL so-called greenhouse gases, not just CO2. The declines in methane, nitrous oxides, and ozone were measured. The estimated declines in CO2 are not measurable.
Warming may well come back this year or next. However, NASA has had to twist themselves into a logical knot to try to support the meme that anthropogenic CO2 is causing a “continuing” increase in global temperatures. It speaks of desperation.
I pointed out to some clown elsewhere that saying 2020 is tied with 2016 is the same as saying there has been no warming in the intervening 5 years, and now its dropping further even tho co2 rise continues.
For that i get “deniers don’t understand anything”.
I’m just pointing out the obvious
In the Church of Climastrology, nothing is more important than the Holy Trends.
So NASA uses the coldest period baseline since reliable records began to see how global temperatures change over time.
Now, in order to do proper science, NASA should also tell us why it was so cold then compared to the earlier 20th century and how much of any warming recorded since is natural.
The baseline does not matter. You get the same amount of warming regardless of which baseline is chosen whether it be 1851-1880, 1951-1980, 1981-2010, 1991-2020, or whatever else you may see. If you can change the baseline of any dataset by subtracting off the average of whatever new baseline you want to see. In fact, that is the method I often use to normalize multiple datasets to the same baseline for comparison. Try it out.
How warm was it compared to 1021?
GISTEMP only goes back to 1880. You’ll have to use one of the global temperature reconstruction like Osman et al. 2021, Marcott et al. 2013, or Kaufmann et al. 2020 to determine that. Based on those publications it is about 1 C. Unfortunately the temperature proxy reconstructions do not have sufficient resolution delineate annual means like we can with the instrumental temperature record so that 1 C difference is going to be at best on decadal timescales.
Love a good proxy study
Even though it was clearly warmer 1000 years ago, you can make that elephant’s trunk wiggle and even tie itself in a knot
Lots of great reading out there, “A Cultural History of Climate Change” was quite good, endless hard physical evidence from all over the world showing it was indesputably warmer back then.
You stick with the Scientology hockey sticks, I’ll stick with physical evidence.
It’s why you’ll lose in the end
Can you post a link to global temperature reconstruction showing that it was warmer 1000 years ago?
Except it’s cooler in 2021. But we now know that warming causes cooling too, that’s why we call cooler temp anomalies for a given year warming, to normalize the baseline narrative.
So does 6th warmest out of the last decade also make it tied for the 5th coldest ?….just to show how meaningless such statements really are… /s
And according to the European satellite, it’s the 5th warmest & 1.1-1.2 degrees !
Looks like big trouble to me…
Climate Change Indicators: Heating and Cooling Degree Days | US EPA
6th warmest year.
So I guess its actually cooling now, since the warmest year?
That word can get you banned in the new overreach Administration. You must adapt like they are doing in the UK with phases like the “warming hole” in the North Atlantic.
Yes, if 2021 had been the warmest year ‘evah,’ they would have been all over it like a horned toad at an ant hill and not have pussy footed around with “6th warmest year.” Based on Monckton’s work, the claimed “continued warming” hasn’t been around for several years, depending on how it is defined.
1951-1980 as the norm, inflates the degree of warming I should think. 1951-1980 was a period of rather cooler temps in modern times, as if you remember the talk at the time was of global COOLING.
Isn’t it just The Craziest Thing (OK, apart from Jojo Brandon’s speeches) how deserts have such high temperatures yet are exceedingly cold places.
A warming troposphere means a cooling Earth – that energy can not return whence it came – Entropy says as much.
We all should be immensely thankful that the gases making up the troposphere have such low heat capacities and thermal conductivities.
Half full or half empty?
It’s been recognized here and elsewhere that global temperature has not increased for nearly a decade. Why then should one be surprised that the 2021 average is about the same as prior years?
The latest “pause” is a repeat of behavior between earlier El Ninos. Remove the jumps associated with those El Ninos and Voila! Global warming disappears.
https://rclutz.com/2022/01/12/uah-confirms-global-warming-gone-end-of-2021/
It’s safe to conclude that El Ninos are not caused by increasing CO2.
In case anyone’s interested, or even if they are not, here’s the top ten warmest years in the GISTEMP data set, recalculated to the 1991-2020 base period which UAH uses.
For comparison here’s the same for UAH
Note, I’ve rounded these to the nearest 0.01°C, but this is misleading in comparing 2015 and 2021. They only differ by 0.001°C, hence I’ve marked them as being equal above.
And 2020 was the year that anthro’ CO2 emission declined, and there is no discernible difference in the Fall-Winter ramp-up phase from 2019. That is not a compelling argument for “This warming trend around the globe is due to human activities that have increased emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.”
What a weird set of non sequiturs. Human emissions fell by about 5% in 2020 which resulted in a tiny reduction in the increase in CO2, which you think should have meant 2020 should have been colder.
Non sequiturs? I think that your perception of the points not following logically says a lot about your cognitive dissonance, or perhaps an inability to connect the dots. Let me see if I can make it clear for you.
For no apparent reason, you listed the ranking of the hottest years from several different sources. I took the opportunity to point out that 2020, which was variously ranked 1st or 2nd by your sources, was a unique year in that it allowed a controlled experiment. That is, anthropogenic emissions were significantly reduced by 7-10% for the entire year (not by the 5% you claim), with at least one month being over 18%, as estimated from sales and taxes.
The alarmist hypothesis is that CO2 is driving the increase in global temperatures. I quoted the exact claim from the article that supports that interpretation. That is, conversely, if the anthro’ CO2 flux should decline, it is predicted that, at the very least, the rate of increase should similarly decline, and perhaps even the full year should show cooling. However, neither happened!
What is the point of reducing anthro’ emissions if there is no measurable effect on either the annual CO2 increase, or especially, the supposed warming resulting from it?
The seasonal ramp-up curve for 2019-2020 was almost indistinguishable from 2018-2019. That is, the predicted decline in the warming rate or peak temperature resulting from a decline in anthro’ emissions did not happen! In summary, the unusual year (2020) that saw a decline in anthro’ emissions, essentially tied with an El Nino year (2016) for the global average temperature. That is, the alarmist hypothesis was falsified!
I do hope you were able to follow that. I have never been accused of having difficulty communicating. You might want to review the graphs here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/11/contribution-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-to-changes-in-atmospheric-concentrations/
Your arguments, the controlled experiment as you put it, is that slighlty reducing CO2 emissions should have caused some sort of a reduction in atmospheric CO2 that should in turn have caused a measurable reduction in temperatures in a sinlge year. None of this is correct and does not follow from the sentence you quoted. The operative word in the that was “trend”.
There are several main problems with your hypotheisis.
1) you completly ignore year to year variance will be much larger than any observable effect from a reduction in CO2 over a single year. The article makes it clear that many factors effect a single years temperature, especially ENSO conditions.
2) you keep making an implicit assumption that reducing emissions will result in a reduction in atmospheric CO2. What should happen is a reduction in emissions will cause a reduction in the increase in atmospheric CO2. 2020 would still be expected to have more CO2 than 2019, just by a slightly smaller increase than would have happened without the reduction in emissions.
3) even if you could ignore all variations, the expected change in temperature would be too small to measure in any one year. This is why you have to look at changes over decades to see what is happening.
Lets put some ball park figures on point 3).
Each year we release a certain amount of CO2, which causes a an increase of around 2-3 ppm. Lets call it 3ppm.
If you decrease emissions in one year you would expect to see a corresponding reduction in the increase. I said emisions in 2020 were around 5% less than in 2019, based on the figures I saw, but you claim it’s actually up to 10% based on estimates , so lets say it is a 10% reduction. Atmospheric CO2 rises by 10% less than would have been expected, so lets say only 2.7ppm.
3ppm is less than a 1% increase, but lets say it’s a 1% increae it year, and as a result of the 10% reduction it was only a 0.9% increase this year. What effect does this have on warming.
Estimates for the transient climate response are between 1.0 and 2.5C, and unlikely to be more than 3C, so lets use that figure. Every doubling of CO2 causes an “immediate” warming of 3C. A 1% rise would cause about 1.5% of that, say 0.05C (Actually a bit more as it’s logarithmic), and if the increase was 10% less it would cause 0.005C less warming.
So assumuming the strongest possible effects, and ignoring all natural variability, I think the largest effect possible would still only be 0.005C in a single year. Compare this with the stated uncertainties for the annual GISS anomaly, which is 0.05C, an order of magnitiude greater. You couldn;t measure it given the uncertainty in the global average, let alone expect it to be visible above the annual variation.
More climastrology milli-Kelvin bollocks (cue bzx).
Feel free to do your own UA, or pull your usual multi thousand milli-Kelvin guess out of thin air. But you do realize in this case, the less certainty in the annual figure, the more it undermines Clyde Spencer’s claim. As I’m saying, there is no way a change of 0.005°C could be detected.
Free clue, that’s not my job to do your hard work—you and the climastrologists make these absurd UA claims, this is YOUR responsibility.
Of course, because you have no clues about what a real UA is, this will never happen.
Once again, you insist on conveniently ignoring monthly information available in the MLO data by only considering the net annual change.
You said, “Each year we release a certain amount of CO2, which causes a [sic] an increase of around 2-3 ppm.” You are assuming that the increase is entirely anthropogenic. You are ignoring the fact that the total annual anthropogenic emissions are less than 5% of the total CO2 flux. You deny the ability of a 10% decrease of a 5% proportion of CO2 flux to have any discernible decrease in either CO2 concentration or temperature over a period of less than decades. Yet, you claim that a small annual increase in the 5% flux proportion regularly causes an increase in total CO2 concentration of 2-3 PPM and contributes to an annual global increase in temperature of about 0.02 deg C. Do you not see the contradiction? You can’t have it both ways!
You provide us with an implied estimate that the annual anthropogenic warming with a 10% increase should be about 0.005 deg C annually. Yet, the measured increase is about 0.012-0.018 deg C. Actually, with anthro’ CO2 emissions rebounding (10+%) in 2021, the temperature decreased by about 0.25 deg C instead of increasing 0.015+0.005! That is, an order of magnitude greater than the expected increase, and in the opposite direction. Clearly, something other than CO2 is driving the variance. There is a strong suggestion from Fig. 6
[ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/11/contribution-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-to-changes-in-atmospheric-concentrations/ ] that temperature is one of the more important forcing factors. It alone explains almost half of the variance.
“You are assuming that the increase is entirely anthropogenic.”
What I’m trying to do is establish a ball park figure for the maximum change in temperature expected from a small reduction in emissions in a single year. For the purpose of this exercise I’m assuming that there is no natural variance, so this indeed means assuming the expected rise is entirely anthropogenic. If we don’t assume that then you have no argument, because as I was saying the natural variation both in CO2 increase and temperature will completely swamp the tiny change in expected temperature.
“Yet, you claim that a small annual increase in the 5% flux proportion regularly causes an increase in total CO2 concentration of 2-3 PPM…”
No. The change in the amount of CO2 emissions has only a very small effect on the rate of increase. What causes the regular 2-3 ppm is the 5% flux itself.
“Do you not see the contradiction?”
No I don’t.
Year to year, changes occur in the rise of CO2 because of temporary changes in sinks and sources, but in the longer term it’s the human emissions that dominate the rise.
“You provide us with an implied estimate that the annual anthropogenic warming with a 10% increase should be about 0.005 deg C annually.”
That would very much be an upper estimate. But I’m not sure if you you are following what I’m saying here. The 10% increase would be a single year’s increase and would cause an additional 0.005°C warming in a single year.
“Yet, the measured increase is about 0.012-0.018 deg C.”
I’m not sure what the “yet” means here. The increase in temperatures here are, assuming all else is equal and the “alarmist hypothesis” is correct, caused by the year on year increase in atmospheric CO2, which is currently somewhat less than 1% a year. An rise of 10% in emissions in a single year would only have a minimal effect on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and a corresponding unmeasurable increase in temperatures.
“Actually, with anthro’ CO2 emissions rebounding (10+%) in 2021, the temperature decreased by about 0.25 deg C instead of increasing 0.015+0.005!”
Because as I keep saying there are many other things that affect temperature, including the fact that 2021 was a La Niña year. In any event, atmospheric CO2 did not increase 10% more in 2021 than it did in 2020 – quite the reverse.
“…temperature is one of the more important forcing factors. It alone explains almost half of the variance.”
Yes, temperature and ENSO conditions are factors in determining year on year variance. That’s why 2021 saw a smaller increase than 2020 despite there being more emissions, and why 2022 is predicted to have the smallest rise in recent years. This is also why I don’t understand how you can claim that 2020 falsifies anything.
I would submit that if a presumed forcing parameter is so weak that it can be obscured by annual random variations, then it is not the driving parameter. Rather, a forcing parameter that is not obscured, such as temperature, is more likely to be the driving parameter.
Even if the annual variations are not random, but the result of temperature, then it is clear that temperature is more important than CO2.
In this case, what you couldn’t measure is the amount of temperature changes caused by a single year of emissions reduced by 10%.
But I think you are talking here about the increase in CO2 rather than temperature. Otherwise you are claiming rising temperatures are the driver for rising temperatures.
It’s too late in the day to go over all the reasons why I doubt that temperature could be the dominate reason for the current increase in CO2.
But for one, it makes no sense to ignore the CO we know we have been emitting. It has to go somewhere.
Oh this is rich…the irony is just oozing out of the screen.
Nice hand-waving, though.
My typo aside, just what is your point? Do you think ‘I deny year to year variance?
Try reel hard, see if you can figger it out.
You are exhibiting a denseness that doesn’t correspond to other indicators of your intelligence. It would seem that you are so desperate to defend your consensus view that you resort to cherry picking facts and ignore responding to points I raise that undermine your views.
1) You are hung up on looking at the problem from the coarse temporal resolution viewpoint of the net annual changes. In my analysis of the MLO data, I presented graphs for several years, delineating both the ramp-up and draw-down phases. Rather than ignore variance, I was interested in what it might show us. Indeed, ENSO reveals itself very clearly with the anomalous shape and height of the 2016 El Nino, which you imply shouldn’t be visible because it is less than “decades.”
2) Your statement is a strawman argument. I explicitly said that what is expected is a decline in the rate of increase of CO2 during the ramp-up phase. If that were to occur, then the consensus hypothesis claims that the rate of temperature increase should similarly decline.
3) I’ll follow up responding to 3), below:
In case I wasn’t clear, this is the argument I was responding to.
You are arguing that if the “alarmist hypothesis” is correct then a decrease in human emissions should reduce the rate of warming, or even cause cooling, and that even the full year should show cooling. You then implied that as 2020 was a warm year and emissions declined in that year, this was in some way a falsification of the “alarmist hypothesis”. Exact quote:
My contention is that nothing has been falsified. It’s illogical to assume that a small drop in the increase in CO2 for one year would produce a change in the increase that would be discernible above the year to year variance in either CO2 or temperature and you certainly would not expect an increase in CO2 in and of itself.to cause a decrease in temperature.
In part 1) I should have been clearer I was talking about the variation in temperature, though it also applies to a lesser extent to the increase in atmospheric CO2.
You complain that I’m only looking at the annual average. But given my point that one year is too short a time to see the effects of a small drop, I’m not sure what looking at monthly figures would achieve. In any event, this argument starts with the annual average temperature for 2020. If you don;t want to look at annual averages you would have to ignore the first few months of 2020, which were the warmest.
You agree with me that there is a lot of variation in the annual CO2 increase and that ENSO plays a strong part. I’m not sure why you think this argues against ,my point. You need to know what the CO2 increase during 2020 would have been without the reduction in emissions, before you can claim that the slowdown had no effect on the rise in CO2.
For example, in May 2020 the Met Office revised their predictions for the annual rise down to 2.48ppm due to the pandemic, compared with an expected 2.80ppm if there had been no reduction in emissions.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-what-impact-will-the-coronavirus-pandemic-have-on-atmospheric-co2
The actual increase was 2.51ppm.
Continuing on to point 2). You say
I said that your argument implied that CO22 would have to reduce as you seemed to be saying that you expected 2020 to cool. If you are agreeing that it was only the rate of warming that should have changed in 2020 then fine, I withdraw this argument. I’m just puzzled about what your argument actually is. I really don’t see how 2020 falsifies anything.
It should be pointed out that most CAGW adherents, and even those folks who post here, advocate that the human emitted CO2 IS THE ENTIRE INCREASE in CO2. They claim that the sinks and sources are equal, therefore all the increase occurs because of anthropologic generated CO2.
If you believe that CO2 is what heats the earth then a reduction should cause a lowering in temperature. You simply can’t have it any other way.
Your claim belies both those theories. You are becoming a sceptic of CO2 GHG warming.
“It should be pointed out that most CAGW adherents, and even those folks who post here, advocate that the human emitted CO2 IS THE ENTIRE INCREASE in CO2.”
Do they? I think the IPCC says it’s very likely to be the dominant reason for the increase.
“If you believe that CO2 is what heats the earth then a reduction should cause a lowering in temperature.”
1) there hasn’t been a reduction in atmospheric CO2. 2020 was higher than 2019, 2021 is higher still.
2) CO2 causes warming does not imply every year will be slightly warmer than the previous one. Over a short period year to year variance caused by such things as ENSO conditions dominate.
The Trends! But what about the Trends?!??
What about the trends?
Bellman absolutely positively must have The Very Last Word On Absolutely Everything.
So you don’t know what you meant either.
Feel free to make another joke after this so I don’t have the last word.
“NASA uses the period from 1951-1980 as a baseline to see how global temperature changes over time.”
Which ‘just happens’ to be the very 30yrs of the “Ice Age Cometh” deep cooling when global temperatures had alarmingly dropped about 0.5°C
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0-ZDnSbNIYs
About this baseline reference, Gavin Schmidt shamelessly says
“That baseline includes climate patterns and unusually hot or cold years due to other factors, ensuring that it encompasses natural variations in Earth’s temperature.”
This is simply dishonest. He signals that by ‘admitting’ “…unusual hot or cold (indeed!!) periods” to assure us that it isn’t the cherry pick that it clearly is!
Also, the climate wroughters were careful to use the period after the deepest cold of that period, when Arctic Ice was greatly expanded as the baseline from which to measure the decline in ice.
For completeness here are the other data sets I keep track of and have data up to the end of 2021.
JMA
NOAA
BEST
RSS
1998 just can’t get no respect!
BFD