• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global warming discussion IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
What the GISS met station data shows is that 2015 is very highly likely to be the record highest year.

This is true, but until the November data it needed near record temps for nov and dec, now it only needs an average December.

October 2015 happened to be the highest monthly temperature anomaly in the GISS record.

By combined sea land, but not by met station data

You noted that we would have to get "record cold temps for November and December to not break the record". That did not happen for November and is even more extremely unlikely for December:


I was trying to point out the difference between the Met station data and the combined sea land, one was already almost certain to be record breaking and the other needed to finish strong.

NASA: 2015 Will Be ‘A Scorcher Relative To All Other Years’ On Record

Combined sea land is like Secretariat, Met station is more American Pharoah
 
Well, since scale implies weight and GISS is temperature, and nobody here

has posted the latest GISS numbers...

But even I am surprised that the GISS met station data is putting 2015 as warmest, I thought that would be a stretch.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt

by the way, gotcha! or not.

Interesting. I normally look at the land/sea temp but it’s interesting to see that for land stations Oct and Nov 2015 are two of the three warmest months on record. Given that 2015 was already the warmest year on record it’s looking like the record for warmest year will fall by a considerable margin. No doubt this means we will face a decade of “the earth hasn’t warmed since 2015!”, and of course since there was no warming between 1998 and 2015 clearly global warming has stopped (again).
 
Combined sea land is like Secretariat, Met station is more American Pharoah
No idea what American Pharoah is (a horse?).
Combined sea land data is global surface temperatures.
Met station data is not global surface temperatures.
So the expectation is that they should have different trends.
 
Last edited:
The World’s Energy Problem

Some people believe that 90% of our energy should come from non-carbon sources in 50 years.
Non-carbon sources currently supply 14% of our energy.

The world’s total energy flow = 534000 PetaJoules per year (5.34E20 J/yr) {2011, as per Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory}
Total Incremental Carbon-Free Energy over 50 yrs = 76%
Total Incremental Carbon-Free Energy over 50 yrs = 4.06E20 J/yr

Power Output of a typical Nuclear Power Plant = 1000 MW
Typical Nuclear Power Plant Energy Production = 3.154E16 J/yr

Therefore # of New Nuclear Power Plants Needed (or their equivalent) = 12,874
Therefore # of New Nuclear Power Plants Needed per Year = 257 per year (a new Power Plant, or its equivalent every 1.4 days)

The world needs to commission the equivalent of a new nuclear power plant every 1.4 days in order to achieve a goal of 90% of our energy from non-carbon sources in 50 years. This calculation assumes that energy demand does not grow over the 50 year time period.
 
NOAA's State of the Climate report for November:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201511


The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for November 2015 was the highest for November in the 136-year period of record, at 0.97°C (1.75°F) above the 20th century average of 12.9°C (55.2°F), breaking the previous record of 2013 by 0.15°C (0.27°F). This marks the seventh consecutive month that a monthly global temperature record has been broken. The temperature departure from average for November is also the second highest among all months in the 136-year period of record. The highest departure of 0.99°C (1.79°F) occurred last month


The first 11 months of 2015 were the warmest such period on record across the world's land and ocean surfaces, at 0.87°C (1.57°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.2°F), surpassing the previous record set last year by 0.14°C (0.25°F). Nine of the first eleven months in 2015 have been record warm for their respective months, with January second warmest for January and April third warmest. The December global temperature would have to be at least 0.81°C (1.46°F) below average—or 0.24°C (0.43°F) colder than the current record low December temperature of 1916—for 2015 to not become the warmest year in the 136-year period of record.
 
The World’s Energy Problem

Some people believe that 90% of our energy should come from non-carbon sources in 50 years.
Non-carbon sources currently supply 14% of our energy.

The world’s total energy flow = 534000 PetaJoules per year (5.34E20 J/yr) {2011, as per Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory}
Total Incremental Carbon-Free Energy over 50 yrs = 76%
Total Incremental Carbon-Free Energy over 50 yrs = 4.06E20 J/yr

Power Output of a typical Nuclear Power Plant = 1000 MW
Typical Nuclear Power Plant Energy Production = 3.154E16 J/yr

Therefore # of New Nuclear Power Plants Needed (or their equivalent) = 12,874
Therefore # of New Nuclear Power Plants Needed per Year = 257 per year (a new Power Plant, or its equivalent every 1.4 days)

The world needs to commission the equivalent of a new nuclear power plant every 1.4 days in order to achieve a goal of 90% of our energy from non-carbon sources in 50 years. This calculation assumes that energy demand does not grow over the 50 year time period.

Not one to double-check the numbers, but I've seen similar before. Seems right. Also, there is not enough uranium for all that, iirc.

The admittedly wild notions I'd like explored more (on paper) involve:

Beaming electricity by microwave from satellites. Issues of course with maintenance costs and making access to space far cheaper, but 24/7 power. To date probably far more expensive than land-based.

I've also heard that the Sun does not send enough solar wind our way to make energy extraction interesting. Wonder if that still applies to collecting at the poles in LEO, for perhaps a residual source (negative ions).

If a space elevator were ever possible, I wonder if it would not also act on current differentials at different altitudes and these might also be used residually...

... all pies in the sky for now, I suppose.
 
The world needs to commission the equivalent of a new nuclear power plant every 1.4 days in order to achieve a goal of 90% of our energy from non-carbon sources in 50 years. This calculation assumes that energy demand does not grow over the 50 year time period.
Given that the numbers are correct than this does not seem to be a problem, DSo, because it is not actual nuclear power plants being built. Whether existing and new factories building electric cars, solar panels, wind turbines, etc. could produce enough to reduce the CO2 emissions is another question.
 
Given that the numbers are correct than this does not seem to be a problem, DSo, because it is not actual nuclear power plants being built. Whether existing and new factories building electric cars, solar panels, wind turbines, etc. could produce enough to reduce the CO2 emissions is another question.


Indeed. We don't have to switch over to 90% renewables by then. We should strive to be 90% - 100% CO2 neutral by then which is not the same thing. This can be done through a combination of renewable energy (plenty of more options than just nuclear) combined with better efficiency in all areas.
 
Meanwhile in Adelaide, South Australia...

It's a tad warm here at the moment, broken all the records (again).

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-17/climate-change-at-work-in-adelaide/7035926

Deniers will be pleased to hear that my solar panels are working flawlessly, and my air-conditioned electric car was trouble free when driving home, in peak hour traffic, when the outside temperature was 42° C.
 
Not one to double-check the numbers, but I've seen similar before. Seems right. Also, there is not enough uranium for all that, iirc.

The admittedly wild notions I'd like explored more (on paper) involve:

Beaming electricity by microwave from satellites. Issues of course with maintenance costs and making access to space far cheaper, but 24/7 power. To date probably far more expensive than land-based.

I've also heard that the Sun does not send enough solar wind our way to make energy extraction interesting. Wonder if that still applies to collecting at the poles in LEO, for perhaps a residual source (negative ions).

If a space elevator were ever possible, I wonder if it would not also act on current differentials at different altitudes and these might also be used residually...

... all pies in the sky for now, I suppose.


The problems for AGW believers just keeps piling up :eek:

NEW STUDY OF NOAA’S U.S. CLIMATE NETWORK SHOWS A LOWER 30-YEAR TEMPERATURE TREND WHEN HIGH QUALITY TEMPERATURE STATIONS UNPERTURBED BY URBANIZATION ARE CONSIDERED
 
Last edited:
It's not ...just more of Watts blather...and Haig...even this flattened graph shows...it's getting warmer....

figure4-poster.png

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/...atters-for-temperature-trends/figure4-poster/

sweet as cherries picked...
 
What journal is this study published in?


Give it time ;)

See HERE pdf EMBARGOED UNTIL 13:30 PST (16:30 EST) December 17th, 2015
"…this new study is presented at AGU session A43G-0396 on Thursday Dec. 17th at 13:40PST and is titled Comparison of
Temperature Trends Using an Unperturbed Subset of The U.S. Historical Climatology Network"


macdoc said:
sweet as cherries picked...


Seems NOAA have been picking the wrong cherries :eek:

New Study Shows NOAA Overestimate US Warming By 50%
 
Give it time ;)

See HERE pdf EMBARGOED UNTIL 13:30 PST (16:30 EST) December 17th, 2015
"…this new study is presented at AGU session A43G-0396 on Thursday Dec. 17th at 13:40PST and is titled Comparison of
Temperature Trends Using an Unperturbed Subset of The U.S. Historical Climatology Network"

Actually the peer-review of this should be interesting. To just a cursory examine it doesn't seem especially egregious in general claims or form. For the most part it seems like a general acknowledgement that the worst situated stations currently are worse than the best situated stations, which is the reason that there is a categorization of stations between the worst, the best, and the rest.

It most assuredly is a good process to revisit periodically, you can't make proper adjustments to the models without having good assessments of how much impact the changes around various of the worst situated temperature stations have been.

I know where the suspect areas of such research generally lies, but nothing leapt out at me initially, ...it has, however, been a long week well laid to rest. I'll look into it in more detail tomorrow, right now I'm all about some hot food and 2 to 3 fingers of some good, smooth, Scottish muscle relaxer.
 
In the sort of good news category..since the pot is already heating up....

Coastal marshes more resilient to sea-level rise than previously believed
Increased plant productivity and soil generation help marshes adapt
Date:
December 18, 2015
Source:
Duke University
Summary:
Rising seas threaten coastal marshes worldwide. But a new study finds marshes are more resilient than previously believed. Elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 boost plant biomass production, allowing marshes to trap more sediment and generate more organic soil. This may elevate the threshold rate of relative sea-level rise at which marsh drowning is initiated by up to 60 percent and partially offset the effects of reduced sediment delivery and accelerating sea-level rise.
more
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151218084337.htm

on the other hand

Lake Poopo, Bolivia's 2nd-largest lake, dries up
Climate change has boosted temperatures, tripling evaporation

Thomson Reuters Posted: Dec 18, 2015 10:24 AM ET Last Updated: Dec 18, 2015 1:27 PM ET

What happens when a lake dries up entirely? In the case of the Lake Poopo in Bolivia, the Andean nation's formerly second largest after the famed Titicaca, the answer is nothing short of devastation.

The saltwater lake was located in the Bolivian altiplano at an altitude of 3,700 metres.

'There should be some rain. But that's not happening and so there's nothing.'
- Valerio Calle Rojas, fisherman
The government has declared the area a "disaster zone," but many say not enough has been done to make the area sustainable again.

"We have no lake. There were flamingos. But after the first few days of December, we are not surprised the lake has dried up," Valerio Calle Rojas, one of 150 fishermen from the Untavi community, told Reuters.

'40 days ago there was water'

CLIMATECHANGE-SUMMIT/BOLIVIA-LAKE
The saltwater Lake Poopo was located in the Bolivian altiplano at an altitude of 3,700 metres. (David Mercado/Reuters)

Rojas explained Lake Poopo's gradual water loss.

"From corner to corner, it is dry. In the 90's there was at least 2,000 square kilometres (772 square miles) of water (in the lake). After that, the water level began going down, In 1995, 1996, there was a drought as well, and the water dried up, but it came back quickly," he said. "Right now the water should be coming back at least a little bit. There should be some rain. But that's not happening and so there's nothing,"

Mining outfits depended on the lake

The situation has been made all the more acute by the building up of metres-high sediment from local mining that has no water to combine with, leaving much of the local land full of a reddish sand.

With the water gone, animals have died off in the millions, according to studies. (David Mercado/Reuters)

Climate change blamed

Local specialists have no trouble identifying the role of climate change.

"Lake Poopo has been tracked for about 60 years and there has been evidence that climate change has had an effect in the last decade, from the 90's in the 20th Century. The temperature has gone up 0.9 degrees Celsius," said Milton Perez, a professor at the Oruro Technical University.

World's lakes are warming surprisingly quickly due to climate change
That has made water evaporate three times as fast between rains. He went on to note the changing climate patterns.
more
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/lake-poopo-bolivia-dries-up-1.3371359
 
Last edited:
Haig - spare us - .....does it show warming ???

Yes

Why??

Because we are loading up the atmosphere with carbon outside the carbon cycle
Time to move on.


No worries macdoc :)

The Alarmist panic can stop over imagined runaway global warming because a new trend analysis shows we’re there now and it's fine! ;)

Satellite data shows globe will stay below 1.5°C target at the current rate of warming, resulting in 1.1°C
December 18: University of Alabama, Huntsville

The average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere has warmed just over four tenths of a degree Celsius (almost three fourths of a degree Fahrenheit) during the past 37 years, with the greatest warming over the Arctic Ocean and Australia, said Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Microwave sounding units on board NOAA and NASA satellites completed 37 complete years of collecting temperature data in November, giving us nearly global coverage of climate change during that time.

If that trend was to continue for another 63 years, the composite warming for the globe would be 1.1 C (about 2 degrees Fahrenheit) for the century, Christy said. That would put the average global temperature change over 100 years well under the 2.0 C (3.6 degrees F) goal set recently at the climate change summit in Paris.


So four tenths of a degree Celsius (almost three fourths of a degree Fahrenheit) during the past 37 years really isn't anything to panic about when you consider the longer record ...




If none of that stops your panic then maybe these two can do it with humour and facts :thumbsup:

George Carlin on Global Warming

Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom