The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.13 C/decade (+0.11 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
The global temperature spike higher is approaching the highs from the Super El Nino in 1998 and also the warmth from the big El Nino 3 years ago...........around .7 deg. c less than the peak with that one without a major El Niño, just a waning one.
This is expected with global warming. I expect that the global temperature will be a bit higher in 10 years and even a bit higher than that in 20 years.
What would be shocking to me, is if the planet is not also greener then.
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
UPDATE: (10/3/2019, 4:55 p.m. CDT): We have discovered that the last 1-2 months of LT data could be biased high. This is based upon a quick analysis of tropical temperatures where our mid-tropospheric (MT) and upper-tropospheric product (TP) anomalies are usually in good agreement. September 2019 is a clear outlier, with TP much too cold compared to MT. MT was cooler in the tropics in than in August, but because TP fell so much more, their weighted difference produced a spuriously warm result for LT. Furthermore, the tropical LS (lower stratospheric temperature) is at a record low in the tropics, a result which I do not believe. I will provide an update when we figure out the problem.
I found this report from earlier in the year interesting for several reasons.
1. One of our most prolific posters here, Wayne is from the great country of Canada.
2. It shows, as I have stated dozens of times, that the warming is mostly taking places in the coldest places on the planet(the highest latitudes), especially during the coldest times of year(and at night-the coldest time of day)......where it's the most beneficial. Cold kills 20 times more than heat. In the Winter, life goes dormant or hibernates or migrates to keep from getting killed by cold. When you warm the highest latitudes, you decrease the meridional temperature gradient. The atmosphere doesn't need to work as hard to redistribute the heat imbalance and some forms of extreme weather, like violent tornadoes go down.
3. It shows a wild temperature projection for the future with greatly amplified warming under the high emissions scenario. This completely ignores the laws of physics regarding the logorithmic rate of warming which CO2 causes. The more and more CO2 that you add, the less the effect for each additional amount.
4. The intentionally misleading verbiage that this source used "leaked report" in the title to make it appear as if they are revealing bombshell, breaking news before everybody else(news sources are all about being the first to tell us stuff) about how bad the climate crisis really is.
According to the now released report, the only way to keep global temperature rises in line with the targets set by nations at the Paris climate summit in 2015 is for "global emissions to peak almost immediately, with rapid and deep reductions thereafter."
The report says the national annual average temperature increase projected for the late century, compared to the reference period of 1986-2005, ranges from a "low-emission scenario" of 1.8 C to a "high-emission scenario" of 6.3 C.
Temperature variations during the Holocene from a collection of different reconstructions and their average. The most recent period is on the right, but the recent warming is only seen in the inset.
Out of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for conditions warmer than now at 120 sites. At 16 sites, where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM temperatures were on average 1.6±0.8 °C higher than now. Northwestern North America had peak warmth first, from 11,000 to 9,000 years ago, and the Laurentide Ice Sheet still chilled the continent. Northeastern North America experienced peak warming 4,000 years later. Along the Arctic Coastal Plain in Alaska, there are indications of summer temperatures 2–3 °C warmer than present. Research indicates that the Arctic had less sea ice than the present.
Read the additional descriptions below of what happened to the planet when temperatures were warmer than this:
West African sediments additionally record the African Humid Period, an interval, between 16,000 and 6,000 years ago, when Africa was much wetter. This was caused by a strengthening of the African monsoon by changes in summer radiation, resulting from long-term variations in the Earth's orbit around the Sun. The "Green Sahara" was dotted with numerous lakes, containing typical African lake crocodile and hippopotamus fauna."
metmike: We are being told that we are having a climate crisis, even a climate emergency............but the science of paleoclimatology and the studies we have all tell us it's a climate optimum.
Forget what the dems and MSM are telling you and look at what the scientists named this period that was warmer than today and why:
The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years BP, with a thermal maximum around 8000 years BP. It has also been known by many other names, such as Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Megathermal, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, Hypsithermal, and Mid-Holocene Warm Period.
I got dragged into a climate discussion recently
This person thought the carbon tax canada pays was a good idea. Increased price meant reduced miles or fossil fuel consumed, which was good.
Of coarse he had no sympathy for our farm greatly increased cost, as the money did not come from his pocket. So: Naturally I took offense with his thinking
I explained that the planet was much warmer than today and the planet thrived
He then said the climate cooled the next few 1000 yrs, which was harmful for plants and animals, which sort of evened out. Of coarse I had no info for this statement
He then said that if CO2 increases, where is the tipping point. He agreed that warmer gave a short term benefit, but if CO2 continued to increase, beyond anything in past records, would the planet do some thing completely unexpected at which time, this was what he called the tipping point. If the planet warmed with out the use/burning of fossil fuel, many 1000 yrs ago, then what might happen,??? using many additional barrels of fossil fuel today and even more into the future which did not exist 1000 of yrs ago, what would happen??? This is something the planet has never had to adjust to, the increased fossil fuel., until just recently in planet yrs
He said instead of waiting to find out, even if the tipping point of CO2 did not cause disaster, why continue and find out, yes or no, when it would clearly be too late, if disaster did happen.
Instead why not be a bit cautious and try to not upset mother nature with increased fossil fuel use. We are writing new information chapters as we burn fossil fuel and all we do is watch what happens. If we are wrong then we might reach the tipping point of which the planet can not deal with, and of coarse we have no previous info except past temps which may not be enough information. We also know fossil fuel contains many more heat units than such things as whale oil, wood or coal, and the use of fossil fuel is expected to increase much more in future yrs, thus much more heat and CO2
He said that fossil fuel use is something new which we don't have a complete book of information. We can't take a peek at the last chapter, and find out what happens in the last chapter..
He did not say the science was settled either way
He just said we are writing new books of information
Sorry for the delay in the response.
Some excellent points too by you.
With regards to the tipping points that you mentioned. Like the guy said, we don't know for sure. This would be associated with positive feedbacks, like for instance, if we keep melting Arctic sea ice, then there will be less sunshine reflected back to space and the warming might increase even more............and with more warming, then even less ice, then even more sun reflected back to space and so on.
There are several other "potential" positive feedbacks. If they all kicked in, then we might have runaway, out of control warming.
However, as the guy says, the science is not settled. If there were only positive feedbacks and runaway warming, then when the earth warmed 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 years ago and between 9,000 to 5,000 years ago(to warmer than this) than many of those positive feedbacks would have kept the warming going until it got out of control. Why didn't that happen with previous, similar warmings?
The reality is that our wonderful system also has built in negative feedbacks that keep that from happening.
One of the positive feedbacks that we are being warned about is increased desertification. The reality is that the planet is greening up and that is a negative feedback not positive with much more vegetation helping to keep things from warming as fast. Also, clouds. There is much uncertainty here but the big increase in low level moisture(and rains) will likely cause an increase in low level clouds that block more of the stronger short wave radiation from the sun than they trap of the weaker, long wave radiation from the earth beneath them. So they are probably a negative feedback(even though more H2O in the air is clearly a positive feedback, with H2O actually the main greenhouse gas)
Also, this is not feedback or tipping point stuff but the physics of the warming from CO2, with absolute certainty are logarithmic. This means that the effects become less and less as the amount increases. There are absorption band widths that capture CO2 which become saturated as the level goes higher, after which the long wave radiation is no longer affected with more CO2.
Earth Day: Climate Change NOT accelerating-CO2 Residence time-Logarithmic affect-legit science-April 2019
So, let's say that we got 1 deg. C of warming from the increase of 110 parts per million of CO2 from 300ppm to 410ppm. We might only get .5 deg. of warming with the next increase of 110ppm because of this. That is settled science based on experimental proof and the known physics.
But then you have the additional increase in H2O taking place(warmer air holds more moisture) which adds to the warming.........clearly a positive feedback-minus the potential negative feed backs from clouds and a host of other unknown feedbacks besides those mentioned so far.
Since there are so many unknowns, why not just play it safe and plan for the worst case scenario, like your guy suggested?
2 reasons why this is a very bad idea.
1. Authentic climate science and history has always referred to periods warmer than this by up to at least a couple of degrees as climate optimums, not a climate crisis. At the current, 1 deg. warmer temp of the planet vs 100 years ago, cold still kills 10 times more people than heat. Life still hibernates and goes dormant in the Winter and migrates south to keep from being killed by the cold. Today and for the next 100 years at the current rate of warming, most life will do better in 100 years than it is now.The rate of warming has been 1.3 deg. C/century in the real world based on real world observations/measurements. So, to be realistic, let's use that amount of warming......the actual warming that's happening.....not the busted model projections that have been too warm. Climate models are just simulations of the atmosphere based on modelers programming the models with what they think is important based on theories, some very speculative and none dialing in natural cycles that are unknown.
Some are 1.5 deg. some 2 deg. C, some go as high as 5 deg. C. If we were actually warming at the rate of 5 deg. C, I would be the first one to tell you about it.
What will happen in 100 years if we keep warming at this rate?
There will be more rains and flooding events and Summer heat waves will be a bit worse but the warming will affect the coldest places during the coldest times of year the most. Temperatures will be similar to what they were during the Holocene climate optimum of 9,000-5,000 years ago. Sea levels could increase a bit faster than the current rate of 1 inch/decade. Let's say the rate doubles............which is not happening right now.........then sea levels would be 2 feet higher in 100 years.
At the same time, the increase in the beneficial gas CO2 will be massively beneficial to all plants. The planet WILL be greener. This is almost certain. The law of photosynthesis has not been repealed. A warmer atmosphere will cause rains to increase. Crop yields are very likely to go higher, even if Summer's are slightly warmer(they have not been warmer in the Cornbelt-the hottest decade by far was the Dust Bowl 1930's) Higher CO2 levels actually cause plants and crops to be more water efficient and they do better with heat and drought compared to lower CO2 levels.......it gives them more protection. Also, climate models have all been too warm with their projections of 2,3 or even 5 deg. of global warming in 100 years.
By objective climate science history standards, at this current rate of warming, LIFE on this planet will be experiencing another climate optimum in 100 years.
2. But what if the warming is, like 3 times higher than this? Shouldn't we act now.........just in case because that would actually cause some major issues. Surely it would be worth it to avoid a potential disaster. The actions to go to a zero carbon emission society would actually be the disaster. It would crush economies because the cost of energy would be astronomical. Based on the physics, science and chemisty principals of energy delivery, it would also be almost impossible to achieve this in the next several decades. The closer that we would get to that objective the more major damage to the economies.
3. The world is doing the exact opposite. Fossil fuel use is still ramping higher and in some countries, like China, its well known that they are still building a great deal of coal plants and have no intention of cutting CO2 emissions in the next decade. Why would they? Part of the their agreement in the CLimate Accord was that they would consider cutting by the year 2030............and as a developing country by the UN's standards in the agreement...........they continue to GET money(not pay but GET-no kidding) from developed countries like the US and Canada, that was until Trump withdrew. They get money from Canada(to supposedly adapt to the fake climate crisis-but its really to transfer wealth from your rich country to them, a poor country-global socialism)
So, taking drastic actions with CO2 cuts would likely
1. Be addressing a climate optimum because we are having the best weather/climate in the last 1,000 years. ...not a climate crisis. We are being fed fake news on the authentic science.
Does the media have too much power?: Time Magazine goes off the anti science deep end/97% of scientists agree on a climate crisis bs/31,487 American scientists disagree that there is a crisis. Sept 2019
2. Have extremely low chances of it turning into a climate crisis with no observations indicating that.......just busted climate models.
New: Head of Key Meteorological Organization Slams Climate Extremists: Alarmism busted. Arctic life doing great. Climate modeler spills the beans. September 2019
3. Have catastrophic economic costs that by themselves would be a crisis. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-carbon-report/weaning-u-s-power-sector-off-fossil-fuels-would-cost-4-7-trillion-study-idUSKCN1TS0GX
Sanders Touts $16 Trillion Climate Plan: Anti Science Bernie = the complete opposite of the truth! August 2019
4. Are unrealistic because most of the worlds countries will NOT be making cuts that wreck their economies. CO2 is well mixed in the global atmosphere. If the US goes to zero and China keeps increasing we just shot ourselves in the foot (and we, as well as you are supposed to also send China money...........to help them catch up to us rich countries)
Renewable energy: When can it replace fossil fuels? August 2019
Renewable vs fossil fuels: Diffuse solar vs dense fossil fuels. Benefits of CO2. September 2019
China, CO2 and Climate Accord: August 2019