Last January Was the Hottest Global Temperature Anomaly In Recorded History

merbs writes: NASA has released its global temperature data for January 2016, and, once again, the record for the hottest month in recorded history has been shattered. At a time when these kinds of records are broken with some regularity, it takes a particularly scorching month to raise eyebrows in the climate science community. It has to be the hottest hottest month by a pretty hot margin. Sure enough, last January did the trick: It was 1.13 C warmer than the global average of 1951-1980 (the benchmark NASA uses to measure warming trends)—in other words, a full 2F warmer than pre-1980 levels.

Comments

YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[chrism238]

How many near consecutive broken records does it take for weather extremes to no longer be called 'anomalies'?

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[Dutch Gun]

It will take future analysis and records. If the trends continue, it's not an anomaly. If the temperature trends drop, then we know it was a temporary blip in the record. Only time will really tell.

Geologically speaking, we've only been recording temperatures for an infinitesimally small amount of time. Moreover, there's obviously no experimental control possible - i.e., we can't tell what the temperature would be without humans with any certainty - it's all theoretical models that are describing the trends we're seeing.

I'm not saying the models are necessarily incorrect. I'm just pointing out that they are, in fact, only predictions and models. The only way to judge their validity is to measure their ability to predict trends over time.

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[russotto]

"Anomaly" in this case is a technical term meaning deviation from the reference value.

And everyone warmist and denialist knows this one is due to El Nino, but that won't stop the warmists from crowing over it.

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[Geoffrey.landis]

Funny how when its extra cold (snow storms, record cold winters, etc) all we hear is 'weather is not climate'.
However when its extra hot, is seems weather is climate?

No.

One exceptionally warm month, or even one warm winter, is not climate. (Nor one exceptionally cold one). Climate is long term,.

What is noteworthy is how frequently records are being set. If the temperatures were random, and not rising, you would expect records to be set only on rare occasions.

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[mbkennel]

| The only way to judge their validity is to measure their ability to predict trends over time.

And many other behaviors, and judge the validity by examining the quality of the physics implemented in them.

There are effects which are directly a result of the underlying proposed mechanism (increased greenhouse gases), such as polar regions warming more than equatorial regions, night warming more than day, stratospheric cooling and distinguish from many other possible mechanisms.

These signatures have been observed and are consistent with mainstream scientific climatological understanding.

It's not just a matter of some particular models predicting one time series or not; it's about validating physics.

And understanding physics is the historically most successful way to predict hypothesized results of physical systems.

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[Sique]

We are controlling Nature. All the time. That's the whole point of being a planning, rationale being. We control the amount of rain water that hits our skin by staying indoors, or carrying an umbrella. We control the temperature of our environment by heating and air conditioning. We control the surface properties of the ground by laying tarmac along our often traveled paths. We control the species of plants growing around us by sowing, planting and weeding. We control the animals living near us by breeding them. As apes coming from a steppe landscape with sparse trees, we convert about any landscape we don't need for buildings, structures and food into a steppe landscape with sparse trees, and we call them parks, gardens and golf courses. We even control the functioning of our bodies by regular exercise and medicine.

What the whole discussion of anthropogenic climate change is about is thinking about the less immediate effects of our ways to control Nature. How we control Nature does not average out in the end, on the whole our changes shift Nature into a less diverse, hotter and less stable state.

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[Layzej]

I for one don't think we should attempt to control nature.

What about air conditioning and heating, or purifying water?

Or for that matter, burning fossil fuels...

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[Geoffrey.landis]

If the only two choices are "Absolutely right" or "completely wrong," this might make sense. The people who said "the earth is not flat, it's a sphere!" were, in fact, wrong. But, they were not as wrong as people who said that the Earth is flat.

Science actually works by making progressively better models.

The global warming models have error bars. Right now, the error bars are large-- plus or minus about 50%. But, the main feature-- the fact that increasing carbon dioxide does increase warming-- is pretty well established.

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[ScentCone]

Who said he was going to shoot you with a gun? There are lots of other options. Crossbows come to mind.

And no, there's nothing wrong defending yourself against trespassers when you've taken the time and invested the resources to prepare for life threatening circumstances. When other people feel entitled to the work you put in to be prepared for something, the word you're looking for is not "refugees," it's "looters."

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck up your economy, because we are kinda sure we guessed correctly.

This isn't Science, it's a fucking guess game and competition for Government Grants.

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[Dutch Gun]

Why are people assuming I'm some "denialist"? I've already been modded down a couple of times as "overrated", which is shorthand for "I disagree with you and wish to silence you". It's hilarious... the slightest hint of wishing to validate claims with actual evidence and the pitchforks come out. And really... you must have a rather low opinion of my faculties if you seriously felt the need to point out that burning fossil fuels create the excess CO2, not the humans themselves. Sheesh.

I sincerely try to look at the science objectively, and right now, the evidence looks pretty good that we're in a warming trend, and a lot of of scientists seem to think human activity has something to do with it. I have no qualms with that. But again, we're really not going to know if their predictive models are accurate or not until we match their predictions up with future data. That's all I'm saying.

I have no problem with taking reasonable action to curb pollutants and emissions. I think that's a worthwhile goal in itself, regardless of what's happening with the climate. Moreover, it's common sense that we also need to start moving away from oil-based energy since there's a finite supply available to us - and that means investments in renewable energy sources. But let's not destroy or unnecessarily destabilize our economy in the process - that will simply derail efforts. No one gives a shit about the environment when they're about to get kicked out of their home since they can't get a job. Yes, I know... how dare I be pragmatic about human nature, right?

It's important to get accurate models because a more accurate model will tell us how much time we have to implement necessary change. People who want us to go to take immediate extreme corrective measures are, in my opinion, doing more harm than good by generating massive political opposition needlessly. Early wolf-crying predictions were utterly disproved a few decades later. Thanks to that, many people don't believe the current round of worrisome predictions, even if this round turns out to be correct.

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[AlterEager]

You cite a paper that says "This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability." but dismiss multiple papers that showed that there is little or no difference when internal climate variability was compensated for.

I know what I don't find convincing and that's the single paper effect.

Re:So?

[Daetrin]

Just out of curiosity, where precisely do you believe it say recorded history began in 1951?

In particular, the charts and graphs linked in the article shows January temperatures going back to 1880. (And yes, this January was warmer than all of them.) I think you may be conflating different statements into a single assumption?

Re:So?

[Yoda222]

The summary does not says that recorded history began in 1951. It says that 1951-1980 average serves as baseline for the temperature anomaly "0" level.

Used to be a lot warmer.

[viking80]

Used to be a lot warmer many times in history. Around year 1000, and for many generations, norsemen grew grains in Greenland. Antartica and Svalbard had tropical climate millions of years ago. It appears the earth was overall a lot wetter when is was warmer, which makes sense. Probably also a lot more violent weather.

Maybe a new ice age would be more devastating than a wet heatwave.

Re:Used to be a lot warmer.

[jouassou]

I hear this argument a lot. You're right that there's nothing wrong with having a warmer climate, and as you say, it's a lot less destructive than another ice age. The problem occurs when the climate changes are too rapid. In this case, wild species don't have enough time to either migrate to suitable areas or adapt through evolution, possibly resulting in mass extinction and ecological disaster. For us humans, coastal cities would be affected by rising sealevels; climate changes would shuffle around which regions are suitable for farming and not; other food sources like fishing might be affected in unpredictable ways. So you're right that the Earth has been a lot warmer before, but that doesn't solve the short-term problems caused by rapid climate change.

Re:Michigan.....

[Molt]

To be fair Flint used to have people, but then they drank the water.

Re:So?

[DogDude]

Short sighted and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

"Recorded History" is 136 years

[Anonymous Coward]

136 years is a few milliseconds on climatic and geologic time scales.

Re:So?

[Areyoukiddingme]

Just out of curiosity, where precisely do you believe it say recorded history began in 1951?

The summary does not says that recorded history began in 1951. It says that 1951-1980 average serves as baseline for the temperature anomaly "0" level.

I'll respond to you and the sibling post simultaneously.

The headline says "Last January Was the Hottest Global Temperature Anomaly In Recorded History". The summary says "It was 1.13 C warmer than the global average of 1951-1980". Taken together, that says that recorded history began in 1951. I mentioned both the words "headline" and "summary" in my original post. You were expected to put them together yourself.

And yet

[WindBourne]

Ppl will continue to scream that America with less than 15% of total emissions, and dropping, is responsible, while china with more than 33% ( mid 40s% according to oco2 ) is OK to continue growing it. Far better to die, than to break political correctness and survive.

Re:icehouse earth

[Namarrgon]

While true, what you say is not particularly relevant to us today. We've been in the current phase for tens of millions of years, and are unlikely to exit this anytime soon - unless perhaps by our own doing.

The planetary biosphere may well eventually flourish, in a much warmer climate. But in the short term (hundreds of years, rather than millions), sudden and drastic changes to temperature such as those we are going through now do not give the biosphere sufficient time to adapt, and mass extinctions are likely to result. Further, we humans must also adapt, which will incur significant costs as we migrate our populations & cities, infrastructure and farmlands, to more favourable locations - and likewise, these costs rise fast if we're forced to adapt quickly. Many economic studies have been done on the financial consequences of climate mitigation vs adaption, and most find mitigation to be considerably cheaper.

If we wanted to encourage a warmer planet, this is far from the optimal way to go about it.

Re:icehouse earth

[AlterEager]

Correct... the fallacy that our climate is static is the number 1 reason I dont believe much of this debate

1. There is no "debate"

2. No scientist has ever claimed the climate is static.

the tempa go up, the temps go down, constituent ingredients that make up our atmosphere change,

No. The temperatures change for reasons. The constituent gases of the atmosphere change for reasons.

yet Earth keeps on ticking, there is NOTHING we can do for this,

Well, you are of course totally wrong. We not only can change the climate, we have.

we ride on the Earth, hang on tight and make whatever adjustments you need to to survive.

And, in order to survive the adjustment we will have to make is to stop emitting fossil CO2.

Re:icehouse earth

[AlterEager]

Well, you are of course totally wrong. We not only can change the climate, we have.

Have we now??? Well, feel free to believe that, I will continue to KNOW that whatever small effect we have on this chunk of rock and water, there will be counter effects built in the natural feed back loop.

How do you "know" this? My belief is based on science. Yours, not so much.

When in doubt...follow the money on global warming scaremongering... who exactly IS profiting.

Who is profiting from the denial of science? I'd guess it's the people who are funding it, you know, fossil fuel extraction companies.