For the 12th month in a row, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has announced record-high global temperatures — marking a yearlong heat streak that scientists say is grim sign of climate change in action.

April 2016 was the hottest April ever recorded by NOAA since it started tracking global temperatures in 1880, the agency announced Wednesday. This is the 12th consecutive month the agency has identified a monthly global temperature record. That’s the longest such streak NOAA has ever recorded.

“The April temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.98°F above the 20th century average of 56.7°F,” NOAA announced. “This was the highest for April in the 1880-2016 record, surpassing the previous record set in 2010 by 0.50°F.”

Those temperatures are staggering, climatologists say.

“It’s pretty striking,” said Astrid Caldas, a climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists and a Huffington Post contributor. “I’m just in shock. I wish it weren’t so.”

Caldas noted that she didn’t expect the planet would arrive at this point so quickly.

“I think most climate scientists are surprised at the speed that it’s happening,” she said. “But at the same time, with emissions peaking again last year... everything was pointing to an increased temperature. It’s the amount by which the records are being broken, not the fact that the record’s being broken, that’s really striking.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/one-year-record-heat_us_572fbc91e4b0bc9cb047312c

OK before I get started on a rant, anyone denying global warming needs to be publicly humiliated. If its some fucktard in power, they seriously need to be deposed oh and remember, Clinton supports fracking and the Keystone pipeline.

So as it stands, we have antibiotics running out and with an increase in temperatures, we have a wider spread of organisms able to deliver viruses, etc and warmer climates allowing them to thrive. On top of that, we have 60 years left of farming from topsoil erosion along side an ever increasing world population that's about to find a fuckton of the land they used to live and farm on under water...

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/rising-seas/if-ice-melted-map

We can enjoy less wind too according to this

http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/09/the-forgotten-part-of-climate-change-slower-winds/

as well as more acidification of the oceans and along with the mass extinction event we're now in because human beings are fucking stupid, at some point in the future you're going to be sitting on a hill surround by the sea with only a chicken and potato to eat (with no sauce)...for the rest of your life until the earth manages to re-evolve species again.

Closer to home, the EPA had this to say...

WASHINGTON — In the absence of global action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the United States by the end of the century may face up to $180 billion in economic losses because of drought and water shortages, according to a report released Monday by the White House and Environmental Protection Agency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/us/politics/effects-of-climate-change-could-cost-billions-epa-report-says.html

So it looks as though scientists have been caught out by the rise in temps as they've been hotter, so maybe that 100 year prediction is going to be a little less.

Scientists haven't been caught out, they've simply been vindicated. These rises are in line with IPCC predictions, and are to be expected when a strong El Nino cycle is added to a rising base trend. It's a pet hate of mine that people misrepresent temperature rises that are in line with IPCC predictions as unexpected, when this year's temperature is very close to the first IPCC report's projections from 1990. To go further and say that the projections, which have been very accurate, may need to be scrapped or adjusted in response to a large short-term jump is as stupid as those who wanted to scrap the projections because of a short-term "pause". More so, even, given the shorter time frames for the observed rise.

Also, there have not been 12 consecutive monthly anomalies, only 7, and 8 of the last 12 months have set monthly records,

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/table ... s+dSST.txt

It's quite significant enough a set of observations to not need exaggeration.

These are basic facts that shouldn't be getting disputed. NOAA is saying, in Global Analysis - March 2016: "March 2016 also marks the 11th consecutive month a monthly global temperature record has been broken, the longest such streak in NOAA's 137 years of record keeping."

In the article linked to in the OP, it says:

“NASA also recently announced that April 2016 was the hottest April on record, although it considers it to have been the 7th consecutive monthly record, not the 12th. NASA uses slightly different dates than NOAA to determine the long-term average temperatures, and it says that September 2014 was warmer than September 2015 — a finding that Mann says might be more accurate than NOAA’s.

We are breaking records by 3 to 4 tenths of degree C, whereas even the largest El Niños... only boost global temperatures by 1 to 2 tenths of a degree C,” Michael Mann, a climate scientist and director of Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Center, told The Huffington Post in an email. “Even neglecting the possibility that climate change itself is leading to more monster El Niños... El Niño cannot explain the majority of this record warmth. Climate change is clearly playing a key role in the record warmth.”

OlivierK, I'm not all that well versed in the numbers, but your reply seems way too harsh for the insignificant differences in the NASA vs. NOAA data. If the temps are in line with what was predicted in 1990, then they over-estimated what the rise we would see since there's no way they were predicting a el nino for this year back then. I keep hearing quote after quote from climate scientists about being surprised by how fast this shit is going down, are all of them misguided?

I think journalists are very good at picking out the "OMG" quotes. This El Nino is very similar to the 1998 event in terms of how far the monthly anomalies deviate from the underlying trend. And yes, the fact that this is in line with 1990 projections does indicate a possible over-estimate of trend rises, although it's ballpark pretty good, and with observed accelerating warming, you'd expect slightly smaller increases in the early part of the century, and bigger later (as opposed to the almost linear projections in the 1990 IPCC graphs). That's all the more reason not to rush to suggest that the models are underestimating things and may need reworking, and pulling out the "scientists are shocked!!!!11!" card so beloved of denialists who trade in the idea that scientists don't have a good handle on what we should expect. They do. In a big El Nino year, what the models suggest is what we're seeing. If we allow ourselves to be consumed by short-term movements, then for sure and for fucking certain, there will be cretins around in the next La Nina year pointing out that the world has cooled since 2016. Fuck that shit.

Edited to add: when there are vast resources being poured into trying to discredit climate science as "alarmism", it's fucking important to avoid actual alarmism, even if "OMFG look at how hot it is" is an irresistible headline for rags like HuffPo.

OlivierK wrote:Scientists haven't been caught out, they've simply been vindicated. These rises are in line with IPCC predictions, and are to be expected when a strong El Nino cycle is added to a rising base trend. It's a pet hate of mine that people misrepresent temperature rises that are in line with IPCC predictions as unexpected, when this year's temperature is very close to the first IPCC report's projections from 1990. To go further and say that the projections, which have been very accurate, may need to be scrapped or adjusted in response to a large short-term jump is as stupid as those who wanted to scrap the projections because of a short-term "pause". More so, even, given the shorter time frames for the observed rise.

Also, there have not been 12 consecutive monthly anomalies, only 7, and 8 of the last 12 months have set monthly records,

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/table ... s+dSST.txt

It's quite significant enough a set of observations to not need exaggeration.

Thanks Oliver.

We're already at 29dC in Toronto today after being below zero last week. The Great Lakes didn't freeze this year so we're likely in for a very warm and humid summer.

But it isn't just climate change with global warming.

We're looking at ocean acidification which I can only assume is a bad thing. We have 60 crop harvests left with topsoil apparently. We're losing species so fast we're now officially in a Mass Species Exctinction MSE and antibiotics are going to become useless, generally because we've been stuffing farm animals with them for decades.

Global warming is just the tip of the iceberg isn't it? We're setting ourselves up for a load of problems over the next century and they all look like they're going to merge at roughly the same times (other than the MSE). Unbelievably, the US still needs to get it's act together.

felltoearth wrote:We're already at 29dC in Toronto today after being below zero last week. The Great Lakes didn't freeze this year so we're likely in for a very warm and humid summer.

So if I understand correctly as I had a friend living near the lakes in the us, you get "lake effect" that causes more snowfall does that mean less water and droughts? Don't they try to stop lakes freezing to stop the snow? She was near Eerie.

Teague wrote:

felltoearth wrote:We're already at 29dC in Toronto today after being below zero last week. The Great Lakes didn't freeze this year so we're likely in for a very warm and humid summer.

So if I understand correctly as I had a friend living near the lakes in the us, you get "lake effect" that causes more snowfall does that mean less water and droughts? Don't they try to stop lakes freezing to stop the snow? She was near Eerie.

You can't stop the lakes from freezing, but yes the lake effect hugely influences the weather if you are in the "shadow" of the jetstream. Buffalo is at the easterly end of Lake Erie so it sees tuns of snow as the atmosphere pocks up moisture from the lakes and then dumps it. The same effect is seen in Central Ontario as moisture is picked up from Lake Huron. In Toronto, Lake Ontario has a moderating effect but the heat island effect means we can see less rain or snow than the surrounding burbs. I've witnessed rain fronts many times split in two around the core of Toronto as the heat creates higher atmospheric pressures than the surrounding areas.

Teague wrote:

felltoearth wrote:We're already at 29dC in Toronto today after being below zero last week. The Great Lakes didn't freeze this year so we're likely in for a very warm and humid summer.

So if I understand correctly as I had a friend living near the lakes in the us, you get "lake effect" that causes more snowfall does that mean less water and droughts? Don't they try to stop lakes freezing to stop the snow? She was near Eerie.

When the lakes freeze, that basically turns off the lake effect snow. The lake effect snow exists due to the disparity in temperatures between the lake water and cold air, and of course, the size of the lakes and wind direction.

And Donald Trump named a climate change denier as in charge of his energy policy

How surprised are you?

OlivierK wrote:How surprised are you?

Can't say I am surprised, but a little let down. I know there are a lot of prominent conservatives and even Republicans who embrace climate science. I think its an issue that the public is moving away from the GOP stance on. I think the GOP notices that because it feels like they spend less time talking about their science denial.

I think to some degree Trump has shown a willingness to defy the party and many speculated he would turn centrist in the GE. But so far he has done the opposite surrounding himself with establishment figures, same ol donors, same ole list of justices, etc...

Now seems to be adapting the same ole standard rejected policies the last 2 campaigns trotted out

This was NOT in the IPCC 1990 projections.

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for April 2016 was 1.10°C (1.98°F) above the 20th century average of 13.7°C (56.7°F)—the highest temperature departure for April since global records began in 1880. This value surpassed the previous record set in 2010 by 0.28°C (0.50°F). This was also the fourth highest monthly temperature departure among all 1,636 months on record, behind March 2016 (1.23°C/2.21°F), February 2016 (1.19°C/2.14°F), and December 2015 (1.12°C/2.02°F). Overall, 13 out of the 15 highest monthly temperature departures in the record have all occurred since February 2015, with February 1998 and January 2007 among the 15 highest monthly temperature departures. April 2016 also marks the fifth consecutive month (since December 2015) that the global monthly temperature departure from average has surpassed 1.0°C (1.8°F) and it is the 12th consecutive month a monthly global temperature record has been broken, the longest such streak in NOAA's 137 years of record keeping.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201604

Really?

IPCC 1990 forecast rising temperatures over the 21st century. If there were no short-term fluctuations, we'd be setting records every year, but with the ENSO cycle overlaid, what you'd expect is than when the ENSO cycle is heading towards La Nina, the trend and ENSO would cancel out, resulting in a "pause", and when ENSO swings back to El Nino, the ENSO rises added to the trend rises would result in rapid warming. How is this not what we've observed?

And how is this different from the last time we had a big El Nino in 1998, when 11 of the 12 months from September 1997 to August 1998 were record monthly anomalies, as you'd expect when an El Nino comes around after a decade of strong baseline warming since the last one.

Here's a graph from IPCC 1990:



It shows a steady 3C/century, or 0.3C/decade, rise over the late 20th and 21st centuries. The first quarter of 1990 in GISTemp had an anomaly of 0.39C, and Q12016 was 1.18C, a rise of 0.79C, which to 2 decimal places is a rise of 0.30C/decade. Given that 1990 was only weakly El Nino, and 2016 has been a strong El Nino, that's consistent with the estimate being excellent, but possibly a little on the low side. Frankly, the 1990 graph that showed non-accelerating warming during the 21st century always seemed inconsistent with the general acceptance that warming would accelerate as CO2 levels rose, so slightly smaller rises now, and larger later seem to better fit the science.

I'm not sure what's motivating you, as someone well-read on climate change, to slag off the IPCC's projections, other than personal amimus arising from the fact that it's me (someone who's taken you to task for hyperbole bordering on alarmism) defending them.

[Hilariously, the source for that reproduction of the 1990 chart that shows the IPCC bang on track is a 2012 denialist article taking the IPCC to task for being wrong ]

OlivierK wrote:I think journalists are very good at picking out the "OMG" quotes. This El Nino is very similar to the 1998 event in terms of how far the monthly anomalies deviate from the underlying trend. And yes, the fact that this is in line with 1990 projections does indicate a possible over-estimate of trend rises, although it's ballpark pretty good, and with observed accelerating warming, you'd expect slightly smaller increases in the early part of the century, and bigger later (as opposed to the almost linear projections in the 1990 IPCC graphs). That's all the more reason not to rush to suggest that the models are underestimating things and may need reworking, and pulling out the "scientists are shocked!!!!11!" card so beloved of denialists who trade in the idea that scientists don't have a good handle on what we should expect. They do. In a big El Nino year, what the models suggest is what we're seeing. If we allow ourselves to be consumed by short-term movements, then for sure and for fucking certain, there will be cretins around in the next La Nina year pointing out that the world has cooled since 2016. Fuck that shit.

Edited to add: when there are vast resources being poured into trying to discredit climate science as "alarmism", it's fucking important to avoid actual alarmism, even if "OMFG look at how hot it is" is an irresistible headline for rags like HuffPo.

Far be it for me to defend your typical 'science news' BS you see in the media, it's awful. But you can't blame them for the basic quotes we've seen, so we're bumping up against the issue of scientists needing to keep reminding themselves to be careful when talking to lay media. If a climate scientist ways something like, "This is happening way earlier than we thought", he had better hold a gun to the interviewer's head and demand if they use that quote, they include the explanation of it being due to the temporary el nino. I don't understand why they would say such a thing anyway, it's misleading in the extreme.

Climate scientist really need to learn the 'trick' of how to speak with the lay media, and shouldn't they already have gotten the message? I've heard this statement many many times over the last 5 years or so, about the polar ice, the Greenland glaciers, temps, permafrost temps, and even I think sea level and movement of habitable zones for various plants and critters. I've missed a few I'm sure. And again, these are the words of the climate scientists doing work in this field

If this isn't actually happening, the scientist are more to blame than the media. I wholeheartedly agree with your edited addendum, the scientist need to stop saying they are surprised by data that isn't surprising. But, if this shit really is accelerating at a higher rate, that can't be discounted.

Yes, scientists prone to hyperbole are also to blame. After being beaten over the head with "the pause" for a decade, I have no idea why they'd come up with "I'm shocked!!1!" rather than "We told you so.", but what the fuck do I know?

You got one thing right in your comment...let's put the IPCC nonsense to bed...we are a DECADE ahead of the IPCC worst case.

IPCC projection


reality BEFORE 2016


THAT is why the shock....let alone what is going on in the Arctic which is entirely off the charts....to the point that we might just see an ice free period at the pole this year if the mostly new ice ( there is almost no old ice left ) gets swept down the Fram Strait.

Indeed there is no need for exaggeration....the numbers speak for themselves as does the reality around the planet.
Yes the coming La Nina in late summer will bury some of the heat but 2016 is still being projected to be hottest yet.'

Even Hanson's amazing projection in 1981 ...



did not get to anywhere near 1 C before 2020 in worst case.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... rojection/

Mind you

Given the many uncertainties at the time, notably the role of aerosols, the agreement is very good indeed. They only underestimated the observed trend by about 30%, similar or better in magnitude than the CMIP5 models over the same period (although these tend to overestimate the trend, still mainly due to problems related to aerosols).

If you take that 30% underestimate....1C by now maybe should have been in the cards.

So how about abandoning your IPCC called it in 1990 premise and move on...

as for your unwarranted comment on Huffington....if the data is portrayed accurately as it is here...

Spring Has Sprung In The Arctic ... But It's Way Too Early For It
NOAA just reported the earliest snowmelt in 78 years of recorded history.
21/05/2016 9:48 AM AEST | Updated 21/05/2016 9:48 AM AEST
1802
Chris D'Angelo Associate Editor, HuffPost Hawaii

NOAA
One of the coldest places on Earth is already starting to see signs of spring -- a good month or two before it should, according to researchers.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Friday that Barrow Observatory, located 320 miles north of the Arctic Circle, just reported the earliest snowmelt in 78 years of recorded history.

“It looks like late June or early July right now,” David Douglas, a research biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, said in a statement.

The remote Alaska observatory is usually one of the last places in the United States to see its snow begin to vanish. This year, however, the snowmelt began May 13, a full 10 days earlier than the previous record set in 2002.

Welcome to the terrifying realities of global climate change.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/ ... ef=science

Then indeed who are you to dismiss them

This is their source for this animation

http://dk79lclgtez2i.cloudfront.net/fil ... 2cb4b8.mp4

(The animation above from the National Snow and Ice Data Center shows the fracturing and rotation of sea ice near Alaska from April 1-24.)

snip

George Divoky, a wildlife biologist who heads the Friends of Cooper Island research institute, said he expects the early melt-off will have drastic effects on Alaska wildlife, including Arctic bird species.

"It’s like a train wreck you can’t look away from," Divoky said in a statement. "You never know what you’re going to see and this year’s as big a mystery as any."

train wreck indeed.

Will the real McCoy please step forward. I'm confused.

Macdoc,

Your posting of graphs without source links or attributions is very tiring. None of your three graphs y-axes state the base for the anomalies. They're not the same, and they're not the 1951-1980 average used by GISTemp and others. I could work it out, but it would be far easier and more reliable if you posted attributions. The first graph's projections kick off from actuals that do not match reality - the 1998 El Nino peak is simply not there, so I'm not sure what I'm meant to be looking at.

As best I can see from guessing the base for the anomalies, your conclusions don't seem at all clear cur (that's being kind, but I have little time at the moment, I'm just grabbing a few minutes between dealing with helping my wife out who's had a flat tire without spare (stupid sports cars!) on the motorway). I'll have a closer look later on. If you could provide citations by then, that would be helpful.