Hot mess: Earth on track for hottest year on record

[rooster59]

Hot mess: Earth on track for hottest year on record

It’s a record that’s been broken every month of this year, but it’s bad news for the earth. The world is on track for its hottest year on record, something which has climate scientists ringing alarm bells.

The figures come from NASA’s first ever mid-year heat analysis, released because the figures were so excessive. The UN’s World Meteorological Organization Director of Climate Research David Carlson warned “we don’t have as much time as we thought. If we got this much surprise this year, how many more surprises are ahead of us?”

Last year, the Paris Agreement saw 200 governments agree to limiting global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius. The UN website indicates:

“Of these, 19 States have also deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval accounting in total for 0.18 % of the total global greenhouse gas emissions.”

Scientists say we must move from words to acts.

“This report gives renewed emphasis for the importance of international action in tackling climate change,” Greenpeace Chief Scientist, Dr Doug Parr said. “It’s not something we can keep postponing or putting off until the economy is in a better state or whatever. It really means we need to go now. We need to ratify Paris. We need to do the things that need to be done on the back of it.”

Temperatures in the northern hemisphere, early and rapid arctic sea ice melt, as well as ‘new highs’ in heat-trapping carbon dioxide levels are evidence that climate change is speeding up, according to the UN agency.

A failure to act, it warns, could mean the frequency and intensity of weather events like heatwaves and floods could worsen dramatically.

-- (c) Copyright Euronews 2016-07-23

[shirtless]

The UN is pushing for a one world government , this is simply never going to work, Just look at the EU they want a borderless world.

[RickBradford]

I suppose it makes a better headline than "World cools by record amount in 2016" - the estimated average global temperature has dropped by 0.5C since January, as the El Nino falls away.

May 2016 was cooler than May 1998, which was during the last big El Nino. It may be that 2016 pips 1998 overall as the hottest year on record, but it's guaranteed that 2017 will be cooler than 2016.

Don't expect to read about that in the one-narrative legacy media, though.

[adhd]

this is just a natural cycle of the sun ... remember long ago when we had very hot summers & winters full of snow ?

some hi-so just hijacked this with fear to impose taxes that does not help the earth, only to fill the coffers for the few elite

[RBOP]

My visit to BC Canada this past July was the coldest wet month I can ever remember in my past 25 years of visiting.

[Catoni]

"....on record..." Which means since we started measuring with semi-accurate instruments circa 1850..... when we came out of the Little Ice Age period.. (1300 - 1850 give or take a decade or so,)

The Earth has been around for about 4,500,000,000 years.... . 166 years is nothing in comparison.. My great-great-great grandfather, John Williamson was 20 years old in 1850.

Ice core studies show it was warmer during the Medieval, Roman and Minoan Warm Periods... to say nothing of the Holocene Climate Optimum Warm Period.

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c013482e6a00e970c-pi

[Steely Dan]

I suppose it makes a better headline than "World cools by record amount in 2016" - the estimated average global temperature has dropped by 0.5C since January, as the El Nino falls away.

May 2016 was cooler than May 1998, which was during the last big El Nino. It may be that 2016 pips 1998 overall as the hottest year on record, but it's guaranteed that 2017 will be cooler than 2016.

Don't expect to read about that in the one-narrative legacy media, though.

70% Chance of going directly from El Niño to La Niña according to the latest Asian climate forecasts.

[Catoni]

>" A failure to act, it warns,..."....."The UN’s World Meteorological Organization Director of Climate Research David Carlson warned “we don’t have as much time as we thought."

The U.N. ha, ha, ha

The Alarmists always come out with the "It's worse than we thought" line... They have to keep the alarm level high to justify their jobs and cash grants...

"The squeaky wheel gets the grease" as they say... The results of there being no problem or of solving the problem, is to get your funding cut and lose your jobs.. Have to keep that cash flowing into their bank accounts.

Interpretation: "We need more cash for further study, higher taxes and more government intervention in everyone's lives.. "

I have no trust of extreme left winger or extreme right wingers suffering from Gorebull Warming/Climate Change Alarmist Delusional Paranoia Syndrome.

(We often shorten it to just Alarmist Delusional Paranoia Syndrome)

There is help for ADPS......They should get counselling, and perhaps medication.

[landtrout]

I suppose it makes a better headline than "World cools by record amount in 2016" - the estimated average global temperature has dropped by 0.5C since January, as the El Nino falls away.

May 2016 was cooler than May 1998, which was during the last big El Nino. It may be that 2016 pips 1998 overall as the hottest year on record, but it's guaranteed that 2017 will be cooler than 2016.

Don't expect to read about that in the one-narrative legacy media, though.

"Guaranteed", eh?

Ninety-seven percent of the world's climatology experts who've conducted research and published peer reviewed abstracts over the past twenty five years have concluded that the earth's temperature is on the rise, AND that human activity is the cause.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

To my knowledge, you're the only one of these expert climatologists willing to guarantee that next year will be cooler (or hotter, for that matter...) than this one!

Fortunately, there's still time to stock up on mittens and mukluks, so.... thanks for the heads up, professor!

[ilostmypassword]

I suppose it makes a better headline than "World cools by record amount in 2016" - the estimated average global temperature has dropped by 0.5C since January, as the El Nino falls away.

May 2016 was cooler than May 1998, which was during the last big El Nino. It may be that 2016 pips 1998 overall as the hottest year on record, but it's guaranteed that 2017 will be cooler than 2016.

Don't expect to read about that in the one-narrative legacy media, though.

For years the deniers of human caused climate change said the the average global temperature wasn't getting warmer. And they would point to 1998 as evidence. What they didn't acknowledge was that 1998 was the year of a huge El Nino - even bigger than the current one.

Now they're saying that the reason it's so hot is because of this latest El Nino.

In other words, they ignore the El Nino phenomenon when it suits their purposed and they invoke it when it suits their purposes.

Dishonest much?

(And by the way, their claim the 1998 was the warmest year until this latest El Nino is false, too.)

And of course, 2017 will be cooler. Climate scientist are in agreement on that. The average global temperature will fluctuate from year to year. But the underlying fact is that the trend is for the average global temperature to keep on getting higher.

[iReason]

NASA: Hottest June on record continues 14-month global heat wave

"The first six months of 2016 were the hottest ever recorded, NASA announced on Tuesday, while Arctic sea ice now covers 40% less of the Earth than it did just 30 years ago."

"Temperatures were on average 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average between January and June this year, compared to the late nineteenth century."

"In total, the planet has now had 14 consecutive months of the hottest temperatures seen since records began in 1880,

the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said"

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/19/weather/hottest-june-record-world/index.html

[RickBradford]

In other words, they ignore the El Nino phenomenon when it suits their purposed and they invoke it when it suits their purposes.

Dishonest much?

Idiotic and untrue much.

The suggestion that skeptics ignore the 1998 El Nino is utterly absurd. Skeptic scientists have written peer-reviewed papers on El Nino, with particular reference to 1998. Don't think that just because you want something to be true, that it automatically is.

And of course, 2017 will be cooler. Climate scientist are in agreement on that. The average global temperature will fluctuate from year to year. But the underlying fact is that the trend is for the average global temperature to keep on getting higher.

No argument there -- my point was that the mainstream media will studiously ignore the cooling, just as they ignore growing polar ice, as it doesn't fit the preferred narrative.

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

My visit to BC Canada this past July was the coldest wet month I can ever remember in my past 25 years of visiting.

There is a complete difference between weather and climate.

2 years ago I went to Lake Louise, the Glacier that has been there for thousands of years is a fraction the size that it was just 20 years ago.

So 1 cool month in BC doesn't mean jack.

Go to the interior and see what has happened to the forests. They have been killed by spruce and pine beetles because the winters don't get cold enough to kill them off.

99% of all scientists agree that global warming is real.

It's just evil CSers like the Koch brothers that pay to put out disinformation to protect their fossil fuel investments.

Believe whatever you want to tell yourself, the climate change is happening fast and there will be no denying sooner than you might think.

[MZurf]

Climate change? Pffffff!

[thaibeachlovers]

My visit to BC Canada this past July was the coldest wet month I can ever remember in my past 25 years of visiting.

There is a complete difference between weather and climate.

2 years ago I went to Lake Louise, the Glacier that has been there for thousands of years is a fraction the size that it was just 20 years ago.

So 1 cool month in BC doesn't mean jack.

Go to the interior and see what has happened to the forests. They have been killed by spruce and pine beetles because the winters don't get cold enough to kill them off.

99% of all scientists agree that global warming is real.

It's just evil CSers like the Koch brothers that pay to put out disinformation to protect their fossil fuel investments.

Believe whatever you want to tell yourself, the climate change is happening fast and there will be no denying sooner than you might think.

It's 97% but who's counting?

It's completely irrelevant how many scientists think whatever. The governments of the world are doing NOTHING to change the situation, probably because they can't.

The real cause of man related climate change, if it exists, is overpopulation, and good luck trying to change that. 4 billion people would have to die to make a difference. That's now. In a year it would have to be 4.5 billion.

[ilostmypassword]

In other words, they ignore the El Nino phenomenon when it suits their purposed and they invoke it when it suits their purposes.

Dishonest much?

Idiotic and untrue much.

The suggestion that skeptics ignore the 1998 El Nino is utterly absurd. Skeptic scientists have written peer-reviewed papers on El Nino, with particular reference to 1998. Don't think that just because you want something to be true, that it automatically is.

And of course, 2017 will be cooler. Climate scientist are in agreement on that. The average global temperature will fluctuate from year to year. But the underlying fact is that the trend is for the average global temperature to keep on getting higher.

No argument there -- my point was that the mainstream media will studiously ignore the cooling, just as they ignore growing polar ice, as it doesn't fit the preferred narrative.

Are you actually claiming that climate change deniers weren't saying for years that 1998 was the hottest year on record and that since then temperatures have declined? And using that "fact" to deny the reality of global warming?

[RickBradford]

Are you actually claiming that climate change deniers weren't saying for years that 1998 was the hottest year on record and that since then temperatures have declined? And using that "fact" to deny the reality of global warming?

1998 was the hottest year on record (well, perhaps tied with 1934).

As for what happened since then, organisations such as the UK Met Office, the IPCC and numerous others accepted that there was a "pause" or "hiatus" in global warming up to 2014 or so. It was one of the most debated topics in climate science -- on both sides of the debate -- for three or four years from 2010 onwards.

As for what "climate change deniers" might have been saying, I have no idea -- I've never met one. In fact, I don't even know what the term is supposed to signify. It's just one of those silly Green/Left phrases which translates as "somebody who disagrees with me."

[Dumbastheycome]

There is no debate worth having about the fact that fuctuations in temperature on the surface of this planet have occurred as part of natural phenonemen that is little understood due to the fact that it is only in the last century was it accurately recordable and in combination with research on Antarctic seabeds and other locations which indicate major global periods of temperature change. Such changes were significant enough to either permit or destroy flora and fauna.

However the debate about the effect of daily and increasingly emitting so many tons of carbon gasses from previously "locked down" hydrocarbon deposits certainly is worth having. Especially so if it exacerbates what may also be a co incidental fluctuation which has been identified to have a dramatic effect alone.

Or are we supposed to be content with the fact that natural cycles occur and deny that we humans have drastically denuded the planet of forests which has reduced the capacity of carbon recycling,have increased the background radiation of ionizing nuclear particles , contaminated all water sources with deposits of heavy metals, and continue to contaminate soil and water with chemical residues all in the supposed interest of enhancing the "quality of life" ?

Sadly too many are distracted from rational contemplation by the "Standard of Living" criteria which is a purely monetary assessment.

It seems forgotten that health is actually superior to wealth. And that that wealth is mostly in the hands of a few.

[connda]

I'm sure the climate researchers whose ship is currently stuck in the Arctic ice are really glad to here that. "Yeah, the ice will melt soon!"

[MJP]

It doesn't matter. We were born into the hydrocarbon age and hydrocarbons will continue to be burnt until every last drop of recoverable hydrocarbon has been pumped.

Funny how the military of the World can fly round in jets, drive about in tanks and cruise the World in huge ships, but climate change is all because I drove my VW down the road to get a pint of milk.

[arjunadawn]

If humans began diggin for roots with sticks and 100% stopped all industry and travel, the earth would still go through cycles exactly the same as it is now. Climate Change is an ideology, not a phenomena related to Man.

[Chicog]

I'm sure the climate researchers whose ship is currently stuck in the Arctic ice are really glad to here that. "Yeah, the ice will melt soon!"

And I'm sure the Chinese are very happy that they can now send cargo ships through previously inaccessible parts of the Arctic.

[F4UCorsair]

I'll bet everyrhing I own on there being a 'Global Cooling Cycle' within a decade.

Those 'scientist' have to extend their 5 minutes of fame and keep the research funds flowing.

The hole in the ozone layer?? Pardon?? What was that? Oh, I remember, we changed the refrigerant gas in airconditioners and fixed that hole in a couple of years!!

Warming waters off eastern Australia killing the corals of the Great Barrier Reef?? The water temperature in the Red Sea is 10 degrees warmer and has corals just as impressive.

[Pimay1]

I'll bet everyrhing I own on there being a 'Global Cooling Cycle' within a decade.

Those 'scientist' have to extend their 5 minutes of fame and keep the research funds flowing.

The hole in the ozone layer?? Pardon?? What was that? Oh, I remember, we changed the refrigerant gas in airconditioners and fixed that hole in a couple of years!!

Warming waters off eastern Australia killing the corals of the Great Barrier Reef?? The water temperature in the Red Sea is 10 degrees warmer and has corals just as impressive.

I agree. Yesterday John Kerry stated that air conditioners and refrigerators are as big a threat as ISIS. What an idiot.

[F4UCorsair]

I forgot to mention the greenies claim that sea levels were rising, and when challenged that the water levels in estuaries and tidal rivers weren't rising, the idiot said that the sea level was in fact rising in the sea, but not in estuaries and tidal rivers!!!

[warrimurf]

Nothing new in climate change, warming, cooling etc.

What you need to watch out for is big business pushing their agenda to make billions out of fear.

As Catoni rightly mentions there have been a lot of variations over the history on Man and that's a mere nothing in the bigger picture,

I agree in reducing pollution and cleaning up the planet but don't get fooled into thinking you are going to change the weather, IT'S GOING TO CHANGE, IT WILL CHANGE, IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO CHANGE!

Only thing new is, it's now been turned into a money making scheme.

[F4UCorsair]

I couldn't have said it better myself warrimurf. The climate changes, it's always changed, and always will change.

Google Professor Tim Flannery, a climate change frightener, try this link for starters.....

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/it-pays-to-check-out-flannerys-predictions-about-climate-change-says-andrew-bolt/story-e6frfhqf-1226004644818

I've never seen anybody so wrong, so often, and still get paid every week, but paid he was, handsomely by a previous socialist government in Australia, $180,000 as a part time salary to frighten the f*** out of us, and it did for many, those with IQ's barely in double figures (about 90% of the population).

Interestingly, a particular person talked so long and hard about rising sea levels, and this time the rise did extend into tidal rivers and estuaries, that property prices along the Hawkesbury River in New South wales, dropped dramatically, and then HIS WIFE bought an absolute waterfront property at about a third of its real value!!!

A company with which the Prof was involved, and using 'hot rock technology' to generate electricity was 'granted' (read gifted) $90m MILLION, and it's been a total loss, heavy rains that the Prof said would never happen again, having washed out the project in the Australian desert. What a joke!!!

You can read about that here.....

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/flannerys_green_investment_in_deep_strife

The company's share price was $2.00 in December 2007, and today.........2 cents!! I bet the prof wasn't in when it started to plunge.

If governments were really, and I mean really seriously concerned about emissions, they'd start on the ground floor and stop Formula 1. Each car uses a year's fuel for a family saloon in a single weekend, and over twenty weekends a year. They'd regulate airlines, some American airlines have over 700 jets, burning a minimum of 20 tonnes of fuel each per day, and they'd stop new coal fired power stations.

Currently China is opening a new coal fired power station every seven days!!!

Is anybody really serious about this emissions issue? I doubt it. Except, of course, those generating bulk $$ out of frightening governments, and the population at large. That's an inconvenient truth!!

Edited July 24, 2016 by F4UCorsair

[Catoni]

NASA: Hottest June on record continues 14-month global heat wave

"The first six months of 2016 were the hottest ever recorded, NASA announced on Tuesday, while Arctic sea ice now covers 40% less of the Earth than it did just 30 years ago."

"Temperatures were on average 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average between January and June this year, compared to the late nineteenth century."

"In total, the planet has now had 14 consecutive months of the hottest temperatures seen since records began in 1880,

the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said"

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/19/weather/hottest-june-record-world/index.html

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c013482e6a00e970c-pi

[Catoni]

My visit to BC Canada this past July was the coldest wet month I can ever remember in my past 25 years of visiting.

There is a complete difference between weather and climate.

2 years ago I went to Lake Louise, the Glacier that has been there for thousands of years is a fraction the size that it was just 20 years ago.

So 1 cool month in BC doesn't mean jack.

Go to the interior and see what has happened to the forests. They have been killed by spruce and pine beetles because the winters don't get cold enough to kill them off.

99% of all scientists agree that global warming is real.

It's just evil CSers like the Koch brothers that pay to put out disinformation to protect their fossil fuel investments.

Believe whatever you want to tell yourself, the climate change is happening fast and there will be no denying sooner than you might think.

It's 97% but who's counting?

It's completely irrelevant how many scientists think whatever. The governments of the world are doing NOTHING to change the situation, probably because they can't.

The real cause of man related climate change, if it exists, is overpopulation, and good luck trying to change that. 4 billion people would have to die to make a difference. That's now. In a year it would have to be 4.5 billion.

...the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy,Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findingswere published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

[RickBradford]

^^^

Your point is well taken, but I can tell you that you will never wean the Green/Left off their obsession with a 97% consensus, or a 98.4% consensus, or 99.997% consensus. They'd go to 110% if they thought anyone would fall for it.

They are too desperate to find any kind of numerical support for their purely emotional "CO2 is bad" stance.