2016 - Warmest Year in NOAA's 137-Year Series

and 2017 is getting off to a roaring start. (at least around here)

 

For surface-T compilations it might be surprising if 2017 misses a top-10 spot. Satellites proxies have more year to year variability, so perhaps there.

Solar connection was recently on wunderground, along with anticipations for the next solar cycle or two, so if I may:

As Earth Warms Up, The Sun Is Remarkably Quiet | Category 6™

(btw their Fig.2 is not current. Now down to 40 or 30 on this scale)

 

2016 NOAA claim that year was warmest was revealed by Gavin Schmidt to be 30% accuracy.
30% accuracy means it's a lie . Not exactly robust science.

 

Correction that should read 2015 Noah claim...

 

The guy with the ark?

 

All global compilations of surface T will rate 2016 highest, when they get around to it. If otherwise that would be news. Climate compilations are not about a few people trying to mislead you.

Satellite-T compilations show 2016 about tied with 1998. They are overly sensitive to ENSO cycles which is one aspect of their inferiority to surface-T measurements.

But if y'all prefer to clown around with NOAA Noaa Noah, alrighty them.

 

Difference between (for example) 2015 and 2016 is not statistically significant due to accumulated uncertainties in measurements. If that seems comforting, great. The point is that recent T has been consistently high. T increasing at decadal scale. One can find Gavin Schmidt quotes to that effect. Of from other folks if you'd prefer.

Presently, decadal T goes up. Solar irradiance goes down. That's just the way things are and distractions at the annual or personal level seem simply misdirection to me.

Decadal T is not increasing very fast. Might want to attend to that. If it gets measurably faster, that would be a thing. If a future decade's T goes lower, that would also be a thing.

 

Hummm, even UAH has noticed:

Bob Wilson

 

It's been pretty warm down here in Florida.

 

I just don't see how these numbers can be taken seriously, since the number of measuring stations, methods and the accuracy of temperature sampling is much different now that it was in the 1800s. Too many squishy points and assumptions for me. Heck, we can't even seem to measure the actual mileage of a Prius.

However, before I get negative reactions, let me assure you that I realize that people do have an effect on the environment. And I want to emphasize that I think we should be looking at ways to scrub CO2 out of the atmosphere on a global scale.

 

For post # 1 - Can you run the same table for Coldest Year. . . . Norm Augustine would second the request, imo.

For post #11 - Do trees, veggies, and other co2 breathers get a vote on the scrubbing extent, locations, etc ?
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Totally agree with your comment.

 

Which part of "your mileage may vary" do you not understand?

Bob Wilson

 

Coldest@12. Very interesting question. For HADCRUT global T (compiled since 1850) coldest year is 1909, with -0.32 oC anomaly. Latest year has +0.9 oC anomaly.

Accuracy@11. This subject is widely discussed. It is absolutely true that thermometer measurements have (always) been established as a means to know local variation. Then they were combined to assist in weather prediction. Then they were combined differently to characterize regional climates. Finally they have been put to use estimating T over time at global scale. These are distinct goals, and the same distribution would not be ideal for all of them.

But we have the temperature records we have and there is no time travel. Various T-compiling groups use different techniques to assimilate data. Those agree well, which will either lead you to suppose that they are 'on to something' or that they are all willfully misrepresenting. That part is up to you the reader.

 

NASA provides an animated .gif file plotting warmest and coldest years.

. . . . . Climate Change: Climate Resource Center - Ten coldest and warmest years

 

Vegetation is a well know source of scrubbing. However, we should be looking for industrial solutions that can be scaled and optimized.

 

Plants can make use of higher amounts of CO2 in the air, but they also respire like the rest of us.

 

Forest reduction/removal has decreased storage of carbon in soil organic matter and dead wood. This is reversible, so WRedoubt is on the right track.

 

I think my comment is a bit more specific than reforestation or more plants, although greening of the deserts in Nevada, Arizona and California might be a workable solution. Maybe with desalinated sea water, which is in abundance at lift levels to the desert that are comparatively small.

However, the efficiency of plants is known (they output 10 times more oxygen than they respire) and somewhat limited. In fact, it is unclaer to me if there is the kind of "exchange" of CO2 that most people envision. It may have more to do with decomposition than "consumption" of CO2.

With technology, perhaps a mechanical system could be developed that could be heavily optimized and made increasingly efficient. Much like the Prius is much more efficient today than it was just a few years ago. In an ideal situation, the byproduct of this process would be usable items, like building materials or Prius cars.

 

Scientists Criticize 'Hottest Year on Record' Claim as Hype | RealClearInvestigations
"NOAA fixed the 2016 increase at 0.04 degrees Celsius. The British Met Office reported an even lower rise, of 0.01C. Both increases are well within the margin of error for such calculations, approximately 0.1 degrees, and therefore are dismissed by many scientists as meaningless."