ADVERTISEMENT

November was Earth’s warmest such month on record by a huge margin

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
79,435
62,542
113
imrs.php

(NASA)

Last month was the warmest November on record by an incredible margin, according to NASA measurements. The global average temperature for the month was 1.05 degrees Celsius, or about 1.9 degrees Fahrenheit, warmer than the 1951 to 1980 average. It’s also the second month in a row that Earth’s temperature exceeded 1 degree Celsius above average.

It was just in October that our planet first exceeded the 1-degree benchmark in NASA’s records, dating to 1880. Prior to that, the largest anomaly was 0.97 degrees Celsius in January 2007.

The recent measurements become even more significant in light of the recent Paris accord, in which 196 countries boldly agreed to limit the planet’s warming to “well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degree Celsius.” The extraordinary warmth of October and November helped push this year well-past the 1-degree benchmark.

[5 things you should know about the historic Paris climate agreement]

We have known that 2015 is all but certain to be the warmest year on record, though we did not know by how much it would be. Given the November report, 2015 will eclipse last year as the warmest year on record by a huge margin.


The Japan Meteorological Agency, which tracks the increasing global temperature, also concluded that last month was the warmest November on record since 1890, relative to the period from 1981 to 2010.

El Niño played a large role in November’s — and the year’s — exceptional warmth. El Niño is an event marked by abnormally warm ocean temperatures in the equatorial Pacific. The extent of the warm water is huge this year, stretching from the west coast of South America to past the international dateline, which divides the Pacific Ocean. As of November, temperatures in parts of this vast region were running as much as 4 degrees Celsius, or about 7 degrees Fahrenheit, above normal.

But the Pacific Ocean wasn’t the warmest region of the globe in November — much of the warmth measured by NASA emanated from the Arctic, where temperatures were running anywhere from 4 to 10 degrees Celsius (7 to 18 degrees Fahrenheit) above average.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...op-stories_cwg-november-1125am:homepage/story
 
Earth has been around for 4,000,000,000 years and we have records for maybe 100. It's probably not time to panic yet.

On another note, I don't think it's possible to mention the temperature being the warmest without mentioning the El Niño effect which is incredibly powerful this year and made winter temperatures substantially milder. El Niño is unaffected by carbon emissions.
 
Earth has been around for 4,000,000,000 years and we have records for maybe 100. It's probably not time to panic yet.

On another note, I don't think it's possible to mention the temperature being the warmest without mentioning the El Niño effect which is incredibly powerful this year and made winter temperatures substantially milder. El Niño is unaffected by carbon emissions.
Yes, but we have computer models that go back further and into the future farther.
 
Isn't this just a wee bit skewed since we're comparing 2015 to a time frame (1951-1980) where there were worries of temperatures being colder than normal?

This is kinda like those graphs where the y-axis is skewed to make inclines/declines look worse than they are.
 
Isn't this just a wee bit skewed since we're comparing 2015 to a time frame (1951-1980) where there were worries of temperatures being colder than normal?

This is kinda like those graphs where the y-axis is skewed to make inclines/declines look worse than they are.

There were never any worries that temperatures were getting colder. There was a Time Magazine article about some interesting observations and conjectures.
 
Earth has been around for 4,000,000,000 years and we have records for maybe 100. It's probably not time to panic yet.

On another note, I don't think it's possible to mention the temperature being the warmest without mentioning the El Niño effect which is incredibly powerful this year and made winter temperatures substantially milder. El Niño is unaffected by carbon emissions.

"dating to 1880", when climate began

The first 3,999,999,800 aren't important, because we didn't have a massive infrastructure built around existing shorelines and climates.
 
Earth has been around for 4,000,000,000 years and we have records for maybe 100. It's probably not time to panic yet.

On another note, I don't think it's possible to mention the temperature being the warmest without mentioning the El Niño effect which is incredibly powerful this year and made winter temperatures substantially milder. El Niño is unaffected by carbon emissions.


And he can't have it worldwide either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Earth has been around for 4,000,000,000 years and we have records for maybe 100. It's probably not time to panic yet.

On another note, I don't think it's possible to mention the temperature being the warmest without mentioning the El Niño effect which is incredibly powerful this year and made winter temperatures substantially milder. El Niño is unaffected by carbon emissions.

What happened the last time we had a strong El Niño? It was 1998. You seem informed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Anybody go off grid and live in bush? If not you are part of the problem.

How big is al gore's house? How much does he fly ?
Does he really care?
 
What happened the last time we had a strong El Niño? It was 1998. You seem informed.

Actually, the El Nino was in 1997.
1998 was the record temperatures year, because surface temps lag the ENSO phenomenon by at least 3-6 months.

Thus, although we are already setting major global records for temperature in 2015, it is a very solid bet that 2016 will be quite a bit hotter once the El Nino effects are fully manifested (for a comparison, look at the global annual record for 1997 vs 1998).

The only thing that could impact 2016 and make it cooler than 2015 is if we have a significant eruption (Mt St Helens/Pinatubo level stuff) which would cause a drop in global temps for maybe a year or two, before they'd get right back to the same increasing trend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Here is what Japan's Meteorological Agency just posted, RE: November monthly temperatures.

nov_wld.png


You can look up any other month in the record at their website:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/nov_wld.html

Here is the Autumn data (Sept/Oct/Nov):

aut_wld.png

You can see the 1997 El Nino spike, but 1998 was cooler during the fall, after the El Nino had died off.

2015 El Nino vs 1997 El Nino clearly shows about a +0.3°C increase this time around for the S/O/N period.
 
Assuming we get the spike in 2016, you can bet it will become the starting point for the next "See? There's been no warming since 2016!! GW is a hoax!!"
 
Looks like we're only talking about an average of a single degree.

Man the lifeboats! The ocean will be rushing down the street any moment now!!
 
I mean c'mon man. It is kinda funny. You have to admit the thread title is slightly exaggerated.

No. It's really not.

When you consider how many Terajoules of energy is required to move the temperature of the entire surface of the Earth by just 0.01°C, let alone a half degree, it is rather astounding to see this big of a shift in mere decades. Typical shifts in temperatures from paleo records take millennia to occur, not just a decade or two.
 
There ought to be a lot of questions on climate change and the new agreement during tonight's debates. But I suspect the topic will get short shrift.

Why do the radical Islamist extremists want to prevent discussion of climate change?
 
" in which 196 countries boldly agreed to limit the planet’s warming to “well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degree Celsius.”

This might be the funniest part of this thread.
 
" in which 196 countries boldly agreed to limit the planet’s warming to “well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degree Celsius.”

This might be the funniest part of this thread.
Then you should really appreciate the Green Party view of the recent accord.

"Though the stated goal of the Paris Treaty is to keep the global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius, the stated commitments won’t achieve that. And although previous drafts of the treaty called for phasing out fossil fuels in the second half of the century, the final draft excludes that language. Countries are also not required to cut emissions before the new treaty commences in 2020." -- (Margaret Flowers, GP Senate candidate)

"The decision to limit warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels was a positive step. But the deal combines this with only voluntary pledges from nations for the actions necessary to prevent average global temperatures from rising further.

Scientists and environmental groups have warned that the pledges, especially those from wealthy developed countries, to curb greenhouse gas emissions are more likely to result in a dangerous rise of 2.7C or more. Furthermore, the pledges are not legally binding. The deal tells us that it's unlikely that the global community will reach the 'net zero emissions' goal by 2070, based on imperatives established by U.N. scientists." -- (Andrea Mérida, GP-US co-chair)

"Republicans continue to deny anthropogenic climate change, while Democrats like President Obama acknowledge the crisis but are reluctant to seek deep cuts in domestic fossil-fuel consumption and emissions. The positions of both parties show the pervasive influence of Big Oil and we can be certain that Republicans in Congress will block ratification by the U.S. of any climate-change agreement." -- (Audrey Clement, GP-US co-chair)

More comments here

http://www.gp.org/greens_say_nonbinding_deal_at_paris_summit_falls_short
 
When the climate alarmists stop apposing elitism, I will get involved. Yes, my negative Eco footprint may be more impactful than 100 people in Africa and India combined, but we need fewer people and the reality is they lack the awareness, and technology to really argue that point.
 
There ought to be a lot of questions on climate change and the new agreement during tonight's debates. But I suspect the topic will get short shrift.

Why do the radical Islamist extremists want to prevent discussion of climate change?

A) Saudi Arabia has been actively undermining the international efforts on climate change, and have obvious reasons to avoid any form of carbon taxes or emissions limits.

B) Saudi Arabia has actively promoted terrorist groups, directly or indirectly, including the Taliban and ISIS

C) Saudi Arabia is a hotbed for the Wahabbi and extremist forms of Islam which have targeted the U.S. in the past, and are targeting the U.S. and Western nations now.

D) Most of the world's money funnels directly into Saudi Aramaco and the Saudis, enabling them to promote their agendas.

The GOP candidates' positions on climate change and fossil fuels are pretty closely aligned with Saudi Arabia.

Only, they are too foolish to realize that those alignments feed those terrorist elements in the Middle East, but perhaps there are elements in the Republican party who don't mind that, because it politically whips their base up into a frenzy to help push their domestic agendas, too. God-fearing Christians vs. evil Muslims. Fight domestic terrorism by pushing the NRA's 'no gun limits' agendas. Cheap oil to line the pockets of many of their key donors and get them re-elected.

I see very little 'Reagan Republicanism' or 'Eisenhower Republicans' in the party anymore. I see a group that is fine with pursuing agendas clearly aligned with a 'friendly' terrorist state, because they don't really have any good Republican ideas anymore. More guns; ban abortions; put God in schools and courthouses. Lather, rinse, repeat.
 
A) Saudi Arabia has been actively undermining the international efforts on climate change, and have obvious reasons to avoid any form of carbon taxes or emissions limits.

B) Saudi Arabia has actively promoted terrorist groups, directly or indirectly, including the Taliban and ISIS

C) Saudi Arabia is a hotbed for the Wahabbi and extremist forms of Islam which have targeted the U.S. in the past, and are targeting the U.S. and Western nations now.

D) Most of the world's money funnels directly into Saudi Aramaco and the Saudis, enabling them to promote their agendas.

The GOP candidates' positions on climate change and fossil fuels are pretty closely aligned with Saudi Arabia.

Only, they are too foolish to realize that those alignments feed those terrorist elements in the Middle East, but perhaps there are elements in the Republican party who don't mind that, because it politically whips their base up into a frenzy to help push their domestic agendas, too. God-fearing Christians vs. evil Muslims. Fight domestic terrorism by pushing the NRA's 'no gun limits' agendas. Cheap oil to line the pockets of many of their key donors and get them re-elected.

I see very little 'Reagan Republicanism' or 'Eisenhower Republicans' in the party anymore. I see a group that is fine with pursuing agendas clearly aligned with a 'friendly' terrorist state, because they don't really have any good Republican ideas anymore. More guns; ban abortions; put God in schools and courthouses. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Agreed. Plus, more wars means more money to our MIC and more arms sales around the world.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT