GISS calendar year average above 1951-1980 'baseline':
2014: .73C
2015: .87
2016: .99
2017: .90
2018: .82
2019 is coming on strong, possibly a new record. No chance it will be cooler than 2014, and 2014 was above the next warmest year, 2010's .70C.
It's hard to call five-plus years a fluke, and even if it's a cycle, the signal of .2C rise per decade is rising above the noise. Absent a massive volcanic eruption, we're not looking back even to the significant warming that was experienced just nine years ago - we're off in uncharted territory.
Might be something worth betting over for the next time denialists say something foolish.
The temperature anomaly is dropping slowly even though the tropical Pacific has experienced a weak el Niño. The amount of snow cover is above normal, and we haven't seen a nice pair of volcanic aerosol injections in over 25 years. This means I'm willing to bet the temperature anomaly will be below 2014's sometime over the next ten years if you pay off $10 for every $1 I bet.
ReplyDeleteFernando Leanme
ReplyDeleteDemanding 10-1 odds?
That would imply that you regard the probability of a year cooler than 2014 in the coming decade as no more than 10%.
Clearly the blue team has won. Even you red-teamers expect global warming to continue.
Entropic, you are starting to believe your own propaganda. Skeptics don't 'deny' warming. Most don't even 'deny' human contributions. Most don't 'deny' much of anything.
ReplyDeleteCitation, Tom?
ReplyDeleteI've known quite a few self-proclaimed "skeptics" who say that the warming is faked by NASA and NOAA. "The fake temperatures were 'adjusted'!", they claim. So yeah, they call into question whether it's warming.
ReplyDeleteI know others who deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas at all, and still others who say that mankind's contribution to CO2 is "only 3%".
Either these aren't skeptics (so: "deniers"?), or Tom's wrong, I think.
In any case, even as a "blue-teamer", I'd also take Fernando's side of the bet, that there's at least a 10% chance of a year cooler than 2014. Not a bad bet. It just doesn't say much.
Sure does seem like there's less and less room for actual deniers to make cogent arguments. Tom -- you're a "lukewarmer", right? That one will be harder to prove/disprove from temperature observations, so I expect lukewarmers to stick around longer.
The genius of “lukewarmism” is its malleability - it conveys both the assumption of low climate sensitivity to CO2, as well as a dismissal of the projected impacts of rapid rise of GMT if sensitivity is actually around the 3 K per doubling that it implicitly denies.
ReplyDeleteOops - there’s that word again...
Tom
ReplyDeleteI said nothing about denial. I find it interesting that it was you who linked red-teamers and climate change deniers.
Giss for May is out.
ReplyDelete0.87C
That makes the year to date average 0.98C and leaves 2019 in second place.
Just watch for the impact of rainfall changes (drought and flood). It is the most delicate and difficult part of the warming to be certain of and we are entering the unknown area where both the CO2 and the forced temperature are higher than at any time we have had a civilization, and moving far too quickly for stability.
ReplyDeleteFor lukewarmers the issue has to be risk management. Sure, it might not be as bad as I say it is, but if I am wrong we'll still have a civilization to measure.
Seems to Eli that the bet has to pay every year. So if 2019 >2014 Brian gets a buck. If 2020 > 2014 Brian gets a buck, etc.
ReplyDelete