bdgwx

This is what I mean. This has already been hashed out with you. We have given you links to the changepoint/breakpoint analysis for stations. We've posted examples of those analysis for stations you've mentioned. We've posted links to literature explaining why station measurements are biased, why corrections must be applied, how those corrections are applied, and the verification of those corrections. We've even posted links to the source code that you can use to make the corrections on your own machine. And yet here you asking us to hash this out with you yet again. What has changed this time? Why do you expect us to repeat it all this go around? Will it be received any differently?

You are sealioning. It has been explained to you many times how adjustments are made and why they are necessary and appropriate. You are doing the digital equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and babbling incoherently so that you can feign like we haven't already addressed it.

We have a new record in the OISST dataset in absolute terms. As of January 31st, 2024 the average SST was 21.10 C. This breaks the previous record of 21.09 C set on August 25, 2023. Somewhat concerning is that the peak usually occurs in February or March. Will it go higher?

Antarctic sea ice extent for 2023 achieved a new average low of 9.85e6 km2. This breaks the previous record from 2022 of 10.73e6 km2 by a significant margin. As of January 29th, 2024 sea ice extent is just above what it was in 2023. It looks like the trajectory will take it near the record minimum first set in 2022 and then eclipsed in 2023. One hypothesis I've seen is that the persistently low sea ice extent in the SH could be evidence of a global circulation pattern change induced by the broader global warming. It's possible that the 2020's could be the decade of low SH extent and relatively high NH extent. If the global circulation pattern reverts to the mean the see-saw between the SH and NH could flip again.

All of the data points are in. The composite trend since 1979 has increased from +0.18 C/decade at the end of 2022 to +0.19 C/decade at the end of 2023.

Back in June I predicted 1.05 ± 0.09 C for the annual mean reported by GISTEMP. They actually reported 1.17 C. My model, like everyone else's, failed badly this year.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/152313/five-factors-to-explain-the-record-heat-in-2023

https://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2023/

Here is a another twitter thread with more information and graphs.

There are some similarities with the Cleveland Superbomb on that 0Z GFS run.

There is a possibility the peak hasn't even been achieved yet. Typically UAH TLT lags ENSO by 3-6 months. If this El Nino behaves like past ones then we would not expect the atmospheric response to peak until at least February 2024.

I am going to go ahead and kick this off with Hansen's latest monthly update. What he is saying is that the 1.5 C threshold will effectively get breached in 2024 and stay that way. https://mailchi.mp/caa/groundhog-day-another-gobsmackingly-bananas-month-whats-up Figure 4 includes our expectation that continuing record monthly temperatures will carry the 12-month temperature anomaly to +1.6-1.7°C. During subsequent La Ninas, global temperature may fall back below 1.5°C to about 1.4±0.1°C, but the El Nino/La Nina mean will have reached 1.5°C, thus revealing that the 1.5°C global warming ceiling has been passed for all practical purposes because the large planetary energy imbalance assures that global temperature is heading still higher.

[Miniere et al. 2023] - Robust acceleration of Earth system heating observed over past six decades

12Z UKMET buries the system in the southeast. It forms a dominant 850 mb low in Louisiana with the surface low along the coast at hour 168. It is a bit further north than the 0Z which had cyclogenesis starting way down there in Mexico.

@Roger SmithYou have clearly put forth a lot of effort in this research. Can you summarize your findings?

Some parts of Antarctica are warmer while some are cooler today relative to 1979. The annual mean sea ice extent in 1979 and 2023 up through December 29th is 12.3e6 km2 and 10.5e6 km2 respectively. There is much less sea ice today than in 1979. That may be due to a hyperactive and transient decline this year though. Global warming is the term used to describe the secular increase in the global average temperature. It does not imply that the warming is spatially homogenous. Some regions have even cooled. See the spatial distribution of the temperature changes below. Notice that the Arctic region has experienced the most warming and that there is a general pattern of higher warming rates as you progress from the south pole to the north pole. The causes of this non-homogeneity are numerous and complex and are different for different regions.

One of Mann's criticism against the accelerated warming hypothesis is that OHC dataset are not yet confirming the high EEI. I don't know...that looks like a pretty big jump in OHC. And like @chubbs said it is coming at a time when we are expecting a drop due to El Nino.

Here is an article summarizing the Hansen vs Mann debate. https://theconversation.com/the-disagreement-between-two-climate-scientists-that-will-decide-our-future-217759

It is yet another big month in the UAH dataset. It is now a near certainty that 2023 will be a new record from UAH as well.

Michael Mann has been critical of Hansen et al. 2023, the high EEI values, and the accelerated warming hypothesis in general. He's even said that the ocean data does not agree with CERES. It's looking more likely that Hansen is winning this particular debate against Mann. Speaking of Mann...I just finished Our Fragile Moment. Mann rips into "alarmists" pretty good in his book. I tend to be pragmatic like Mann so I cannot really disagree with his conservative position here. But I also accept that the conservative position is getting harder and harder to defend.

For the lurkers...this is what a +2.0 W/m2 planetary energy imbalance does.

The field of climatology dates back to the 1820's when Fourier pondered why Earth was warmer than it otherwise would be without an atmosphere. Pouillet hypothesized that atmospheric composition was responsible back in 1837 and called it a "diathermanous envelope". Foote and Tyndall independently confirmed CO2's heat trapping behavior in 1856 and 1861 respectively. And Arrhenius developed a rather complex model (for his day anyway) of climate change and even calculated the warming potential of increased CO2 back in 1896. He even predicted that humans would cause the planet to warm. Chamberlin published A Group of Hypothesis Bearing on Climate Changes in 1897. And all of this occurred before the turn of the 20th century. Climate science is not what I'd call young.

Hansen's monthly email which was signed off on by some big names came out yesterday. They do not mince words. https://mailchi.mp/caa/how-we-know-that-global-warming-is-accelerating-and-that-the-goal-of-the-paris-agreement-is-dead Hansen et al. say "Global warming in the pipeline and emissions in the pipeline assure that the goal of the Paris Agreement – to keep global warming well below 2°C – is already dead, if policy is constrained only to emission reductions plus uncertain and unproven CO2 removal methods." Damn...not only did they say 1.5 C is in the rearview mirror, but they're now saying 2.0 C is in the rearview mirror as well. @TheClimateChanger Your insistence that 2.0 C is already baked in and will occur in the 2030s is looking more and more plausible. Hansen et al. say "Global warming of 2°C will be reached by the late 2030s, i.e., within about 15 years."

And as of this morning it is official. Hansen et al. 2023 was formally accepted for publication. Why is this a big deal? 1) It is a sobering prediction of what may happen. 2) The authors (and there are big names in this list) take an adversarial tone toward the IPCC by indicting them of reticence and gradualism. Official: https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889?login=false News: https://www.eenews.net/articles/james-hansen-is-back-with-another-dire-climate-warning/

That escalated quickly.