Worryingly: Last Year Was Fourth Warmest As Greenhouse Gases Rise - Copernicus

[pinto + 293]

Last year was the fourth warmest on record, extending a scorching streak driven by rising concentrations of man-made greenhouse gases, the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service said. Average world surface air temperatures were 14.7 Celsius (58.5 Fahrenheit) in 2018, 0.2C less than 2016 which was the hottest year on record, it said in the first global assessment of temperatures based on full-year data. The year 2016 was boosted by an El Nino event that warmed the surface of the Pacific Ocean. “In 2018, we have again seen a very warm year, the fourth warmest on record,” Jean-Noël Thépaut, head of the Copernicus Climate Change Service, said in a statement. “Dramatic climatic events like the warm and dry summer in large parts of Europe or the increasing temperature around the Arctic regions are alarming signs to all of us,” he added.

[damirUSBiH + 327]

Climate Change is going to be a far greater challenge than people think.

[Pavel + 384]

Actually they are only projecting. Because Climate scientists are conservative with their claims and conclusions, they were caught off guard these last two years with how quickly the change is showing up. The uncertainty is working against us.
 

[ThunderBlade + 231]

Warmest since when? The planet was a literal ball of lava for ~500 millon years, so after that maybe?
 

[rainman + 263]

Just now, ThunderBlade said:

Warmest since when? The planet was a literal ball of lava for ~500 millon years, so after that maybe?
 

Climate change is happening, and we need to invest money in preventing further damage. Don't you think it is our responsibility to do so?

[50 shades of black + 254]

Which countries are at risk of climate-driven instability?

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2018-11-29/climate-shocks-and-humanitarian-crises

 

[SERWIN + 749]

1 hour ago, ThunderBlade said:

Warmest since when? The planet was a literal ball of lava for ~500 millon years, so after that maybe?
 

I remember when I was growing up in SE Texas, many, many days of over 100° heat. We haven't been having that for at least the last few years. Most summer days are running around 95° for the last few years. So the heat is still there, just moved to Europe now? We have been experiencing climate change our whole lives, everyone. We know that 10k years ago we were in an ice age and it has been warming up ever since. How can a scientist make accurate predictions with such a limited amount of data to go by? I wouldn't trust any data from 100 years ago, the equipment used back then was not nearly as accurate as the equipment used today, so we are really limited by that fact.  I can't remember the last time we were officially over 100° here, but I can remember many days working on the farm growing up with miserable heat and humidity. I also remember the day we set the new record in Houston of 108°, but that was 15 years ago? Where is the global warming? Just over Europe right now? The planet is constantly cycling, doesn't stop. How do scientists differentiate?

[Red + 252]

4 hours ago, SERWIN said:

I remember when I was growing up in SE Texas, many, many days of over 100° heat. We haven't been having that for at least the last few years. Most summer days are running around 95° for the last few years. It's "climate change" because some parts of the planet can cool against an overall trend of global warming.  So the heat is still there, just moved to Europe now?  On average, most countries are appreciably warmer than they were over 100 years ago. We have been experiencing climate change our whole lives, everyone.  Maybe, but statistically the natural variability at decadal levels might not always constitute "climate change".  In other words, over many decades the average temperature may not have changed much at all for a particular region.  We know that 10k years ago we were in an ice age and it has been warming up ever since. Well, looking at temperature reconstructions since then, that would not be accurate.  How can a scientist make accurate predictions with such a limited amount of data to go by?  Just be aware that we are now in a digital age and have millions of measurements available.  I wouldn't trust any data from 100 years ago, the equipment used back then was not nearly as accurate as the equipment used today, Although slightly more accurate nowadays, these modern thermometers need regular recalibration, so there's probably not a great deal of improvement overall. so we are really limited by that fact.    I can't remember the last time we were officially over 100° here, but I can remember many days working on the farm growing up with miserable heat and humidity. I also remember the day we set the new record in Houston of 108°, but that was 15 years ago? Where is the global warming? This fun link shows where new record temperatures are being set - both hot and cold. Just over Europe right now? The planet is constantly cycling, doesn't stop. How do scientists differentiate?  By taking measurements and showing the trends. 

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

14 hours ago, pinto said:

Last year was the fourth warmest on record, extending a scorching streak driven by rising concentrations of man-made greenhouse gases, the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service said. Average world surface air temperatures were 14.7 Celsius (58.5 Fahrenheit) in 2018, 0.2C less than 2016 which was the hottest year on record, it said in the first global assessment of temperatures based on full-year data. The year 2016 was boosted by an El Nino event that warmed the surface of the Pacific Ocean. “In 2018, we have again seen a very warm year, the fourth warmest on record,” Jean-Noël Thépaut, head of the Copernicus Climate Change Service, said in a statement. “Dramatic climatic events like the warm and dry summer in large parts of Europe or the increasing temperature around the Arctic regions are alarming signs to all of us,” he added.

2018: GLOBAL TEMPS DROP FOR SECOND YEAR IN A ROW

• Date: 03/01/19
•  
• Dr Roy Spencer

2018 was 6th warmest year globally of last 40 years. Global temperature trend has been downwards since El Nino peak in February 2016.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

We had an ideal year of weather and a record bumper crop in the corn and soybean belt of America. The CO2 helped. 

[Philbo + 6]

Lets have some context here. Temperatures and sea levels are related you can read about historical sea levels here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level its useful to know what and when will come to us during warming

Whether you believe climate change is caused by man or by the perturbations of the Earths orbit around the sun or a shift in the Earths axis or magnetic poles climate change is normal. I repeat climate change is normal.

The question is how is mankind going to deal with it? 

I think once London and New York city start going under water in a couple of hundred years time the changes will be taken seriously because we have no choice. In the meantime we will have to batten down the hatches and build our infrastructure with storms in mind.

But that's OK because we are all opportunist entrepreneurs. People will always need new homes after storms, new cars, moving entire cities inland. Thinking about it if I were and amoral capitalist pig I could make a lot of money out of Climate change.

Hmm you've got me thinking now. Maybe climate change isn't such a bad thing, how are those bank, insurance and infrastructure stocks doing????

:-)

Edited January 8, 2019 by Philbo

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

An animation showing 100 years of temperature data in 30 seconds :

https://www.youtube.com/embed/x1roxW2pYGY

The global trend is obvious  even if a year can be colder than the prevîous one.

[SERWIN + 749]

4 hours ago, Philbo said:

I think once London and New York city start going under water in a couple of hundred years time the changes will be taken seriously because we have no choice. In the meantime we will have to batten down the hatches and build our infrastructure with storms in mind.

But that's OK because we are all opportunist entrepreneurs. People will always need new homes after storms, new cars, moving entire cities inland. Thinking about it if I were and amoral capitalist pig I could make a lot of money out of Climate change.

They won't move cities inland, at least not here in the States. They'll build dams around the cities like New Orleans instead of moving them...lol. New Orleans is way below sea level, don't understand the logic of rebuilding what already failed so it can just fail again. Dredge up the Mississippi River and use the levees as molds, fill it all in with what comes out of the river dredging operation. Bring it back to above sea level. That would make too much sense, wouldn't it? And if you move the city elsewhere, the contractors won't be able to get richer off of rebuilding that again and again.....

[Philbo + 6]

Point taken, mine was that change is inevitable whether we like it or not. Global warming and cooling is a feature of life on earth. Mankind has overcome many environmental challenges before, excluding an extinction event, and will do again.

With Big Momma nature you never know just how angry she is on any given day. Looking at Earths history she WILL get very angry, its just a question of time.

Which is most cost effective preventing the inevitable or dealing with it after it has happened?

Answers on a post card to the 'Donald' and all future Presidents and world leaders

 

 

[Epic + 390]

On 1/7/2019 at 7:45 AM, rainman said:

Climate change is happening, and we need to invest money in preventing further damage. Don't you think it is our responsibility to do so?

...always wanting to invest OTHER people's money...  

I think the reality is that we really could use a bit more of this so-called 'damage'.  If we can raise the global temps by 3-5 more degrees, that should help eliminate the polar ice caps.  Not only would the free up faster ocean-based trade routes (thereby improving the global economy), but it would also add a lot of much needed water to the ecosystem, which we would then be able to use for the production of crops and to irrigate desert areas.  We have a lot of deserts in the world which desperately need that water.  Plus the longer growing seasons would help immensely.  I mean, the list of benefits (or in your words: 'damage') goes on and on.  

The human race is just getting started, and as long as we can learn how not to kill each other (and with a bit of help from some more global warming), we can turn this world into a wonderful adventure.