Taking a poll if you think 2017 will be the hottest year ever. Feel free to explain why you think you are right.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201605 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/99-percent-chance-2016-will-be-the-hottest-year-on-record/ Edit: Forgot the important part Still from Scientific American.
NASA says July was hottest month on record... July was hottest month in recorded history, says Nasa Tuesday 16th August, 2016 - Earth has sweltered through its hottest month in recorded history, according to Nasa. See also: Melting glaciers pose threat beyond water scarcity: floods Tuesday 16th August, 2016 -- The tropical glaciers of South America are dying from soot and rising temperatures, threatening water supplies to communities that have depended on them for centuries. But experts say that the slow process measured in inches of glacial retreat per year also can lead to a sudden, dramatic tragedy.
It seems obvious the Earth temperatures are increasing, all data indicates this on the whole. Thus is it very likely the temperatures in 2017 will be higher overall than 2016. As we are experiencing highs almost every year it is likely to be labeled the highest again....our records do not go back very far.
We certainly had a spike that is now on the decline for the 15-16 El Nino event like we had for 98. The question will be if it is followed up by a La Nina event. Too soon to tell.
2020 will be hotter than 2017 ... I was just observing the NASA graph about the GISS surface temperature ... eh ... it doesn't need comments http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Which data? The new adjusted data called the 'pause buster'? Hard to tell what the real temperature is since they keep readjusting the data so show the past cooler and the present warmer.
Keep in mind that in Europe conservatives are environmentalist as well [here environmentalism is bipartisan, it hasn't got a political orientation]. Anyway, I've got so far problems to understand that "pause buster". I don't see it. But I still have to consider in deep the data.
The pause buster data has to do with NASA including a paper by Karl et al. that revised the ocean temperatures by weighting it more heavily to the problematic ship intake and overboard bucket temperatures and away from the buoys that were designed for taking scientific temperature records. This supposedly removed the pause in the surface/ocean temperature record that does not show in the satellite data.
Well, in these last decades we [at least in Europe], we have done something to reduce and control greenhouse gasses emissions. So that a pause in the so called "global warming" wouldn't be that incredible. This said, are you suggesting that NASA public communication is "politically oriented"?
Eh ... the CO2 Europeans have "saved" has been produced by the Asians [Vietnam, India, China ...]. Anyway, personally [like several important scientists here in Europe] I tend to give more importance to methane as greenhouse gas with water vapor. Methane and water vapor are well more concerning that CO2. But this said, I repeat the question: are you saying that NASA data are politically oriented?
When every 'adjustment' makes the past cooler and the present warmer and further away from other datasets such as both satellite datasets, you decide.
Now you make me curious ... [think that in the 90's I had a NASA account ... but this is a different tale]. I have to check those "adjustments".
I did not vote because the answer I would choose (and I suspect most others would choose) is not listed, that answer being "I don't know".
What I want to know is if we'll finally get hot enough that Northern Virginia will finally stop getting regular frosts. It would be terrible, of course, but at least I would stop having to move all my potted plants indoors and outdoors constantly.
I don't know how we could possibly know the answer to that question considering we only have .00004% of the earths life so far in temp data.
This is a descriptive, not normative question. That there's a poll on it seems odd to me. The laws of physics don't care what your or I or anyone else thinks.
I don't think 2017 will break the upcoming 2016 record. 2016 started out with a strong El Nino, which 2017 will lack. The next record-breaking year will be the next El Nino year.
No, quite the opposite. The adjustments make the past look warmer, and thus make the warming trend look smaller. Deniers won't admit that truth, of course, because that simple truth completely destroys the cult conspiracy theory which is the central tenet of the denier religion. However, all scientists know that fact, along with all informed people. And because we know the facts, we know with 100% certainty that deniers are peddling a fraud.
Here's more: http://www.wsj.com/articles/keeping-cool-about-hot-temperatures-1484871286 Keeping Cool About Hot Temperatures Last year was warmer by 0.04 Celsius, but it was also an El Niño year. PHOTO: SAM MIRCOVICH/REUTERS Updated Jan. 19, 2017 8:21 p.m. ET 66 COMMENTS By now youve seen the headline: 2016 was the hottest year on record. The news has been paired with predictions of civilizations imminent demise. But a closer look at the evidence reveals that the political heat is overwroughtand theres still no reason to re-engineer the global economy to mitigate small climate fluctuations. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced this week that last year was the warmest in the agencys 137-year series, and that 2016 broke the previous record for the third consecutive year. This sounds alarming, until you read that 2016 edged out 2015 by a mere 0.04 degrees Celsius. Thats a fraction of the margin of error. Atmospheric data from satellites detected similarly small warming over previous years. In other words, no one really knows if last year was a record. Heres what we do know: 2015 and 2016 were major years for El Niño, a Pacific trade winds phenomenon known to produce temperature spikes. The Cato Institutes Patrick Michaels has detailed in these pages how in 1998, another big El Niño year, average surface temperatures increased about a quarter-degree Fahrenheit and then dropped in the following years. That is similar to the increase in 2015and by the end of 2016 temperatures were falling back toward 2014 levels. Even NOAA admits El Niños role. The underreported news here is that the warming is not nearly as great as the climate-change computer models have predicted. As climatologist Judith Curry testified to Congress in 2014, U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change simulations forecast surface temperatures to increase on average 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade in the early 21st century. The warming over the first 15 years was closer to 0.05 degrees Celsius. The models also cant explain why more than 40% of the temperature increase since 1900 happened between 1910 and 1945, which accounts for only 10% of the increase in carbon emissions. These nuances are important because phrases such as hottest year ever are waved around as a pretext for political action that usually involves giving more control over the economy to governments. This is inevitably sold as urgently required to save the planet. But even these regulations, taxes and subsidies would do little to reverse global temperature trends, though they could reduce the economic growth and wealth creation needed to cope with the consequences of higher temperatures. That is true of all President Obamas ministrationsfrom the Clean Power Plan to the Paris climate accord to subsidies for Al Gores green-energy portfolio. The most inconvenient truth during the Obama years has been that the biggest cause of lower U.S. CO 2 emissions has been the energy shift to natural gas from coal. Yet the climate-change lobby opposes fracking. The Earths surface has warmed over the last century by close to a degree Celsius, and the trend bears watching. But the additional questions to consider are about future magnitudes and impact, and what if any policies would make a difference without doing serious economic harm. The best insurance against the risks of climate change is economic growth and innovationmore efficient batteries, for example. But adding to human knowledge on climate requires a thorough airing and debate over the evidence. That wont happen as long as alarmists continue to try to shut down debate by spinning doomsday tales about sizzling temperatures.
