chubbs

Seeing a big Dec plunge this year as well in reanalysis - 2010 a good analog

Here is the horserace chart. 2020 grabbed the lead. You're bet looks good.

Could have gotten better than even money a couple of days ago on the site you linked above - I would have taken those odds

Yes, wouldn't be surprised if 2020 grabs the lead after Nov. Interestingly, 2010, another nina, also set a Nov GISS record before plunging in Dec, so may come down to the wire.

November has been very warm despite the nina. Record looks likely now.

The pessimistic permafrost modeling study posted above was conducted by professors at a business school using a simple model they developed. Would heavily discount. Not that permafrost isn't a problem, but need better models to evaluate. https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-crisis-tipping-point-world-warm-b1721822.html

GISS comparison through October below. Going to be a close race right to the wire despite ENSO being less favorable for warmth this year.

yes it was warm: March 47 +6.2 T the last 1.2" of snow fell in April. Enjoyed the outlook.

After last year would take 1893-94 . Below are the local philly stats - downtown then vs airport today - norms 1880-1910 Dec 36.4 +0.2 3.5" Jan 36.6 +3.9 4.1" Feb 31.9 -1.3 11.5" seasonal snow - 20.3" vs 24.3" norm

How much for Philly? This plot suggests that any relationship between October sea ice and subsequent Philly snow is complicated. In any case, can say that very low Oct sea ice, below 4.5 million sq km, doesn't help. Not good with this years October sea ice area a record low of 4.08 million sq km.

Good plot for seeing trends in every month.

Trump doesn't want to debate climate change (or covid). Wonder why?

Blizz is available for debate prep -

I am more optimistic than I was 5-10 years ago. The competitive advantage and market value of fossil fuels is shrinking every day. Article below just a sign of the times. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiWioiKl5jsAhXMmVkKHTx9DA0Q0PADegQIBRAH&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcontent%2F39a70458-d4d1-4a6e-aca6-1d5670bade11&usg=AOvVaw0kgkvZ52x74xrKD1tWQrG9

1) Pages2k the best compilation of data available. There are are wide range of sources including ice cores. Note the range in time resolution below, some of the series have relatively fine time resolution. If you have any information that is not included please provide. 2) There are plenty of instances of CO2 leading temperatures. The PETM for a start and many others. Our recent ice ages only started after CO2 had dropped low enough for orbital cycles to trigger. 3) There is plenty of data supporting water vapor feedback, as discussed in the other thread.

The timing in the sea-level chart is the same as the temperature+CO2 chart. Increases in all three started in the late 1700s.

Just repeating your talking points. Scientists have looked at this for a long time. They use models, a wide range of observations, and other quantitative procedures, not hand waving or talking points from junk science blogs. Climate science predictions have been spot on for decades. CO2 and other non-condensible GHG control the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Very simple physics, backed up by reams of data.

Here is UAH vs RSS+Hadcrut for land temperatures. UAH missed more than 0.2C of warming between 1998 and 2008, mainly due to dropping NOAA14. Land temperatures chosen because that is where satellite diurnal drift errors are most noticeable. https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6-land/mean:12/plot/crutem4vgl/last:480/mean:12/offset:-0.3/plot/rss-land/mean:12

1970 is when the big forcing ramp started as aerosol's stabilized while GHG took off. So you are saying that GHG do control climate NCEP had a roughly 0.2C cooling bias vs other re-analysis products between Nov+Mar this year. CFS below shows we are running about the same as last year despite the developing La Nina. The 0.2C bias in NCEP is about the same as the warming that uah missed due to dropping NOAA-14.

Per the paper below there is a slight reduction in OHC during El Nino due to heat loss from ocean to atmosphere. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331751587_Evolution_of_Ocean_Heat_Content_Related_to_ENSO

The climate system doesn't like to be so far out of equilibrium. There are two ways to get back into balance: reduce ghg, or increase temperature. CO2 forcing in 2019 was 2.076 W/m2. To eliminate, the current 0.87 W/m2 imbalance using CO2 alone, would need to reduce CO2 to 1987 levels when CO2 forcing was 1.211 W/m2 and CO2 concentrations were 348 ppm. 350 ppm was Hanson's safe level, that is roughly the climate we are experiencing today. Per tweet below need roughly 1C of warming to stabilize temperatures with the current atmosphere. We have only experienced about half the warming that our current atmosphere would allow. CO2 forcing estimates from: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

A couple of comments: 1) ice core timing has uncertainty. There is some air exchange as snow accumulates before ice is formed. Recent papers have found the CO2 and temperature changes are closely aligned. https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/8/1213/2012/cp-8-1213-2012.html; https://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060.abstract 2) Can't explain ice core temperature changes in the S Hemisphere without CO2 since summer insolation trends are opposite in S vs N hemisphere 3) As pointed out above can't get magnitude of ice ages without a CO2 forcing contribution. Note if CO2 is contributing nothing, this means climate is more sensitive, since forcing change is roughly 50% smaller without CO2. 4) A recent paper has found temperature change to the last glacial maximum was larger than previously thought producing a larger climate sensitivity estimate. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2617-x

Unusual late-season surface melt has dropped NSIDC area slightly below 2012. Looks like we are headed for a strong #2 on most metrics.