Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,509
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Dano62
    Newest Member
    Dano62
    Joined

Global Average Temperature 2024


bdgwx
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

IgpK2dH.png

  • Like 1
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Hansen's newsletter:

It is possible to shut off this amplifying feedback by cooling the planet, but that can happen only if we reduce the present enormous geoengineering of the planet. This will require purposeful actions to cool the planet, in addition to phasing down greenhouse gas emissions as rapidly as practical. Fortunately, there are young people who are beginning to grasp the situation that they are being handed by older generations. We will write a paper in cooperation with enlightened young people from Finland,[7] Eric Rignot, and several other people discussing this situation. We intend to complete the paper this coming spring, by which time we expect to have additional data that test our interpretation of ongoing global change.
 

  • Like 1
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/5/2024 at 8:45 AM, bdgwx said:

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 say 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.

IgpK2dH.png

I think the yellow-cone is too high but at least he is giving a testable prediction. We should have an indication by the end of this year if he is right. In the Climate Brink's year-end podcast, Zeke Hausfather said that Hanson's yellow-cone predictions were similar to the CMIP6 ensemble mean.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2024 at 6:39 PM, chubbs said:

I think the yellow-cone is too high but at least he is giving a testable prediction. We should have an indication by the end of this year if he is right. In the Climate Brink's year-end podcast, Zeke Hausfather said that Hanson's yellow-cone predictions were similar to the CMIP6 ensemble mean.

 

This is a vicious circle feedback effect, so I do agree with him that 1.5C has for all intents and purposes been breached and 2.0C isn't far behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

This is a vicious circle feedback effect, so I do agree with him that 1.5C has for all intents and purposes been breached and 2.0C isn't far behind.

Agree on the 1.5C, we are not acting fast enough. Note that even if Hanson is wrong about climate sensitivity, some acceleration in warming is expected because forcing is increasing at a faster rate as aerosols are reduced. The only way to slow down warming is to reduce CO2+CH4 emissions, fortunately there is some hope of peaking and starting to turn down emissions this decade as fossil fuels continue to lose competitive advantage and the need to do more slowly gains proponents.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, chubbs said:

Agree on the 1.5C, we are not acting fast enough. Note that even if Hanson is wrong about climate sensitivity, some acceleration in warming is expected because forcing is increasing at a faster rate as aerosols are reduced. The only way to slow down warming is to reduce CO2+CH4 emissions, fortunately there is some hope of peaking and starting to turn down emissions this decade as fossil fuels continue to lose competitive advantage and the need to do more slowly gains proponents.

 

so is this more of a case of capitalism winning or regulations finally having an effect?

also, does this apply to us only? what about nations like China and India, aren't they increasing the usage of coal?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

so is this more of a case of capitalism winning or regulations finally having an effect?

also, does this apply to us only? what about nations like China and India, aren't they increasing the usage of coal?

 

You are asking some complicated questions. I can only give a brief response. It has taken decades of government support to allow solar/wind/EV to compete in the marketplace. However capitalism can claim some credit also. Pushing these technologies into the marketplace, where they were able to learn by doing, before they were competitive was key for their development.

Its complicated to compare countries at different stages of development. Europe and the US are de-industrializing so its easier to reduce emissions. We have exported our emissions to the countries that supply our imports.  China is closer to peaking emissions than India due to heavy investment and government policies supporting solar/EV/batteries etc.. While China has been building coal plants, coal use isn't increasing very fast as newer plants often just replace old in-efficient plants. 

Solar/batteries/EV have become big commercial successes in China. China dominates world production both for internal use and export. Recently these technologies have made up a large fraction of China's export growth. The IRA program adopted by the US last year is our attempt to catch up. Already IRA has spurred big investment in the US, more than doubling US manufacturing investment. Big investments around world, spurred by government policy, is why emissions are likely to peak this decade.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, chubbs said:

You are asking some complicated questions. I can only give a brief response. It has taken decades of government support to allow solar/wind/EV to compete in the marketplace. However capitalism can claim some credit also. Pushing these technologies into the marketplace, where they were able to learn by doing, before they were competitive was key for their development.

Its complicated to compare countries at different stages of development. Europe and the US are de-industrializing so its easier to reduce emissions. We have exported our emissions to the countries that supply our imports.  China is closer to peaking emissions than India due to heavy investment and government policies supporting solar/EV/batteries etc.. While China has been building coal plants, coal use isn't increasing very fast as newer plants often just replace old in-efficient plants. 

Solar/batteries/EV have become big commercial successes in China. China dominates world production both for internal use and export. Recently these technologies have made up a large fraction of China's export growth. The IRA program adopted by the US last year is our attempt to catch up. Already IRA has spurred big investment in the US, more than doubling US manufacturing investment. Big investments around world, spurred by government policy, is why emissions are likely to peak this decade.

Thanks, so is it your estimate that we'll peak around +2.0C and not get to +2.5C (maybe we'll peak between +2.2C and +2.3C?) I wonder how much of a lag effect there is between emissions peak and global temperate peak?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Thanks, so is it your estimate that we'll peak around +2.0C and not get to +2.5C (maybe we'll peak between +2.2C and +2.3C?) I wonder how much of a lag effect there is between emissions peak and global temperate peak?

Let me put it this way. I believe it is possible to peak around 2C without hurting the economy but we will need to pick up the pace of global policy implementation.

Temperatures are proportional to cumulative CO2 emissions. To stop warming, net emissions must go to zero, hence net zero is the goal.  If we cut emissions in half the warming rate will drop by roughly 50%. Because emissions are cumulative it is much better to reduce emissions today than 10 years from now. That's the problem, we've procrastinated so long our options are more limited.

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chubbs said:

Let me put it this way. I believe it is possible to peak around 2C without hurting the economy but we will need to pick up the pace of global policy implementation.

Temperatures are proportional to cumulative CO2 emissions. To stop warming, net emissions must go to zero, hence net zero is the goal.  If we cut emissions in half the warming rate will drop by roughly 50%. Because emissions are cumulative it is much better to reduce emissions today than 10 years from now. That's the problem, we've procrastinated so long our options are more limited.

Right, this needed change should have began in the 80s instead of now.  I take harsher look at developing nations, I believe they should not be allowed to cause pollution just because we already did it-- there should be harsh economic penalties for any nation that continues to emit to the point where using fossil fuels becomes an economic nonstarter (this would be much easier if we had a strong world government which could punish even powerful nations like the US and China for the amount of pollution they cause, but that's a pipedream right now.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 1/11/2024 at 4:17 PM, LibertyBell said:

Right, this needed change should have began in the 80s instead of now.  I take harsher look at developing nations, I believe they should not be allowed to cause pollution just because we already did it-- there should be harsh economic penalties for any nation that continues to emit to the point where using fossil fuels becomes an economic nonstarter (this would be much easier if we had a strong world government which could punish even powerful nations like the US and China for the amount of pollution they cause, but that's a pipedream right now.)

 

Bigger, stronger, and more centralized "one world" government is not going to fix the problem you describe.  I notice you also advocate for giving the U.S. federal government more executive powers. Please pick up some history books and discover for yourself how this story ends.   

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dseagull said:

Bigger, stronger, and more centralized "one world" government is not going to fix the problem you describe.  I notice you also advocate for giving the U.S. federal government more executive powers. Please pick up some history books and discover for yourself how this story ends.   

I have read a ton of history and all nationalism leads to is more wars and more death.  Unification is the only way out of endless wars.  The greatest eras of peace on this planet existed when most of the world was under one rule (Pax Romana being one that stands out)

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Weenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dseagull said:

Bigger, stronger, and more centralized "one world" government is not going to fix the problem you describe.  I notice you also advocate for giving the U.S. federal government more executive powers. Please pick up some history books and discover for yourself how this story ends.   

 

57 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

I have read a ton of history and all nationalism leads to is more wars and more death.  Unification is the only way out of endless wars.  The greatest eras of peace on this planet existed when most of the world was under one rule (Pax Romana being one that stands out)

 

Good afternoon d seagull and Liberty. I understand your thinking Liberty, however the Pax Romana 200 year peace was built on the back of conquest. I doubt there was an effort to defund the effectiveness and control of the Empires army during this period. The subjugated people were absorbed, albeit perhaps not so willingly. The failure of the Pax Romana, to some, was a failure in effective leadership which led to Civil War. Which brings to mind todays headlines. To me our model is surprisingly successful, considering we are a union of 50 nations. Yes, I believe state nationalism is real, although not yet so toxic. I don’t know the answer. I believe we must for the present retain our identities yet strive for common ground with the use of the rare and elusive element of common sense. Stay well, as always ….

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rclab said:

 

Good afternoon d seagull and Liberty. I understand your thinking Liberty, however the Pax Romana 200 year peace was built on the back of conquest. I doubt there was an effort to defund the effectiveness and control of the Empires army during this period. The subjugated people were absorbed, albeit perhaps not so willingly. The failure of the Pax Romana, to some, was a failure in effective leadership which led to Civil War. Which brings to mind todays headlines. To me our model is surprisingly successful, considering we are a union of 50 nations. Yes, I believe state nationalism is real, although not yet so toxic. I don’t know the answer. I believe we must for the present retain our identities yet strive for common ground with the use of the rare and elusive element of common sense. Stay well, as always ….

I wasn't a fan of the Roman Empire either because they stole most of their ideas from the Greeks.  But long term peace is a powerful idea we need to encourage.

Common sense seems to be very uncommon, especially when greed and power are involved.

I've always believed when you follow the advice of scientists you can avoid most of these issues.

 

  • Like 1
  • Weenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

NabUqwR.png

  • Sad 1
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Tamino's latest on removing 3 main natural factors from global temperature series: enso, volcanoes and sun. Makes the recent acceleration easier to see and statistically significant. My only quibble is whether he has removed all of the enso variation. I don't think that would change the result though, removing more year-to-year variation should make it easier to detect acceleration.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2024/02/16/adjusted-global-temperature-data/

Screenshot 2024-02-18 at 05-42-21 Open Mind.png

  • Like 1
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember 10 years ago, when every denier was crowing about "flat temps since '98", increasing Antarctic sea ice and an impending "grand solar minimum"?
Imagine saying that, then looking at this graph and *still* wanting to short sell it.

We'll be 2C by 2030 easily.
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, csnavywx said:

Remember 10 years ago, when every denier was crowing about "flat temps since '98", increasing Antarctic sea ice and an impending "grand solar minimum"?

Imagine saying that, then looking at this graph and *still* wanting to short sell it.

Right - don’t have to imagine it 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...