Stunning new data indicates El Nino drove record highs in global temperatures ...

www.dailymail.co.uk... ssions.html

(Sry for the long title as I just copied the headline from the article)

So it seems now that the 2016 (up till now) warmest year may not have be the effects of man made global warming.
As been suggest by many members on the forum, this year's warming was caused by a super El Niño.
But there is still a lot of debate among scientists whether it was natural(El niño) or the effects of long term global warming(AGW).

What we do know now is there has been a record drop(the Fall) in global land temperature by more than 1C degrees since summer.
This would suggest the end of the El Niño event, turning temperatures back to normal and the start of a La Niña event.

Global average temperatures over land have plummeted by more than 1C since the middle of this year – their biggest and steepest fall on record.
According to the satellites, the late 2016 temperatures are returning to the levels they were at after the 1998 El Nino.

If the 2016 record warming was caused by AGW, why do we see such a significant drop in temperature, shouldn't this happen a lot more gradually?
To me this says it was only the cause of a short term natural event. Like one day you can have temps up to 20C because of southern winds or other currents in the upper atmosphere(natural events) and the next day a drop of 5C. The weather is perfectly capable of doing so and we have enough of proof for this.
So is there any proof we humans have done such changes in weather or even climate?
It is not that we have been cutting our emissions so drastically we suddenly see this major drop in temperature?



If you take a look at the satellite data in the graph you have to ask yourself, where is global warming?
To me the graph seems pretty stable since 1995.



The last graph is derived from the datasets of UAH and RSS TLT. Which gives a bit more detail. Note that it doesn't yet have the latest temperature.


After all it might be good I followed my intuition this summer and stacked up on extra firewood for the coming winter.
Let's wait and see what she will bring.

Interesting, thanks for that. Just in time to reinforce a push towards reduced dependence on foreign oil, and rejection of the AGW nonsense. People seem to forget how many times, over and over, repeated throughout history, scientists get it wrong. Very wrong. Whole entire eras of history that live by the latest and greatest scientific fad, and the thinking of the time. Most of us have been saying all along it is just a natural trend, even though they will dispute you with everything they can to drive their agendas.

And what do you think those agendas are? Well, what are they usually?

Money. Research funding. The propagation and self preservation of species. The incessant crap I have seen on this is staggering. Give me more money so I can continue to have importance and stature in the world with my latest and greatest scientific fad. Practicality and real world necessity be entirely damned. Me me me.

Yeah? Well we can see through it.

Further, I am calling for all flags on this thread. But hey, don't mind me.

Don't forget snow in tokyo..

www.sciencealert.com...

a reply to: intergalactic fire

Fake News.

and Fake data.

originally posted by: HeywoodFloyd
a reply to: intergalactic fire

Fake News.

and Fake data.

Is the snow fake too?

a reply to: intergalactic fire

I like this post. Be prepared for flack.

BTW - how do you give stars and flags?

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: intergalactic fire

I like this post. Be prepared for flack.

BTW - how do you give stars and flags?

Tired of Control Freaks

You've been here since 2009 and you don't know? Be sure you are allowing scripts in your browser so you can see the site in full, for starters. Cause you may not be seeing the star or flag icons. But they are at the top left of the thread (flags) and stars are to the right of each members name at the top of posts. Just click each for either.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

google chrome is my browser. How do I make sure and allow scripts?


ok wait-I do see the flag and stars.


thanks for the help
Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
www.dailymail.co.uk... ssions.html

(Sry for the long title as I just copied the headline from the article)

So it seems now that the 2016 (up till now) warmest year may not have be the effects of man made global warming.
As been suggest by many members on the forum, this year's warming was caused by a super El Niño.
But there is still a lot of debate among scientists whether it was natural(El niño) or the effects of long term global warming(AGW).

No there isn't any substantive debate. The signal of long term global warming is overwhelmingly accepted as major and the regional cycles adding on to it is exactly what is expected by physics and what is observed.

The El Nino was not as powerful as the 1998 one, but the temperature was much higher. And the El Nino does nothing to explain the extraordinary warmth in the Arctic, but global warming from increased greenhouse effect explains it perfectly.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

People seem to forget how many times, over and over, repeated throughout history, scientists get it wrong. Very wrong.

They usually add the word expert in the lamestream media to eliminate other scientist from commenting . Now they can point to their lists of fake news sourced to ignore others completely .

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Don't forget snow in tokyo..

www.sciencealert.com...

Or Saudi Arabia and Iran
www.rt.com...
iranthisway.com...

originally posted by: HeywoodFloyd
a reply to: intergalactic fire

Fake News.

and Fake data.

There is always the possibility yes.

The data for the graph you can find here and here. You can check it for yourself, but if those are faked we might well just close our books now.

a reply to: mbkennel

actually - El Nino explains warming in the North quite nicely. its the warmer jet stream meandering further north than usual with residual heat from El Nino.

Would you mind showing us the climate model that predicts such a steep drop in temperature over land and how it is the signature of CO2 caused heat?

Since CO2 is a well mixed gas, the temperature drop should be over the oceans as well.

And are you now saying that CO2 is the cause of cooling over land? Gosh is there anything that CO2 can't do?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: mbkennel

And the El Nino does nothing to explain the extraordinary warmth in the Arctic, but global warming from increased greenhouse effect explains it perfectly

The arctic is warming faster because the ice is melting faster(less reflection and more absorption) and not by 'global warming from increased greenhouse effect'.
At least that's what scientists are suggesting.
Why the ice up north is melting faster is still a debate though. Sea temperatures are a good hint and El Niño could play a part in that.

Yet the total amount of (sea) ice is still growing, especially in Antarctica and some glaciers.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes the 97/98 El Niño was a bit stronger, they both are listed as ''very strong''
ggweather.com...


So saying that this years record temperature is caused just by AGW is taking the easy way out imo.

What would have been if there wasn't an El niño effect this year? Also record high temperature? Or just a "normal" year?

Most of the articles in the MSM stated this year's warming as a obvious cause of AGW, I wonder why?

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: mbkennel

And the El Nino does nothing to explain the extraordinary warmth in the Arctic, but global warming from increased greenhouse effect explains it perfectly

The arctic is warming faster because the ice is melting faster(less reflection and more absorption) and not by 'global warming from increased greenhouse effect'.

Why is the ice melting faster?

The change in albedo is a feedback parameter on climate sensitivity.

At least that's what scientists are suggesting.
Why the ice up north is melting faster is still a debate though. Sea temperatures are a good hint and El Niño could play a part in that.

Not so much in the Arctic. El Nino is a tropical Pacific phenomenon. And by the way, there is energy conservation. Where does the extra heat released during El Nino years come from?

It comes from radiative forcing heating surface waters which are taken down below the surface for a number of years, and whose heat comes out later. So almost all the extra radiative forcing during the years from 1998 to now has been going into deeper ocean heat (as seen by measurements) and in an El Nino year comes back out. Since there was more going in during the recent build-up period (thanks to AGW forcing), when it comes out, it is thus substantially hotter than in 1998.

Yet the total amount of (sea) ice is still growing, especially in Antarctica and some glaciers.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes the 97/98 El Niño was a bit stronger, they both are listed as ''very strong''
ggweather.com...

So saying that this years record temperature is caused just by AGW is taking the easy way out imo.

The fact that there have been consistent record temperatures on land, and in ocean heat content commensurate with AGW forcing measurements for many years is just what one expects.

What would have been if there wasn't an El niño effect this year? Also record high temperature? Or just a "normal" year?

It would be just a little bit cooler but close to record breaking, just as many years recently before this one have been.

Most of the articles in the MSM stated this year's warming as a obvious cause of AGW, I wonder why?

This year's warming isn't a cause of AGW, it is observations consistent with it.

a reply to: mbkennel

Yes Yes - we know the drill

Hurricanes? Scientists have detected the signatures of AGW
Droughts? Caused by AGW
Heat waves? Proof of AGW
Cold waves? Also caused by AGW
Tsunamis? Caused by AGW
Great Barrier Reef dying? Caused by AGW
Low crop yields - Caused by AGW
High crop yields - Caused by AGW
Low Arctic Ice - Caused by AGW
High Antarctic Ice - Caused by AGW
High levels of winter snow - Caused by AGW
Low levels of winter snow - Caused by AGW

There hasn't been any weather at all since the world began....it all started with AGW.

Tired of Control Freks

a reply to: mbkennel

mkennel

Show us the climate model that proves that AGW caused the drop in temperature over land!

Tired of Control Freaks

This is the first year the temperatures and rainfall seem to be back to normal here in the Calif desert since the 1990s.
And its cold and i am using a lot more propane to heat my RV. already below freezing at night.

And i was beginning to like global warming as we had cooler summers and warmer winters here

a reply to: mbkennel

Why is the ice melting faster?

Might have something to do with the increased temperature of the Bering current.

The change in albedo is a feedback parameter on climate sensitivity.

Yes it is. But this one is minor due to the earth's curvature. The Arctic (and Antarctic) receive the least amount of solar energy, thus the albedo change at the poles has the least effect of a similar albedo change in other locations.

Not so much in the Arctic. El Nino is a tropical Pacific phenomenon. And by the way, there is energy conservation. Where does the extra heat released during El Nino years come from?

So now warm water sinks?

Any temperature change not short-lived (inversion) will not change the fact that oceanic temperatures decrease as depth increases, barring continuous thermal inputs such as steady volcanic activity. Even such anomalies typically induce upward currents as warmer water rises.

It would be just a little bit cooler but close to record breaking, just as many years recently before this one have been.

Speculation. One could easily argue the opposite.

TheRedneck

I would like to point out, for the benefit of our US members (and that would therefore be the great majority), that the Daily Mail is a British tabloid newspaper which has a deserved reputation for running sensationalist stories, designed rather to shock and scare than to edify. It is for this reason that many Britons refer to it ironically as the 'Daily Fail'.

The Sun is another one.

Avoid these two when quoting sources, unless more reputable sources are running the same story; in which case, it would probably be wiser to use the more reputable ones.