NOAA confirms 2015 highest everything for global warming

From the Socialist Fifth Column, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):

2417
  • Greenhouse gases were the highest on record. Major greenhouse gas concentrations, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide, rose to new record high values during 2015. The 2015 average global CO2 concentration was 399.4 parts per million (ppm), an increase of 2.2 ppm compared with 2014.
  • Global surface temperature was the highest on record. Aided by the strong El Niño, the 2015 annual global surface temperature was 0.76–0.83 degrees F (0.42°–0.46°C) above the 1981–2010 average, surpassing the previous record set in 2014.
  • Sea surface temperature was the highest on record. The globally averaged sea surface temperature was 0.59–0.70 degrees F (0.33°–0.39°C) above average, breaking the previous mark set in 2014.
  • Global upper ocean heat content highest on record. Upper ocean heat content exceeded the record set in 2014, reflecting the continuing accumulation of heat in the ocean’s top layers.
  • Global sea level rose to a new record high in 2015. It measured about 2.75 inches (70 mm) higher than that observed in 1993, when satellite record-keeping for global sea level rise began.
  • Tropical cyclones were well above average, overall. There were 101 tropical cyclones total across all ocean basins in 2015, well above the 1981-2010 average of 82 storms. The eastern/central Pacific had 26 named storms, the most since 1992. The North Atlantic, in contrast, had fewer storms than most years during the last two decades.
  • The Arctic continued to warm; sea ice extent remained low. The Arctic land surface temperature in 2015 was 2.2 degrees F (1.2°C) above the 1981-2010 average, tying 2007 and 2011 as the highest on record. The maximum Arctic sea ice extent reached in February 2015 was the smallest in the 37-year satellite record, while the minimum sea ice extent that September was the fourth lowest on record.

Fight world government! Join LoonUp Now!

Comments

  1. How is it that the people most directly affected by AGW, farmers, voted for the Nationals who in the face of now mountains of robust data on CC still oppose any meaningful efforts to address the impact of burning fossil fuels. And these same politicians have no qualms asking for more handouts for their country brethren!

      • They don’t accept the data as robust. Victims of the “tobacco” misinformation. It is important to confront such propaganda when it arises.

    • They voted in the bloke who is responsible for the go ahead with the coal mine that may destroy the water table. You could shave down a monkey and pin an LNP badge on him and they would vote for it, hang on, no you wouldn’t need to shave him.
      There is a vast difference between those who are faith based and evidence based.

    • The psychological answer to that is that people are social beings and that their membership of a group influences them more than rational, scientific data does.

      People’s identity is for a large part derived from membership of a group. With that comes a range of behaviours, values and convictions. People are hardwired to dismiss ideas that challenge their identity, known as “identity protective cognition” in psychological literature.

      Explains why certain ideas seem to be held by certain groups of people and why farmers for example are more conservative than city folk, or why city folk are more progressive than farmers (it works two ways obviously)…

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-conservative-white-maes-are-more-likely-climate-skeptics/

    • Farmer here, voted Green.
      Not alone.
      Although our electorate saw a Nat returned :sadface:

      • http://www.ecowatch.com/kurt-vonnegut-letter-to-the-future-kick-kennedy-1935826979.html
        This might be a little bit relevant to the current situation.
        Sadly, The Greens are cornucopians who believe that technology will fix everything, when in fact, it is technology that has brought us to this position. Greens also ignore the overwhelming impact of overpopulation on the current state of the environment.

        Still, the greens at least acknowledge the problem, but the only lot with anything approaching a solution is Sustainable Australia, but in a world of D. Trump and P. Hanson, this party is too sensible by far to be elected it seems.

      • Fair point on population.

        At least they acknowledge the problem and have a vector for fix. Technology is a huge part of that. Huge.

        If you think things like solar/wind + storage is not a huge part of the fix, then I’m not here.

        There is absolute resistance to discussing the elephant in the room – load on the planet due to industrial food machine – raising animals (food, water) to eat them is just vandalism, plus it’s bad for us.

      • Terror Australis

        Must be Play-Offs day at the Bowls Club.

        Crazy Richard would usually be all over a comment like that.

      • Simply stating everything can be fixed by destroying (whatever that means), Green/Labor and reducing population is a little, shall I say, simplistic.

        It also might be a free snags at Bunnings day. Although Bunnings = consumption so he’s probably picketing Bunnings on Wednesdays.

      • Sadly, The Greens are cornucopians who believe that technology will fix everything, when in fact, it is technology that has brought us to this position. Greens also ignore the overwhelming impact of overpopulation on the current state of the environment.

        The Greens local immigration policies certainly lack some hard numbers, but to say they “ignore” population is simply flat-out false.

        Point 1 of their Population policy:

        The current level of population, population growth and the way we produce and consume are outstripping environmental capacity. Australia must contribute to achieving a globally sustainable population and encourage and support other nations to do the same.

        I’ve never seen any suggestion they believe technology will fix everything, either. That’s more the free-market-magic approach. If anything, they’re quite the opposite.

      • in general a development and adoption of new new technology always creates more problems than it solves – otherwise we would be problem free by now not in dare existential situation. Even technologies designed to solve problems often do the opposite – more fuel efficient airplanes/cars drive ticket prices/cost down making people fly/drive more …etc.
        There were only few instances when few particular technologies were environmentally and socially positive but those are by far outstripped by the technologies that ultimately had the opposite impact. In almost all cases these technologies were of the same kind and often indistinguishable from each other.

        Social networks drive consumption of over 40TWh of energy annually globally – equivalent of 30 million t of CO2

      • Sadly Superunknown and drs, the Greens population policy is full of nice sounding words and platitudes that suggest things like regional development and say its not how many people, but the way they live.
        Its not a policy at all and has few direct actions, such as ensuring that women are empowered and that contraception is available to all who want and need it.
        I am not sure where you found “destroying” in any text and of course we need to live without using so much of the finite, non-renewable resources that our planet provides, before we actually run out of them, especially energy resources. The point is that over the past 200 years, new and more efficient technology has enabled humans to consume ever more at lower costs and not to consume less. Multiply this heavier foot print by the highest number of new feet arriving pa ever at 80 million, and you have a problem of species survival magnitude. To assume that we continue to do much the same thing, by bringing on massive amounts of renewable technologies and then expect a different outcome is surely a sign of madness.
        We must start from an understanding of carrying capacity. Any farmer will tell you how many animals a paddock can support. If that number is exceeded, the whole herd does poorly, not just one or two animals. Additionally, if a paddock is overstocked, eventually its ability to sustain life will diminish as the carbon in soil and microbes that enable the soil to flourish are destroyed. This is what we are currently doing to our big paddock called earth. Sadly, no amount of wind turbine and battery construction will solve that problem.
        While all the other adjustments to our industrial economy are being made, which is likely to take a Century of more, the technology that can help us most rapidly and right now, is access to family planning. What we find from experience is that when we ensure that contraception technologies are freely available on a voluntary basis to those that want it, fertility rates drop dramatically within a decade.
        As Richard Attenborough says “All our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people and harder – and ultimately impossible to solve – with ever more people.”

      • DrX notwithstanding the data centres who are now powered by renewable power. Apparently not insubstantial.

        I would love to see a precis on the resultant problems from having resi, SME, SOHO go off grid or grid independent, or become small scale generators at times. (especially in light of developments in non toxic battery tech)

        Here’s a non tech quality improvement effort – reduce consumption of meat and assign grain/water bound for animals to actually feed people. #SHOCKING

      • @Superunknown
        whether servers are powered on coal or solar doesn’t matter, problem is in global consumption. Those solar sources could be used to retire coal power plants if there hasn’t been new demand driven by (not only useless but damaging) services social networks provide.
        Any new energy demand created pollutes at the rate of the biggest polluter in our energy fleet that has to stay in service to support that demand.

        BTW replacing meat with greeny low calorie and imported stuff (like lettuce or toffu) does more damage to environment than eating meat

      • Dr X – sure.

        But barring some cataclysmic existential (to humanity) crisis, you are not going to move the needle on this.

        Best to ameliorate the impact.

      • the best is to fix the problem by cutting energy consumption – if people are faced with decision to choose what life needs to keep while cutting energy consumption by half, I guess only few would keep wasting hours a day on facebook or instagram

      • You can choose to row up the proverbial river with no oars, or try and mitigate the issue.

        Short of governments putting a tax on social media. Or shock horror, carbon.

        PS Who the fk wastes that time on Instabook.

      • apparently average time spent on social networks is 1.6 hours a day, which means that there are quite a few (billion or so) that waste hours

        online gambling is illegal or regulated in most of the world, why not FB?

      • http://www.candobetter.net/node/4940

        Jane sums it up very well.
        However, it would be entirely valid to say:

        1) Anyone who isn’t serious about population, isn’t serious about equality, empowerment and education for women and girls globally. (The fact is, family planning programs, through both their direct impact on changing attitudes toward women and their role, and by reducing the burdens of childrearing and the crowding of schools through population growth, has enabled far greater empowerment and education for women than any non-family-planning agenda to help women in high-fertility countries.)

        2) Anyone who isn’t serious about population, isn’t serious about developing a carbon-neutral economy for NSW, Australia and the world. (Do I need to explain this one?)

        3) Anyone who isn’t serious about population, isn’t serious about implementing sustainable agriculture. (Regardless of whatever the Greens NSW policy in this area is, agriculture can’t be indefinitely intensified to feed indefinitely more people – and its further intensification comes with greater environmental costs.)

    • Cuz otherwise they’d have to vote Labor.

      Or even worse, Greens !

      Policy is generally a ways down the list of reasons people vote a particular way.

  2. Meanwhile the satellite data that actually covers the globe and isn’t contaminated by urban heat islands shows 2016 is likely to be no warmer than 1998, the current record holder (ignoring the fact that 90% of current interglacial was both warmer and often more variable than now). So despite the IPCC admitting that their models dont match reality and they dont know if co2 can produce dangerous warming, you believers think the science is settled in direct contadiction to the scientific method and the worlds leading authoritys. Science is conducted by emperical falsification, not by biased searching for examples of confirmation.

    • Aussie1929MEMBER

      Solar physics has been losing ground steadily compared with other branches of astrophysics during the past few decades, and many of its practicioners have seen solar climate change as a chance to move into an area where funding may be more assured.
      NASA researcher Mark Richardson has completed a study which compares historical observations with climate model output, and has concluded that historical observations have to be adjusted, to reconcile them with the climate models.
      When the facts prove that your theory is wrong, change the facts so you can continue to have the admiration of your peers and cronies, and in many cases to acquire the funds necessary to continue your work.
      http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=6576

    • “the satellite data”

      Just let us know which version of “the” satellite data you’re talking about before you start telling us how wonderful it is.

      • Aussie1929MEMBER

        It’s not actually to do with this comment, what I posted was part of a much larger post I was trying to put in sections, however, MB is deleting my posts so I am prevented from debating.

      • Aussie1929MEMBER

        Thanks for the clarification, I was linking to the following sites:
        -NASA
        -realclimatescience[dot]com
        -hyperphysics[dot]phy-astr[dot]gsu[dot]edu
        all of which came up clear from black list checks

  3. “From the Socialist Fifth Column”. I stopped reading after that as I knew what was coming. Sure were a lot of cyclones here in Qld last year. Not. When Tim Flannery et al tell me the world is cooling, then I’ll consider global warming.

      • Couldn’t have anything to do with usage and the huge population influx could it? And no extra storage due to Greens stupidity.

      • “usage and the huge population influx”

        Melbourne uses less water than it did for a long time and even now doesn’t use much more than at the height of the restrictions.

        So no, Flannery being right couldn’t have anything to do with usage and the huge population influx.

        We’ll just have to get used to Flannery being right.

    • bolstroodMEMBER

      Thanks for that link 29er,
      It leads into why we are not believing scientists, which is part of the reason that we are not taking steps to defend ourselves from increasingly violent weather events caused by man made Climate Change.
      Any way the Arch Druid can explain our lack of action far better than I.

      http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com.au/

  4. “why we are not believing scientists”

    I thought it was common knowledge that scientists are no match for professional persuaders like politicians, lawyers, salesmen etc.