Was 2020 the World's Warmest Year Ever? (bbc.com) 85
"New data from EU satellites shows that 2020 is in a statistical dead heat with 2016 as the world's warmest year," reports the BBC (in an article shared by long-time Slashdot reader AmiMoJo):
The Copernicus Climate Change Service says that last year was around 1.25C above the long-term average. The scientists say that unprecedented levels of heat in the Arctic and Siberia were key factors in driving up the overall temperature. The past 12 months also saw a new record for Europe, around 0.4C warmer than 2019... The Copernicus data comes from a constellation of Sentinel satellites that monitor the Earth from orbit, as well as measurements taken at ground level...
Globally, the 10-year period from 2011-2020 is the warmest decade, with the last six years being the six hottest on record.
The article points out that in some parts of Siberia and the Arctic, temperatures for the year were six degrees C above the long-term average.
"This exceptional warming led to a very active wildfire season. Fires in the Arctic Circle released a record amount of CO2, according to the study, up over a third from 2019."
Globally, the 10-year period from 2011-2020 is the warmest decade, with the last six years being the six hottest on record.
The article points out that in some parts of Siberia and the Arctic, temperatures for the year were six degrees C above the long-term average.
"This exceptional warming led to a very active wildfire season. Fires in the Arctic Circle released a record amount of CO2, according to the study, up over a third from 2019."
Here we go again (Score:1)
Cue the comments from idiots who still do not believe in climate change even with facts punching them in the face.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck off, troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A sig line intended to bypass people with no sense of humour...people like you.
Re: (Score:2)
They usually tell me to google some "doctor" who used to work for NASA. You start reading his drivel and he goes into something about religion and angels. I stopped at that point.
Re: (Score:1)
Cue the comments from idiots who still do not believe in climate change even with facts punching them in the face.
Yours is first. And most idiotic so far.
Open Weather.com temperature map for Asia. They do not supply links so you need to chose maps from the menu and switch to temperature view. All of Siberia is at -20 or more UNDER long term average and has been there since December. Portions since November. Do you have a clue what that is? It is -50 or less. It is on the f*cking map and has been there for 40+ days now.
So take the map and tell us what exactly punches what in the face. The -50 or the -55 part?
What
Re: (Score:1)
-5 or even less compared to long term average over nearly all of Asian part of Norhern Hemisphere in December. That is actual satellite data.
Re:Here we go again (Score:4, Informative)
I looked at that.
It seemed to me that area that's "above average" is much larger than the area that's "below average".
Re:Here we go again (Score:4, Interesting)
Cue the comments from idiots who still do not believe in climate change even with facts punching them in the face.
True... but there's fewer of them and they're a lot more quiet than they used to be.
It actually kinda reminds me of the difference I saw in 2016 and 2020.
Because of my social circle I don't know many Trumpy people, but I knew a few.
And in 2020, compared to 2016, they were notably quieter and a few had even turned on Trump and were supporting the Democratic candidate. It wasn't predictive of the US election as a whole since the Trumpy folks I saw were from a particular demographic. But the shift I saw was real [bloomberg.com].
To return to the topic at hand, I've seen the same shift in AGW denialism. The denialists are still there, and they're still loud, but there's not quite as many as before and they're not as loud as they were either.
Remember all those people arguing that warming wasn't happening or that it was driven by sun spots or something? I don't hear much from them a anymore.
Now it's mostly skepticism that the consequences will be as bad as forecast.
1998 is long forgotten along with the early 2000's pause [wikipedia.org]. A lot of the people arguing claiming that warming stopped in the early 2000s have watched the records fall and are now in silent agreement that something needs to happen.
I don't know if narrative is changing quickly enough to actually slow global warming significantly, but a public consensus does seem to be developing.
Re: (Score:2)
"Cue the comments from idiots who still do not believe in climate change even with facts punching them in the face."
OK, I go first: There's 2 feet of snow in Madrid, Spain right now.
Re: Here we go again (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Think of the potential of the gulf stream collapsing, which could be a result of global warming
Since it is extremely probable that the gulf stream collapsed multiple times in the past (e.g. during glacial periods), what do you believers think it caused that collapse in the past? Fairy dust?
Re: (Score:2)
Think of the potential of the gulf stream collapsing, which could be a result of global warming
...what do you believers think it caused that collapse in the past? Fairy dust?
Believers in science think it had the same cause in the past: fresh water in the north Atlantic.
"Paleoclimate records constructed from Greenland ice cores have revealed that the thermohaline circulation has, indeed, shut down in the past and caused regional climate change. As the vast ice sheet that covered much of North America during the last ice age finally receded, the meltwater flowed out the St. Lawrence and into the North Atlantic.
"The additional fresh water made the ocean surface less dense and it s
Re: (Score:2)
Believers in science think it had the same cause in the past: fresh water in the north Atlantic.
Going circles, I see.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what you mean.
What is the origin of said fresh water?
Re: (Score:2)
Weather != Climate (Score:2)
OK, I go first: There's 2 feet of snow in Madrid, Spain right now.
Climate is not the same as weather. Climate looks at the long term averages over a period of time. The fact that temperatures vary hugely with the seasons and with random fluctuations in the atmosphere make a detailed study of the climate extremely hard to do.
Think of it a bit like the stock market. Weather is the day-to-day variations in the price of a share while climate is like the long-term trend of the share. If the shares of a company drop on one particular day it does not mean that the long-term
We got six degrees too much here too. (Score:2)
Here in Germany, we always had about 5-6 degrees more on the thermometer than I remember from my childhood.
With fewer cold extremes too.
I still think those 1.25 degrees are an impressive feat of making things look better than they are.
Re: (Score:2)
I still think those 1.25 degrees are an impressive feat of making things look better than they are.
Or they are simply math, an average.
Note that we have evolved the terminology to "climate change" because specific effects are localized.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And Spain just registered their lowest temperature ever [euronews.com]. And remember the '70s and '80s (that is, the starting dated of reliable, not adjusted global temperatures) were an exceptionally cold period in the XX century.
Temperatures in Siberia registered 100 degrees F last year [weather.com], the hottest recorded temperatures so far north.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Germany, we always had about 5-6 degrees more on the thermometer than I remember from my childhood.
That's a really bad way of doing science.
I still think those 1.25 degrees are an impressive feat of making things look better than they are.
tbh it's a much better way of doing science.
Re: (Score:2)
You're in Deutschland, is that 5 C ot 5 F?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It never ceases to amaze me how people with enough technical understanding to join Slashdot can be so unmoored from reality.
Re: (Score:3)
It never ceases to amaze me how people with enough technical understanding to join Slashdot can be so unmoored from reality.
Thank you for your political opinion. Did you perhaps have a scientific argument as well?
Before a second political opinion is offered go back and re-read, assuming you had read beyond the title in the first place, and note "Disruptive is a different topic".
Re:No, still coming out of an ice age (Score:5, Insightful)
My scientific opinion is presented here: https://www.ipcc.ch/
Re: (Score:3)
My scientific opinion is presented here: https://www.ipcc.ch/
A couple of corrections. I should have referred to "argument" not opinion, and I shouldn't have used the word "my" in place of "the."
I've concluded that my ability to work around design flaws in Microsoft products, and even my ability to keep track of which character is used to create a comment in different programming languages, does not give me any particular insight into atmospheric physics and related fields. So I tend to go with what the vast majority of experts in the field say. Of course, perhaps
Re: (Score:1)
For 8000 yrs, we were heading toward glaciation (Score:3)
You should really read his link if you want to have an informed opinion on the subject. Start with The Physical Science Basis [www.ipcc.ch]
On page 386 of chapter 5 (INFORMATION FROM PALEOCLIMATE ARCHIVES), you will find that we had hit a minima in extratropical glacier extent several thousand years ago. As it happens, we had been heading back into a period of glaciation for the last several thousand years, up until things abruptly reversed following industrialization.
"There is high confidence that minima in NH extrat
Except for 4C increase prior to industrialization (Score:2)
For 8000 yrs we were cooling - then rapid warming (Score:2)
All I am saying is that today's temperatures are not unheard of.
You also said: "we are still coming out of an ice age."
That is wrong. We had been heading back towards glaciation for the last 6000 - 8000 years. Warming peaked between 8000 and 6000 years ago. Since then we've been cooling - until rapid warming since industrialization. https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
That's important to understand because if the climate would be cooling in the absence of human interference, then the answer to the question "How much of the observed warming is man made" is "more than all of it"
Re: (Score:2)
All I am saying is that today's temperatures are not unheard of.
You also said: "we are still coming out of an ice age."
That is wrong. We had been heading back towards glaciation for the last 6000 - 8000 years. Warming peaked between 8000 and 6000 years ago. Since then we've been cooling - until rapid warming since industrialization. https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Again, look at the chart you have twice offered. About 5C increase in temperature since 20,000BCE followed by about 1C retracement. That is not an overall cooling trend prior to industrialization. Plus the previous interglacial went much higher. When you look at the historical temperatures they are somewhat sinusoidal. They go up and down but have a longer term trend. The 1C move you refer to may be nothing more than noise in the larger trend.
Re: (Score:2)
The 1C move you refer to may be nothing more than noise in the larger trend.
Maybe, unless you understand the physical basis for the trend. The minima in NH extratropical glacier extent between 8000 and 6000 years ago were primarily due to high summer insolation (orbital forcing). The current glacier retreat occurs within a context of orbital forcing that would be favourable for NH glacier growth.
So orbital forcings explain the gradual warming up until about 8000 years ago. They explain the gradual cooling for the last 8000 years, but only the rapid rise in CO2 explains the warmi
Re: (Score:2)
The 1C move you refer to may be nothing more than noise in the larger trend.
Maybe, unless you understand the physical basis for the trend. The minima in NH extratropical glacier extent between 8000 and 6000 years ago were primarily due to high summer insolation (orbital forcing). The current glacier retreat occurs within a context of orbital forcing that would be favourable for NH glacier growth.
So orbital forcings explain the gradual warming up until about 8000 years ago. They explain the gradual cooling for the last 8000 years, but only the rapid rise in CO2 explains the warming spike of the last 150 years.
Again, no is arguing against the CO2 and warming spike. You are creating straw men. The point is the current temperatures have been seen before. That warmest "ever" only works for surprising short definitions of "ever".
Also regarding the physical basis, the trend is not linear, it is sinusoidal in the long run with an embedded trend. You seem to be referring to a short window on the sinusoidal that appears linear, I'm referring to the long run's trend embedded in the sinusoidal. Two very different scales
Re: (Score:2)
Again, no is arguing against the CO2 and warming spike. You are creating straw men. The point is the current temperatures have been seen before. That warmest "ever" only works for surprising short definitions of "ever".
You also said: "we are still coming out of an ice age." That is wrong. We had been heading back towards glaciation for the last 6000 - 8000 years. Warming peaked between 8000 and 6000 years ago. Since then we've been cooling - until rapid warming since industrialization. https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com] [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Again, no is arguing against the CO2 and warming spike. You are creating straw men. The point is the current temperatures have been seen before. That warmest "ever" only works for surprising short definitions of "ever".
You also said: "we are still coming out of an ice age." That is wrong. We had been heading back towards glaciation for the last 6000 - 8000 years. Warming peaked between 8000 and 6000 years ago. Since then we've been cooling - until rapid warming since industrialization. https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com] [xkcd.com]
Again, your own chart shows +5C over a longer term -1C over a much shorter term. And then there is the previous interglacial numbers. You and I are simply talking about two different scales.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
My scientific opinion is presented here: https://www.ipcc.ch/ [www.ipcc.ch]
Actually you seem to be political again and just engaging in some sort of appeal to authority while providing no specific information. More of a legal trick to just dump a mass of information that can't really be sorted through in a time manner.
That said, your references seem to be focused on recent short term events, decades, a handful of centuries. I am discussing things on a far larger timescale than your references seem to suggest, tens of thousand of years.
Re: (Score:3)
True enough. The science is from the large body of scientists who have surveyed their various fields on behalf of the world's governments.
The political is that I believe them, and not you. It's purely a pragmatic choice on my part of who to place my trust in, as I confess I don't have the answers to all scientific questions at my fingers.
NOAA: warmer summers 7K years ago (Score:2)
True enough. The science is from the large body of scientists who have surveyed their various fields on behalf of the world's governments. The political is that I believe them, and not you. It's purely a pragmatic choice on my part of who to place my trust in, as I confess I don't have the answers to all scientific questions at my fingers.
Again, you misrepresent. They are talking about relatively short term, I am talking about a more long term. Such intentional misrepresentation is entirely polical by you. If you were actually scientifically inclined you would be finding things like:
"What is most remarkable about the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of temperature change during that period and what caused them. It appears clear that changes in Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousan
Re: NOAA: warmer summers 7K years ago (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Again, you misrepresent.
No.
He/she simply states that he/she trusts them more than he/she trusts you, in this matter.
The reason being they know vastly more about this than he/she does, and most probably than you do, as well.
He/she is honest enough to admit a lack of knowledge and a decision to rely on experts instead. You lack that honesty. One could say that you come off as more than just a bit arrogant.
Re: (Score:1)
Again, you misrepresent.
No.
He/she simply states that he/she trusts them more than he/she trusts you, in this matter.
Not at all. He or she is going to the wrong scientists. When discussing a topic that covers tens or hundreds of thousands of years you do not go to the scientists studying the last two centuries.
He/she is honest enough to admit a lack of knowledge and a decision to rely on experts instead. You lack that honesty.
Wrong again. I quoted the scientists studying more appropriate time frames, $7,000 years ago, over 100,000 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for your political opinion. Did you perhaps have a scientific argument as well?
You sad little man.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think they're just being paid. /. has a large enough community that spreading disinformation on it is worthwhile.
What disinformation? That it was hotter 7,000 years ago and even hotter 150'ish thousand years ago. That hottest year **EVER*** covers a little more territory than the year 1800 to the present day?
Yeah that's some seriously commercially viable propaganda there.
Re: (Score:2)
people with enough technical understanding to join Slashdot
I bought the computer at a garage sale. The account was already on it.
Ever? No (Score:1, Interesting)
In the history of reliable weather records? Perhaps, if you include "statistical ties."
Warmest year ever? (Score:1)
Yes, it was a steaming heap. You shouldn't let manure pile up that high
No (Score:4, Informative)
Depends on refence point, but if you ask for "absolute" terms, of course no: The Earth was a fiery ball of lava at the beginning.
For the (last ~50 years) period we had accurate measurements: Yes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
For the last ~2000 years we had good estimates: Probably Yes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
For the human period, last tens of thousands of years: No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
For the entire "ever": Definitely No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Asking these kinds of questions without reference points is just wrong.
Re: No (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The rate of change in the past century is alarming. XKCD sums all this up in a graph:
https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
More importantly ... (Score:1)
... it was one of the coolest in the remainder of this century, maybe millenium.
Both were election years... (Score:2)
... in the U.S. Coincidence?
COVID lockdowns had no effect? (Score:2)
Re:COVID lockdowns had no effect? (Score:4, Informative)
There is some inertia in the global climate system. The amount of CO2e emissions today is estimated to have a noticeable impact first in about thirty years from now.
And from preliminary estimates I've seen during the last year, there has not been much of a drop. Emissions are still much higher than during the 00's.
I think that what drop there has been in emissions is more attributed to transitions to greener energy sources. Energy production is just one of several significant CO2e sources however. People don't often talk about the impact of cement production or agriculture and land use.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if emission reduction in 2020 as a result of COVID epidemic had any detectable effect.
No, a single year is not detectable in the temperature record. There is too much variance for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Any headline posed as a question... (Score:2)
Can be answered no. The world was hotter in the Holocene Optimum. Science, it is fun.
Even the hive mind at Wiki has to admit this annoying fact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Useless data point (Score:2)
well, if it was, then we'd better learn to... (Score:1)
live with global warming.
For purposes of this comment, please drop any arguments pro/con anthropogenic global warming and focus on a problem this would be exposing:
For most of 2020 much of the world was in various stages of temporary and unsustainable lockdowns. If, with all the massively reduced global economic activity and global travel, the globe still warmed then nothing currently proposed as a near-term fix for global warming will work - we need solar panels by the square kilometer, geothermal everywh
In other words (Score:1)
What are we going to do about it? (Score:1)
I'm no longer interested in the discussion on if there is man made global warming, how much global warming is man made, or any such thing. I'm interested in solutions. What are we going to do about it? If the answer does not include nuclear fission power then you are not trying hard enough. Concerns about what to do with the waste, or any other bullshit to say in opposition to nuclear fission power, is a far more solvable problem than trying to mitigate against the global warming that will come if we do
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a vital part of the solution that cannot be ignored, nuclear fission power.
Yeah it can. Not only will humanity adapt, we will develop technology so that we're still comfortable. There will be so much abundant energy we will use the surplus to destroy DU and other nuclear waste products.
Re: (Score:1)
The only way to destroy depleted uranium is with a fission reaction. A reaction that will produce neutrons, neutrons that are valuable in destroying more depleted uranium. This process also produces heat. LOTS of heat. Heat that will prove valuable in producing electricity, synthesizing hydrocarbons, and desalinating water.
In other words, you are insane if you believe people will not use nuclear fission power in the future as an energy source. It destroys our long lived radioactive waste, and produces
"ever" is a long time.... so, uhm.... no. (Score:2)
"Warmest year ever" would include every year since the formation of the earth until today, which would include prehistoric eras.
2020 might, however, be the warmest year in recorded history, and I won't dispute that the earth could be warming faster now than it ever historically has.
But I am still highly confident that it was not the warmest year ever..
Warmest year ever? (Score:1)