June 2016, hottest June on record: 'new climate regime'

First topic message reminder :

June 2016 was the warmest June on record, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported Tuesday. Global land and sea temperatures were both record warm for the month.

The June record extends the number of months of consecutive record-shattering warmth the planet has seen to 14. This is due to a combination of an El Niño event in the Pacific Ocean and long-term, human-caused global warming, and marks the longest such record warm streak in 137 years of record-keeping, NOAA found.

Using separate methods but similar data, NASA also found that June set a record for its warmth, while the year so far is also barreling toward another record.

Global average surface temperatures for the month of June were 0.90 degrees Celsius, or 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit above average. This was tied with March 2015 for the ninth-largest monthly temperature anomaly on record.

A remarkable 14 of the 15 highest monthly temperature departures in the climate record have all occurred since February 2015, NOAA stated in its report.

The last cooler-than-average month on Earth was December of 1984.

The June record also makes it more likely that 2016 will be the planet's warmest year, surpassing the record set just last year. NASA has already said that a record warm 2016 is virtually guaranteed based on the temperatures so far this year.

For the year so far, the average global land and ocean surface temperatures was 1.05 degrees Celsius, or 1.89 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century average.

More at: https://www.yahoo.com/news/earth-another-record-warm-month-162945930.html?nhp=1

DAMN that insidious Photoshop !!!

IT'S sneaking in everywhere these days..

I did place some grammar school primer video's over on the 'Global Warming' thread for just our Tommykins educational needs
All in the hopes that he'd be able to find an adult to watch those tapes with him and assist with any all of his redundant question that he gets his thoughts snagged up on and can't get moved off of that SOS stump!

4EVER2 wrote:I did place some grammar school primer video's over on the 'Global Warming' thread for just our Tommykins educational needs
All in the hopes that he'd be able to find an adult to watch those tapes with him and assist with any all of his redundant question that he gets his thoughts snagged up on and can't get moved off of that SOS stump!

Good luck with that ... but you just inspired a new thread, so thanks!

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

nicko wrote:
137 years,     fuck me that's a long time.

WHY don't you just admit it,  nicko...

Tommy is a clueless twit..

Well he's your favourite hot topic!

Ben Reilly wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:I did place some grammar school primer video's over on the 'Global Warming' thread for just our Tommykins educational needs
All in the hopes that he'd be able to find an adult to watch those tapes with him and assist with any all of his redundant question that he gets his thoughts snagged up on and can't get moved off of that SOS stump!

Good luck with that ... but you just inspired a new thread, so thanks!

No - No ...not a NEW TOPIC - that's the one we've had going; but it would appear that our Tommykins hasn't found any adults to help him / supervise the viewing, yet.

Funny thread.

Yes... most amusing!!!

Ben Reilly wrote:Oh, and solar output has slightly decreased over the same time period -- the Earth's core has been cooling -- so that increase in heat must be accounted for somehow. If it's not excess CO2 (well established that CO2 is spiking and that it traps solar heat) then what is it?

Nash say solar activity has increased over last 100 years or so...


http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html

eddie wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:



WHY don't you just admit it,  nicko...

Tommy is a clueless twit..

Well he's your favourite hot topic!

"hot topic..."

The last four days down here have max'd out at around 24-->>26°C ....

AND, it has to be remembered that July is the middle of winter down in the southern hemisphere..

And the last couple of days, there has been heavy rainfall in some places that normally don't get much winter rain.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

eddie wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:



WHY don't you just admit it,  nicko...

Tommy is a clueless twit..

Well he's your favourite hot topic!

"hot topic..."

I can be droll

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Oh, and solar output has slightly decreased over the same time period -- the Earth's core has been cooling -- so that increase in heat must be accounted for somehow. If it's not excess CO2 (well established that CO2 is spiking and that it traps solar heat) then what is it?

Nash say solar activity has increased over last 100 years or so...


http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html

Bumped for Ben...


Is this a credible enough source for you to start believing what I said...!?


Or should I turn tail and fuck the fuck off...?

from the article.....


Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.


not very good at understanding science articles are you tommy?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Oh, and solar output has slightly decreased over the same time period -- the Earth's core has been cooling -- so that increase in heat must be accounted for somehow. If it's not excess CO2 (well established that CO2 is spiking and that it traps solar heat) then what is it?

Nash say solar activity has increased over last 100 years or so...


http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html

Bumped for Ben...


Is this a credible enough source for you to start believing what I said...!?


Or should I turn tail and fuck the fuck off...?

Fuck the fuck off, because that research is 13 years old and has been negated by other research -- including your vaunted Russian scientist, who used the cooling of the sun to predict that we'd be in an ice age by now.

But here's a chart that shows what's really going on:

Try looking at the actual yearly line in blue too... shows overall rising trend in peaks and higher lows too... which then tailed off a bit over the last 20 years or so...


When it is also well known that there has been no rise in Temps over the last couple decades too!!!


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html



And... yet another Arctic science expedition has just sailed into the area to prove the lack of sea ice because of global warming...


And guess what...!?


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/21/global-warming-expedition-stuck-in-arctic-sea-because-of-too-much-ice/

And...


http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2016/06/12/prolonged-early-season-cold-spell-grips-south-america/

YOU really are such a clueless twat, Tommy...

EVEN though I've had you on my 'Foes' list for the last few months, your idiotic and spurious fantasies are so ridiculously silly, that they still get quoted enough that I can see how stupid you really are..

NOW, 'fess up here, Tommy -- not only do you obviously know (or even understand..) nothing about science or technology --  why does it appear all too often that you probably didn't even complete basic schooling  ???          

Tommy Monk wrote:And...


http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2016/06/12/prolonged-early-season-cold-spell-grips-south-america/

Which is why a lot of people have called global warming "global weirding." You still get odd things like oranges freezing on the branch in early spring in Florida ... it doesn't mean that the earth overall isn't warming. You're just a fool who doesn't know well enough to stay out of subjects he doesn't understand.

IF TOMMY had been keeping up with things as much as he likes to imagine,  he would know that the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global cooling' were included in the broader inclusive field of "climate change" modelling and research several years ago...

Even some of the terminology he uses, as well as the outdated and disproven "expert" opinions from oil-and-mining-company funded faux scientists and marketing gurus, only goes to show how desperate he is to derail diiscussions like this..

INDUSTRY propagandists the likes of Christopher Monckton and the Koch Bros. would be happy and proud to see the efforts that unpaid and unrewarded sock-puppets like Tommy are freely providing for their cause  !          

Tommy Monk wrote:

Try looking at the actual yearly line in blue too... shows overall rising trend in peaks and higher lows too... which then tailed off a bit over the last 20 years or so...


When it is also well known that there has been no rise in Temps over the last couple decades too!!!


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html



And... yet another Arctic science expedition has just sailed into the area to prove the lack of sea ice because of global warming...


And guess what...!?


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/21/global-warming-expedition-stuck-in-arctic-sea-because-of-too-much-ice/

Bumped for those who saw this the first time but then pretended they didn't...





Bottom line is that solar activity has gone up over the last century... and there has been a very slight half a degree increase in temperature over this time...


With no increase at all over the last 20 years as the sun has had a relatively quiet period over last 20 years.


Some of you are too blinded by bullshit to see this simple truth!


Even the graph Ben put up of solar activity proves this... it's just that the temperature increase it shows over last 20 years is exaggerated.

I'm not even going to comment on tis last post from tommy ...jeesus he cant even read a graph



or come to that comprehend the meaning of the graph

How can you try to claim that I cannot read a graph!?


Look at the light blue line that shows the ACTUAL output of the sun...


It clearly shows overall increase in solar output!!!

Are you blind....

!)the average temperature follows AVERAGE solar activity with a 20 year lag...
2) allowing for this these averages parted compny in 1975, whilst solar activity either leveled off or indeed over the LAST 20 years has fallen significantly....temperatures increased markedly without interruption...

3) the temp increase over the last century is 1.9deg...NOT 0.5 as you claim
4) solar activity has DECREASED overall since 1960 clue for teh clueless...average the 11 year average (thick line) to get a running average.......
5 have you ANY clue what the thin blue line shows ???

1. Look at the thin blue line... compared to red temp line... much closer correlation... no 20 year lag.

Also you will notice that the minimum points of sun's cycle are almost exclusively showing higher output than the previous years... which will also add to overall warming level.

With the high points also showing an increasing upward trend of solar output.

I answer your claim of marked temp increase over last 15-20 years below... but basically the temp graph is false.


2. Output did indeed show a sort of leveling off but still higher over last 3 decades high points showing than level earlier levels.

Now... at this point you get muddled... I have shown evidence of no warming over last 20 years or so... while you blindly believe the false claim that this graph makes in its showing a continued rise..

This is false!!!

It is very well known that no warming has happened over last 20 years or so... and the ipcc scientists were involved in a cover up of this 'inconvenient truth'!

I posted a link earlier and have posted others before on other threads...

Look it up on Google to see articles/evidence of no (significant) warming over last 20 years for yourself!

I have provided the exact figure below.


3. This is the truth about temp and rises over last 100 years...

"...in the past century, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius..."

From a nasa link but I suggest you fact check this yourself to be convinced... so around the 0.5 degrees I said before... and I always talk in centigrade... never done Fahrenheit... before you try twisting on that somehow...

And...

"...in fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees..."


From a CNN link... but again I suggest you check this yourself to be convinced...


4. The minimum output points have remained much the same since 1960... and are all still higher than before in the century shown... and although clearly with the high point at around 1970 being lower than the previous two years, it is still higher than most of the first half of century's highs, and the average shows higher than all but one small part of the first half of century!


Plus the next 3 cycle points and averages are all considerably higher than the earlier part of century up to the latest low point around 2010!!!


5. I think that question has been shown to be superfluous and redundant...!


I await your humble apology...?

Tommy, if you look at the yearly levels especially, you'll clearly see that peaks in solar irradiance are actually often coincident with troughs in global temperature.

The important part of the graph is what happens in the early '80s -- as solar irradiance enters a clear decline, global temperatures continue to spike sharply.

The only way a body warmed by an external heat source can get warmer even as the heat source cools is when it's insulated. In the case of the planet, it's being insulated by greenhouse gases generated by burning carbon-based fuels.

Right I'm jumping on here with my nonsensical waffle.

I believe in man-made climate change but for the sake of fairness I've tried to follow this thread (bit technical for me) and I fail to see how Tommy cannot understand that graph.

Even I can and I don't pretend to understand much other stuff you're all waffling on about.

But a graph is a graph. Surely it's not up for different interpretations?

nah tommy you are an idiot.

you dont even know what the thin blue line is do you...

and there is little if any direct corelation between the thin blue line and the thin red line....it is only whan you use the 11 year average that a correlation begins to show

and YES tommy there IS a 20 year lag between solar output and temp changes.....

you are not only dumb but fractally and recursively dumb too......

I understand the simple graph perfectly well eddie...



And to all, I have shown the actual temperature rise over last century as being 0.7 C and as confirmed by nasa!

And there has only been a rise of 0.06 C over the last 15 years!

Both widely provable... fact check away to your own level of acceptability!!!


The temp claim in graph is wrong!!!

And just for LF...


"...sunlight takes an average of 8 minutes and 20 seconds to travel from the Sun to the Earth..."


And don't forget that over each 11 year high/low cycle of the sun... the earth has rotated around the sun 11 times... at continually varying distance from sun and tilting back and forth on axis throughout these rotations...


(Minimum Distance from Sun: 146 million km
Maximum Distance from Sun: 152 million km)

well...on te (very) off chance tommy might be right

IF anthropogenic climate change is bunkum...to whom do I apply to get my carbon taxes repaid???

and

if we should enter another ice age...mini or otherwise, will it a) become necessary, even compulsary, to burn fossil fuels, and b) will the IPPC give us all a "rebate" on fuels (since they consider it only fair to take a tax OFF us when its warm.........)

One more salient variable to consider... the sun is not just giving heat/energy to the earth... it is projecting it past us through/onto the space/dust/rocks/satellites etc directly around us too... and all surrounding stuff will be a little bit warmer (much less less cold) overall too...


Therefore the earth will subsequently be very slightly less able to lose as much heat too...


Think about it like this... if you had 2 glasses of water exactly the same and say at 20 degrees c...

If you put one in the fridge and other in freezer for 5 minutes... which one would be colder (lose more heat)...


Earth is surrounded by cold space... if surrounding space is Warmer from higher sun output then earth will not lose as much heat had surrounding space been colder...

mmm...somehow tommy...I dont think thats a very significant factor, give the square law rule and the albedo of surrounding objects nearenough to have any effect and given too their effective "density"
also given these objects are in any event colder than us they wouldnt "send" any heat to us....
the heat is radient energy so that escaping the earth is lost effectively into "open space"
the "blanket" of dust around us will have no discernable effect on the rate of that heat loss.

A thin layer of dust may have an effect of "blocking" incomming radient energy...but NOT of blocking heat from escaping

consider a dust particle in space....gets heated from the sun

It the re radiates that heat into space from all over what can be considered a sphere.... so only a small fraction of the heat it recieves actually continues in our direction the rest is scattered....

rsulting in less transfer of radient energy to us...

OK


now consider a similar speck of dust which receives heat from the earth again it re radiates that heat all around itself into space.....(and space is cold.....feckin cold) and only a minute fragment of that heat is reradiated/reflected back to earth....

at 240 odd million miles away for our purposes the moon is also not a significant player in this....

Maybe I wasn't clear enough... if sun is giving out more... it not just comes to us... but is everywhere directly around us too...


The earth would lose more heat/energy to a surrounding area that wasn't also in receipt of this extra sun heat/energy...



Is a boiled egg going to stay as hot in a bowl of hot water as it would do in a bowl of slightly colder water...?


I know water isn't space... but heat is lost to it in much the same principle... if you switched the sun off... we wouldn't stay the same heat for ever would we...?


No... we would get cold pretty quick!!!


And conversely... if sun is giving out more... the area/space around us is greater in heat/energy too!

not true tommy

I see the point you are making ....but in terms of space...water is prety thick stuff....VERY thick indeed...

so there is a large amount of "heat capacity" there

if space was a thick as water the point you made about cooling off wouldnt be true we wopuldnt cool dowm quickly at all....in fact we would rock and all evaporate because surrounding space would be hellish hot....

the dust and even if we include the moon is pretty tennuous stuff and has bog all heat capacity in any real sense (obviously it must have some but that "some" is very very low) and the distances involved so great that firstly the overall effect is virtually indistiguishable to "none at all" and it also requires that in any calculation you would need to account for every bit of dust and object individually....

I'm not being rude tommy...since I genuinely dont know...

do you understand the ssquare law rule?
that only 2/3rds of the side facing us of any object can be considered as "effective" in radiating heat towards us (becasue they are spherical?///effectively)
which means that in effect only 1/6th of the surface of a sphere radiated anything towards us..(the rest of course is facing into space....or at least will miss us.....
and that a proportion of THAT will be deflected away by dust between the object and us
and that a further proportion will be reflected by the earths albedo??

its not that the effect you describe DOESNT happen, common sense says it MUST...let alone the physical laws. It is however so insubstantial as to be "not of any effect"

I know water is not air and air is not space etc...


My egg in water example is just showing the principle of what I'm saying...


And when I said switching off sun heat/energy... I was just talking about direct heat/energy effect to us and local space area if all other things remained unchanged.



The fact that we DO lose heat from earth to surrounding space... is itself proof that surrounding space is not a total vacuum!!!


Because if it was a total vacuum then there would be no heat loss transfer through conduction/convection...


Therefore... space surrounding earth (not being a total vacuum) will also be affected by the extra heat/energy from sun...

It will also be relatively warmer... relative to its density... and it's subsequent physical ability to absorb heat/energy...


I know this is only going to be a miniscule amount...


But you have to remember that this is also relative to its ability to absorb heat from earth too!!!


More heat/energy from sun will warm it, yes ever so slightly, but also making it less able/effectual in absorbing heat from earth!

firstly tommy space is so "thin" that very very little heat is transferred via conduction /convection insignificant in fact

the vast majority to the point of almost ALL heat transfer in space is via radiation....

which is why space itself is cold...man is it cold....

and yet if you were exposed to the sun directly you would bake


(actually you would bake one side and freeze on the other)
in the shade (say of the space station) you would freeze solid (if not protected ) in minuits
and in the solar glare you would boil even faster.
without a substantial atmosphere to ameliorate its effect the sun (where earth is) is very very hot indeed...and its ALL radiant heat...no conduction or convection involved.....

and yes you are right there is without doubt "some" effect as you describe (since as you rightly say space isnt a "perfect" vacuum) But its effect "in the grand scheme of things" and its ability to affect our climate is absolutely insignificant.

anyways...I'm off to me pit....

or I'll turn into a pumpkin.....

You say very little/insignificant heat loss... but it accounts for all of earth's heat loss...


An egg in colder water will lose more heat to that water than an egg in warmer water for the same time period...



Anyway... hope you don't still think I am incapable of reading a simple graph now...





Nighty night!

sorry tommy...tansfer of heat to this space dust and other nearby objects accounts for little of earths lost heat...the vast majority goes barrelling off into space as radiant heat....i.e electromanetic radiation in the form of infra red rays....

one suposes that eventually every photon of that energy will hit "something" but that something is going to be the otherside of the galaxy and further

Yes... you are right... but loss of heat through conduction and convection into the vacuum of space does happen... so my point still stands... although as I said... a small variable...and miniscule amount...

Tommy Monk wrote:I understand the simple graph perfectly well eddie...



And to all, I have shown the actual temperature rise over last century as being 0.7 C and as confirmed by nasa!

And there has only been a rise of 0.06 C over the last 15 years!

Both widely provable... fact check away to your own level of acceptability!!!


The temp claim in graph is wrong!!!

Does everyone now accept the facts in above post as true?

actually Tommy if you use the first of these graphs if you chck te 1915 temp anomaly its -0.11 and the 2015 is + 0.98 so the actual change over the century globally for land and sea is +1.01 deg C....

Nasa says rise of 0.7 deg C over last 100 years... but that is only an estimated guess mind...

Tommy Monk wrote:Some idiots in charge of a forum
Claim to want it to run with decorum
But let their friends here talk shit
That don't matter a bit
Cos when others complain they ignore 'em!

They don't think their friends are talking shit though, even when their friends are lying, hurling abuse around, being racist, or breaking all the rules.

True Raggs...


And Didge... did you like my rhyme?

There are some facts on this thread that handy Andy should start to try to understand...


Facts from nasa and other highly credible sources...


Facts that handy Andy won't like... you could call them 'inconvenient truths'...

Bumped for handy Andy again...