2015 will likely be the hottest year on record, according to a preliminary analysis released by the World Meteorological Organization. Worldwide temperatures are expected for the first time to reach more than 1℃ above pre-industrial temperatures.

The five years from 2011-2015 will also likely be the hottest five-year period on record. Average global atmospheric CO₂ concentrations over three months also hit 400 parts per million for the first time during the southern hemisphere Autumn this year. On top of this, we are experiencing one of the strongest El Niño events ever recorded.

According to Dr Karl Braganza, head of climate monitoring at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, these climate milestones are both symbolic and highly significant.

“One degree is half way to the 2 degree guardrail of warming that the global community is aiming for in terms of future climate change,” Dr Braganza said.

“400 parts per million of CO₂ in the atmosphere is a composition that the climate system has not likely seen in probably the past 2.5 million years.”

In Australia, 2015 is likely to fall into the top 10 warmest years on record, all of which have occurred this century.

Dr Braganza said that record breaking hot weather was now six times more likely than it was early last century. Meanwhile, the oceans continue to warm at an alarming rate.

“About 90% of the additional heat from the advanced greenhouse effect goes into warming the oceans,” he said.

This is particularly worrying as any change to sea temperature is potentially very significant in terms of impacts on Australia’s weather, from droughts to flooding rains.

Dr David Karoly, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Melbourne, said that there was little doubt as to the cause of the warming.

“It is now all but certain that 2015 will be the hottest year since record keeping began.

“The new record high global temperature in 2015 is mainly due to human-caused global warming, with smaller contributions from El Niño and from other natural climate variations,” Dr Karoly said.

According to calculations by Karoly and colleagues as part of the World Weather Attribution Project coordinated by Climate Central, temperatures will likely reach around 1.05℃ above pre-industrial temperatures. Of this, about 1℃ can be attributed to the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, about 0.05ºC-0.1ºC to El Niño, and about 0.02ºC to higher solar activity. The numbers don’t quite add up to 1.05℃ due to uncertainties and natural variability.

The World Meteorological Organization statement comes as world leaders are set to meet in Paris next week to begin the next round of negotiations on taking action against climate change.

https://theconversation.com/2015-to-be-hottest-year-ever-world-meteorological-or...


Why are we gambling 2 degree of heating, when we are not sure at what point human extincting runaway global warming kicks in.  Surely, drop our target to 1.5 degrees so to give humanity better odds of seeing out the century.

____ wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 2:12am:




HAHAHAHA.

lee wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 10:05am:

Says the bloke who thinks nothing needs adjusting ever 

lee wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 10:05am:



That is hilarious. Pseudo science at its best in plain sight.

Is 2 degree of heating acceptable ~ the question still remains unanswered ...

..but seriously, they probably figured 3C is bad and rounded numbers are the only way to keep the political message afloat.

Error values mean 2C could still melt the arctic and most people can't fathom that as a good thing, but 3C I'm sure would be a lot worse.

Good question of course. How long is a piece of string?

____ wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 11:09am:

You mean the Greens sitting on their hands when abbott attacked the RET and investment and jobs in the sector stopped dead, until Labor salvaged a smaller cut and now investment in renewable energy is going again.

Greens voted against restarting renewable energy investment and jobs. Stunts never policy, fantasy never reality. A Party for children.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 1:02pm:

Which explains why Rudd early on in the piece stole their aspirational targets for 2050, making them up their ante!



This separated Labor from the Libs forever...   

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 1:05pm:


I am referring to particulates and emissions that act as dimming agents in the atmosphere. SO2, fine soot particles etc.

there is almost a 1 degC cooling effect embedded in these dimming agents emitted by the fossil fuel combustion process. (it's similar to volcanic activity bursts which cause a transient coolling effect on the earth)

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 1:32pm:

Well that means we're really in the poo..



I'd be expecting some serious disinvestment decisions about now. Lookout for resource bottlenecks et al... Elon Musk maybe onto a winner etc...

No, aerosols that reaches the outer edges of the atmosphere and reflect some sunlight back out.

Clarity of the lower atmosphere, the bit we breath, is too low to affect heating.

You were talking crap—about heating.

This was crap:
Quote:


By the time radiation reaches the lower atmosphere it is in the atmosphere.

Clear air gives you colder nights.

smog=smoke+fog.

Stop burning coal—no smoke so no smog.

In the meantime farmers, who are on the frontline of AGW are changing practices as AGW keeps hitting their properties. ABC24 just now.

Well, the farmers know their properties a lot better than someone posting some videos about cherry picked cold snaps. I think I will believe actual, practical farmers not you. sorry I’m sure.

It is the upper atmosphere that controls that, not ground level stuff.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 28^th, 2015 at 12:10pm:


'Aerosols interact both directly and indirectly with the Earth's radiation budget and climate. As a direct effect, the aerosols scatter sunlight directly back into space. As an indirect effect, aerosols in the lower atmosphere can modify the size of cloud particles, changing how the clouds reflect and absorb sunlight, thereby affecting the Earth's energy budget.'

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Aerosols.html

NASA would seem to disagree.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 28^th, 2015 at 7:43am:


    tapping the depths of nonsense now.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 28^th, 2015 at 12:13pm:

Older farmers in the better areas may not notice, but the younger farmers do. Also the facts about vintage and more heat tolerant grape varieties being planted are true.

AGW is hitting Australia and we need to take notice and formulate some practical plans of action. We can no longer tolerate those fearful of any change holding us back! It is not just the ABC, at the Open Day at Saltram winery (near Angaston in the Barossa Valley with vineyards on the valley floor, the slopes at the Eastern end and in Eden Valley) we were told that on the valley floor white wine varieties were producing wines with lots of fruit but no finesse and that is why Fiano was being planted in their place. The intervals between ripening of different varieties/regions was shortening, causing some problems.

YOU can go through life with your eyes closed but I will keep my eyes open!

As I said, vineyards are being planted in Tassie and the UK because the mainland/France is getting too hot to grow the grapes to make really fine wines.

Sorry. The old farmers just do what they have done their whole life. Younger farmers taking over from Dad can see the old ways aren’t working anymore.

Like it or not, the world is warming due to an increasing greenhouse effect. You will just have to get used to it and eventually even you will have to adapt.

One thing we can do: dam the Burdekin high up, send the water to the south and west, into the head streams of the Murray Darling. We can tap hydroelectricity and as the south dries up (which it is) water from the north can recharge the GAB and the Murray–Darling. This will have to be done on more than one northern river.

We can use more renewable energy which is now cheaper than coal and I suggest we invest in one or two nuclear powered generators as well.

Or, like you, we can put our heads in the sand. I don’t think that is a viable strategy.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 29^th, 2015 at 9:58am:


Younger farmers have the knowledge and experience of their fathers and grandfathers, which means that they KNOW this has all happened before and will again, and that the world is warming, but almost certainly not because of anything humans have done/are doing..
When you have a written (unmodified) record of temperatures/rainfall going back a century or more, it's very easy to the patterns.


The only younger farmers who believe in AGW are the ones who only just moved onto the land.

No, farmers are moving to new, more heat tolerant breeds whether plant or animal. Vignorons are having to innovate to off set the effect of warming on their vineyards etc.

You may want to go through life with both eyes closed, I don’t.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 29^th, 2015 at 10:56am:


It's lcalled plant breeding, been doing it for 1000's of years, you seem to think everyone is as one dimensional as you.

Bobby. wrote on Nov 29^th, 2015 at 11:15am:

And yet our farmers are busy adapting to AGW. Weird, eh Booby?

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 29^th, 2015 at 11:25am:


Farmers are doing the same thing they have always done Monk. They are adapting to climactic variations, that doesn't mean AGW.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 29^th, 2015 at 11:41am:


When they adapt to always increasing heat we can say it is AGW they are adjusting to. Try opening your eyes.

Temps are increasing. Open your eyes!

That was 14000 years ago. Temperatures are increasing, not surprising with all the GHGs we have emitted since about 1850. Farmers are already having to change practices because of the increasing temperatures.

And yet, the man on the land is coping with what lunatics say isn’t happening 

With the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increasing we can call increasing temperatures AGW with perfect confidence.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 29^th, 2015 at 9:32pm:

This might burst your little bubble

New paper demonstrates temperature drives CO2 levels, not man-made CO2

Quote:


http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/new-paper-demonstrates-temperature....

This is the abstract, doesn’t support the denialists’ version:

Quote:

Quoting a Murdoch rag does not boost your credentials 

I bet you think the MTM will be great and cost only $56Bn? 

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 30^th, 2015 at 4:28am:



The abstract doesn't support much of anything. except -

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 30^th, 2015 at 4:28am:



aka- send more money

Of course this is just the abstract. Perhaps you could buy the paper to validate what your assertion?



Figure 2:  Measurements of atmospheric CO2.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n5/full/nclimate1817.html

Soren doesn’t understand physics, mathematics or common sense.

When temperatures increase with time, as they are, extreme temperatures increase by a lot more than the average increase and stays there for longer.

For the same reason a small increase in sea level can see more and bigger floods.

So his stupid Eiffel tower fable means Jack Schidt!

We can see that you cannot refute the point, clowns.

Soren wrote on Dec 1^st, 2015 at 9:57pm:

You calling me your keffer  ?

Problem is—we are burning them so fast!

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 4^th, 2015 at 5:47pm:


Monk's baking bread efforts.   

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 4^th, 2015 at 5:21pm:



What is the 'correct' rate of burning them, plonker?

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 4^th, 2015 at 8:38pm:



It has already been 400ppm, China is building another 1100 odd coal fired power stations.

'China is building 368 plants and planning a further 803, according to the study by four climate change research bodies, including Ecofys and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.'

The Times, 2 December 2015

Quote:


Yeah...you imagine. Stop making this sh1te up will you.

' She and her colleagues collected data on recent precipitation and temperatures from the Pakistan Meteorological Department and other sources, including satellite data. They combined this information with climate models to track changes in three regions of the Himalayas between 1861 and 2100: the Karakoram; the central Himalayas; and the southeast Himalayas which included part of the Tibetan Plateau.

The researchers found that a new model that simulates climate down to an area of 965 square miles (2,500 square kilometers) was able to match the observed temperature and precipitation cycles seen in the Karakoram. A model used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to simulate what will happen if the world continues to emit greenhouse gases at current rates was unable to capture these seasonal cycles, Kapnick said.

The reason, she said, is that the IPCC and other climate models are lower-resolution, capturing climate change over areas no finer than about 17,027 square miles (44,100 square km). The coarser resolution "smoothes out" variations in elevation, which works fine for the central Himalayas and southeast Himalayas. However, the Karakoram region has more elevation variability than the other two regions. Ultimately, the result is that the IPCC and other models overestimate the amount of warmth in this region, Kapnick said.'

http://www.livescience.com/48256-asia-karakoram-glaciers-stability.html

Other reports show Himalayan glaciers have some growing, some shrinking and some static. I wish this AGW would be consistent in one region.

lee wrote on Dec 5^th, 2015 at 11:25am:

You wish everything measured up don't you buddy!

You must be a demon in the sack ay 

The short answer is "no."

lee wrote on Dec 5^th, 2015 at 11:25am:



Here is the first para of your link.
"Glaciers around the world are melting, retreating and even vanishing altogether. But in the mountainous Karakoram region of Asia — home to K2, the second-highest peak on Earth — the glaciers aren't melting. If anything, some are expanding."

Pretty sure that is a great example of cherry picking when we have the real picture below.

"The World Glacier Monitoring Service, based at the University of Zurich in Switzerland and with partners in 30 countries, has been compiling data on changes in glaciers over the last 120 years. And it has just compared all known 21st century observations with data from site measurements, aerial photography and satellite observations and evidence from pictorial and written sources. Altogether, the service has collected 5,000 measurements of glacier volume and changes in mass since 1850, and 42,000 records of variations in glacier fronts from records dating back to the 16th century.

[i]

And the evidence is clear: the glaciers are in retreat, worldwide, and the retreat is accelerating

[/i]."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/04/speed-glacier-retreat-worldwi...

^ +1

But they did.  They know more about this than anonymous posters on the interweb.  WTF would you know.

In any kind of scientific measurement 62% is extremely high.  But you don't know of such things.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 11:08pm:


lee wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 11:48am:




'The global compilation of front variation data, as qualitatively summarized in Figure 6, shows that glacier retreat has been dominant for the past two centuries, with LIA maximum extents reached (in some regions several times) between the mid-16th and the late 19th centuries. The qualitative summary of cumulative mean annual front variations (Fig. 6a) reveals a distinct trend toward global
centennial glacier retreat, with the early 21st century marking the historical minimum extent in all regions (except NZL and ANT, where few observations are available) at least for the time period of documented front variations.'

http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/igsoc/00221430/v61n228/s11.p...

The paper.

Figure 2 of the paper p 748 (or 4 of 18 in the pdf) shows the glaciers subject to scrutiny. Seems heavily biased to the Northern Hemisphere.

Lee needs to apologise, soon.  Just for being here.

lee wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 6:45pm:


lee, that is for you to demonstrate in an honest and credible manner - in public and prior to issuing your apology and implementing your self ban punishment.

You also made the appalling implication that a sample of a few hundred in a population of 160,000 was somehow statistically invalid.

You need to issue forth twin apologies to extract yourself from this immoral abyss of your own making.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 7:00am:

Nah, 5 degrees is death: the world will go into resource bottlenecks and economic apoplection before that happens!

Nuclear is off the table as a solution as it only exist for nuclear weapons purposes and so the politics of the solution is clear and business has a certain path so early starters on that path will reap massive reward. The deniers are simply playing pause button politics 

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 6:07pm:


He can't comply. Neither Watts nor Nova have anything on their blogs about it. It would require cognitive skills that he doesn't possess. It goes beyond cutting and pasting.

He already said that anybody who doesn't outsource their thinking like that should be ashamed of themselves.