https://weather.com/news/climate/news/record-warmest-january-global-2016

January 2016 Was the Most Abnormally Warm Month Ever Recorded, NASA Says

January 2016 was not only Earth’s warmest January on record, but also featured the largest warm departure from average for any month, according to two separate analyses released this week.

The first month of 2016 started with a global temperature departure of 1.13 degrees Celsius above the 1951-1980 average, according to NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

That may not sound impressive, but ingesting temperature data over the entire surface of the Earth, NASA’s analysis found this was the largest monthly warm temperature anomaly in their database dating to 1880, topping a record set the previous month.

A separate analysis from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting also found January 2016 set a new record-warm anomaly for the globe, 0.72 degrees Celsius above the 1981-2010 average. That reanalysis, however, dates only to 1979.

The Japanese Meteorological Agency’s calculations also found January 2016 was the globe’s warmest on record, but the departure from average was the fourth highest on record for any month behind December (+0.66C), November (+0.54C) and October (+0.53C) all in 2015.

The global record was paced by exceptional warmth in the northern hemisphere polar latitudes, particularly from Alaska and Canada to Greenland and north-central Siberia where temperatures were at least 4 degrees Celsius (roughly 7 degrees Fahrenheit) above January averages, according to NASA.

Incredibly, NASA calculated January temperatures north of 75 degrees north latitude were over 7 degrees Celsius (12.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above average.

As we come further and further into the warm period of the Milankovitch cycle we’ll probably see more of this.

I loved him in The Killing Fields.

(Although PWM’s comment was jovial, I should point out for the unwary that the Milanvokitch cycle is currently on a downward path: going by the Milankovitch reference function the Earth would be cooling now until 8000 AD.

Looks as though this northern winter will have the lowest Arctic sea ice maximum extent on record.

Also heading for a low minimum in the Antarctic after a few icy years, probably around 2.55 million sq km. There has been no downward trend in Antarctic ice extent during the past 37 years. The following is a list of min Antarctic sea ice extents below 2.6 million sq km since 1979: such years are not getting more common.

2.34 2011
2.52 2006
2.29 1997
2.31 1993
2.46 1984
2.57 1980

> That may not sound impressive

What does sound impressive is the number of government dollars allocated to studying global warming.

mollwollfumble said:

> That may not sound impressive

What does sound impressive is the number of government dollars allocated to studying global warming.

I don’t think you can say that now, at least not in Australia. However, apart from over population, that and global warming are the elephants in the room and the more information we can obtain about them, the greater our chances of being able to do something about them.

mollwollfumble said:

> That may not sound impressive

What does sound impressive is the number of government dollars allocated to studying global warming.

Impressively low

Going down

Ian said:

Going down

Seems to have accelerated since 2006…….

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

> That may not sound impressive

What does sound impressive is the number of government dollars allocated to studying global warming.

I don’t think you can say that now, at least not in Australia. However, apart from over population, that and global warming are the elephants in the room and the more information we can obtain about them, the greater our chances of being able to do something about them.

My favourite “elephant in the room” cartoon.

For a look at the real elephant in the room, see the series “doomsday preppers”. The biggest elephant in the room is financial collapse, finance is all based on trust – once the trust is gone, money becomes worthless. A variant on that is that because of huge world financial borrowings from China, China could deliberately wreck the economies of the western world.

For me, World War III with nuclear weapons is still my number one concern.

My favourite two new elephants in the room from Doomsday Preppers are “earthquake in middle America” and “black swan events”.

For “earthquake in middle America”, remember that the Tangshan Earthquake in China killed either 650,000 people or 250,000 people, depending on who you believe. An earthquake in middle or eastern America that killed that many people would, well, …

“Black swan events” (remember that this is not an Australian show) are those that nobody has prepared for because nobody expects.

mollwollfumble said:

“Black swan events” (remember that this is not an Australian show) are those that nobody has prepared for because nobody expects.

Have you read the book? (The Black Swan, Nicholas Taleb). It’s worth a read.

In fact it formed a large part of the basis for a paper I presented at last year’s Concrete Conference.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

> That may not sound impressive

What does sound impressive is the number of government dollars allocated to studying global warming.

I don’t think you can say that now, at least not in Australia. However, apart from over population, that and global warming are the elephants in the room and the more information we can obtain about them, the greater our chances of being able to do something about them.

My favourite “elephant in the room” cartoon.

For a look at the real elephant in the room, see the series “doomsday preppers”. The biggest elephant in the room is financial collapse, finance is all based on trust – once the trust is gone, money becomes worthless. A variant on that is that because of huge world financial borrowings from China, China could deliberately wreck the economies of the western world.

For me, World War III with nuclear weapons is still my number one concern.

My favourite two new elephants in the room from Doomsday Preppers are “earthquake in middle America” and “black swan events”.

For “earthquake in middle America”, remember that the Tangshan Earthquake in China killed either 650,000 people or 250,000 people, depending on who you believe. An earthquake in middle or eastern America that killed that many people would, well, …

“Black swan events” (remember that this is not an Australian show) are those that nobody has prepared for because nobody expects.

All the above are possibilities with little likelihood of eventuating. Over population and Global Warming are massive problems and are happening now.

PermeateFree said:

All the above are possibilities with little likelihood of eventuating. Over population and Global Warming are massive problems and are happening now.

Well actually they aren’t. That is the particular events may have a low probability, but it is near certain that given sufficient time there will be an event with catastrophic consequences that we are not prepared to deal with.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do all we can to reduce the effects of climate change and population growth. Quite the reverse in fact. Any true sceptic would recognise that our knowledge of climate mechanisms is highly simplistic, and our ability to predict them is even worse, so we should be preparing for the possibility of climate change being far worse than expected by the current scientific consensus, and the possibility that the current decline in population growth rates will reverse.

The Rev Dodgson said:

PermeateFree said:

All the above are possibilities with little likelihood of eventuating. Over population and Global Warming are massive problems and are happening now.

Well actually they aren’t. That is the particular events may have a low probability, but it is near certain that given sufficient time there will be an event with catastrophic consequences that we are not prepared to deal with.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do all we can to reduce the effects of climate change and population growth. Quite the reverse in fact. Any true sceptic would recognise that our knowledge of climate mechanisms is highly simplistic, and our ability to predict them is even worse, so we should be preparing for the possibility of climate change being far worse than expected by the current scientific consensus, and the possibility that the current decline in population growth rates will reverse.

I bet you are an engineer

diddly-squat said:

I bet you are an engineer

True, but I think the typical engineer’s approach is far from perfect. To quote Nicholas Taleb:

“the idea is not to correct mistakes and eliminate randomness … The idea is simply to let human mistakes and miscalculations remain confined, and to prevent their spreading through the system, …”

Nicholas Taleb
The Black Swan

The Rev Dodgson said:

PermeateFree said:

All the above are possibilities with little likelihood of eventuating. Over population and Global Warming are massive problems and are happening now.

Well actually they aren’t. That is the particular events may have a low probability, but it is near certain that given sufficient time there will be an event with catastrophic consequences that we are not prepared to deal with.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do all we can to reduce the effects of climate change and population growth. Quite the reverse in fact. Any true sceptic would recognise that our knowledge of climate mechanisms is highly simplistic, and our ability to predict them is even worse, so we should be preparing for the possibility of climate change being far worse than expected by the current scientific consensus, and the possibility that the current decline in population growth rates will reverse.

Sufficient time might be hundreds, thousands or even millions of years, whereas and I repeat, over population and global warming are happening now. So what would you have us do, worry about WWIII, earthquakes and other catastrophic events that are mostly out of our control, or do we concentrate on trying to do something that is actually happening and currently within our control?

PermeateFree said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

PermeateFree said:

All the above are possibilities with little likelihood of eventuating. Over population and Global Warming are massive problems and are happening now.

Well actually they aren’t. That is the particular events may have a low probability, but it is near certain that given sufficient time there will be an event with catastrophic consequences that we are not prepared to deal with.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do all we can to reduce the effects of climate change and population growth. Quite the reverse in fact. Any true sceptic would recognise that our knowledge of climate mechanisms is highly simplistic, and our ability to predict them is even worse, so we should be preparing for the possibility of climate change being far worse than expected by the current scientific consensus, and the possibility that the current decline in population growth rates will reverse.

Sufficient time might be hundreds, thousands or even millions of years, whereas and I repeat, over population and global warming are happening now. So what would you have us do, worry about WWIII, earthquakes and other catastrophic events that are mostly out of our control, or do we concentrate on trying to do something that is actually happening and currently within our control?

I might also add that catastrophic events are often restricted to a region, over population and global warming are worldwide problems.

http://climateandcapitalism.com/2016/01/09/anthropocene-working-group-yes-a-new-epoch-has-begun/

ChrispenEvan said:

http://climateandcapitalism.com/2016/01/09/anthropocene-working-group-yes-a-new-epoch-has-begun/

yay

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

http://climateandcapitalism.com/2016/01/09/anthropocene-working-group-yes-a-new-epoch-has-begun/

yay + 1

PermeateFree said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

PermeateFree said:

All the above are possibilities with little likelihood of eventuating. Over population and Global Warming are massive problems and are happening now.

Well actually they aren’t. That is the particular events may have a low probability, but it is near certain that given sufficient time there will be an event with catastrophic consequences that we are not prepared to deal with.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do all we can to reduce the effects of climate change and population growth. Quite the reverse in fact. Any true sceptic would recognise that our knowledge of climate mechanisms is highly simplistic, and our ability to predict them is even worse, so we should be preparing for the possibility of climate change being far worse than expected by the current scientific consensus, and the possibility that the current decline in population growth rates will reverse.

Sufficient time might be hundreds, thousands or even millions of years, whereas and I repeat, over population and global warming are happening now. So what would you have us do, worry about WWIII, earthquakes and other catastrophic events that are mostly out of our control, or do we concentrate on trying to do something that is actually happening and currently within our control?

It’s not an either/or thing.

We do what it says in the quote in my previous post in this thread.

The Rev Dodgson said:

PermeateFree said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Well actually they aren’t. That is the particular events may have a low probability, but it is near certain that given sufficient time there will be an event with catastrophic consequences that we are not prepared to deal with.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do all we can to reduce the effects of climate change and population growth. Quite the reverse in fact. Any true sceptic would recognise that our knowledge of climate mechanisms is highly simplistic, and our ability to predict them is even worse, so we should be preparing for the possibility of climate change being far worse than expected by the current scientific consensus, and the possibility that the current decline in population growth rates will reverse.

Sufficient time might be hundreds, thousands or even millions of years, whereas and I repeat, over population and global warming are happening now. So what would you have us do, worry about WWIII, earthquakes and other catastrophic events that are mostly out of our control, or do we concentrate on trying to do something that is actually happening and currently within our control?

It’s not an either/or thing.

We do what it says in the quote in my previous post in this thread.

I presume you are referring to the quote below, which would make it far easier to follow if you produced your own comments, rather than the reader having to scroll back in order to find it.

“the idea is not to correct mistakes and eliminate randomness … The idea is simply to let human mistakes and miscalculations remain confined, and to prevent their spreading through the system, …”

Nicholas Taleb
The Black Swan

However I was replying to your own comments in an earlier post again. Although how are natural catastrophic events contained, or even viewed as a human mistake or miscalculation, especially when we don’t know what they might be or when they might happen? Over population and global warming are currently worldwide events and are already in the system, so how do we stop them spreading by containment?

PermeateFree said:

I presume you are referring to the quote below, which would make it far easier to follow if you produced your own comments, rather than the reader having to scroll back in order to find it.

“the idea is not to correct mistakes and eliminate randomness … The idea is simply to let human mistakes and miscalculations remain confined, and to prevent their spreading through the system, …”

Nicholas Taleb
The Black Swan

So sorry you had to scroll up three screens to read something.

PermeateFree said:

However I was replying to your own comments in an earlier post again. Although how are natural catastrophic events contained, or even viewed as a human mistake or miscalculation, especially when we don’t know what they might be or when they might happen? Over population and global warming are currently worldwide events and are already in the system, so how do we stop them spreading by containment?

1. The discussion is not just about natural catastrophic events. There are many ways in which human activities might have catastrophic outcomes, in addition to climate change and over population.

2. In many cases you can’t predict or prevent specific events, but you certainly can make provisions to limit their effect.

3. Why are you so determined that a focus on climate change and over populations (which is quite appropriate) should prevent all consideration of other potentially disastrous events?

Clearly overepopulation is a cause of the effect of anthropogenic activity upon climate change.

The Rev Dodgson said:

PermeateFree said:

I presume you are referring to the quote below, which would make it far easier to follow if you produced your own comments, rather than the reader having to scroll back in order to find it.

“the idea is not to correct mistakes and eliminate randomness … The idea is simply to let human mistakes and miscalculations remain confined, and to prevent their spreading through the system, …”

Nicholas Taleb
The Black Swan

So sorry you had to scroll up three screens to read something.

PermeateFree said:

However I was replying to your own comments in an earlier post again. Although how are natural catastrophic events contained, or even viewed as a human mistake or miscalculation, especially when we don’t know what they might be or when they might happen? Over population and global warming are currently worldwide events and are already in the system, so how do we stop them spreading by containment?

1. The discussion is not just about natural catastrophic events. There are many ways in which human activities might have catastrophic outcomes, in addition to climate change and over population.

2. In many cases you can’t predict or prevent specific events, but you certainly can make provisions to limit their effect.

3. Why are you so determined that a focus on climate change and over populations (which is quite appropriate) should prevent all consideration of other potentially disastrous events?

Because I am responding to Moll’s post, as below:
>>For a look at the real elephant in the room, see the series “doomsday preppers”. The biggest elephant in the room is financial collapse, finance is all based on trust – once the trust is gone, money becomes worthless. A variant on that is that because of huge world financial borrowings from China, China could deliberately wreck the economies of the western world.
For me, World War III with nuclear weapons is still my number one concern.
My favourite two new elephants in the room from Doomsday Preppers are “earthquake in middle America” and “black swan events”.
For “earthquake in middle America”, remember that the Tangshan Earthquake in China killed either 650,000 people or 250,000 people, depending on who you believe. An earthquake in middle or eastern America that killed that many people would, well, …
“Black swan events” (remember that this is not an Australian show) are those that nobody has prepared for because nobody expects.<<

Rev >1. The discussion is not just about natural catastrophic events. There are many ways in which human activities might have catastrophic outcomes, in addition to climate change and over population.<
Indeed there are, but the optimal word in your statement is ‘might’ and I repeat again, over population and global warming are not might, but ‘are right now and currently impacting the globe.’

Rev >2. In many cases you can’t predict or prevent specific events, but you certainly can make provisions to limit their effect.<
Well good luck with all the possible earthquakes locations.

Rev >3. Why are you so determined that a focus on climate change and over populations (which is quite appropriate) should prevent all consideration of other potentially disastrous events?<
Simply because it was not part of the discussion, other than what moll introduced the above. And to be quite frank, I do not think your quote from Nicholas Taleb is applicable to environmental disasters.

PermeateFree said:

Rev >3. Why are you so determined that a focus on climate change and over populations (which is quite appropriate) should prevent all consideration of other potentially disastrous events?<
Simply because it was not part of the discussion, other than what moll introduced the above. And to be quite frank, I do not think your quote from Nicholas Taleb is applicable to environmental disasters.

Well you are wrong, but if you want to restrict the discussion purely to what mollwoll said, even when replying to someone else who has made a different point, I’ll leave you to it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

PermeateFree said:

Rev >3. Why are you so determined that a focus on climate change and over populations (which is quite appropriate) should prevent all consideration of other potentially disastrous events?<
Simply because it was not part of the discussion, other than what moll introduced the above. And to be quite frank, I do not think your quote from Nicholas Taleb is applicable to environmental disasters.

Well you are wrong, but if you want to restrict the discussion purely to what mollwoll said, even when replying to someone else who has made a different point, I’ll leave you to it.

Rev, you are really a bloody nuisance, you jump into a discussion using existing posts, yet misinterpret and launch off on an entirely different tack, yet you expect everyone to immediately change to your point of view whether it follows logically or not. Simply, I stated that there were two elephants in the room, represented by over population and global warming. If you wish you completely fill the room with a herd of smaller elephants than do as you please. However, I have tried to reply to your rather pointless posts, but apparently to no avail. If you want to make a point than do so without your petulance if things do not go the way you think they should.

PermeateFree said:

Rev, you are really a bloody nuisance, you jump into a discussion using existing posts, yet misinterpret and launch off on an entirely different tack, yet you expect everyone to immediately change to your point of view whether it follows logically or not. Simply, I stated that there were two elephants in the room, represented by over population and global warming. If you wish you completely fill the room with a herd of smaller elephants than do as you please. However, I have tried to reply to your rather pointless posts, but apparently to no avail. If you want to make a point than do so without your petulance if things do not go the way you think they should.

Petulance you say?

The Rev Dodgson said:

PermeateFree said:

Rev, you are really a bloody nuisance, you jump into a discussion using existing posts, yet misinterpret and launch off on an entirely different tack, yet you expect everyone to immediately change to your point of view whether it follows logically or not. Simply, I stated that there were two elephants in the room, represented by over population and global warming. If you wish you completely fill the room with a herd of smaller elephants than do as you please. However, I have tried to reply to your rather pointless posts, but apparently to no avail. If you want to make a point than do so without your petulance if things do not go the way you think they should.

Petulance you say?

The Rev Dodgson said:

PermeateFree said:

Rev, you are really a bloody nuisance, you jump into a discussion using existing posts, yet misinterpret and launch off on an entirely different tack, yet you expect everyone to immediately change to your point of view whether it follows logically or not. Simply, I stated that there were two elephants in the room, represented by over population and global warming. If you wish you completely fill the room with a herd of smaller elephants than do as you please. However, I have tried to reply to your rather pointless posts, but apparently to no avail. If you want to make a point than do so without your petulance if things do not go the way you think they should.

Petulance you say?

He did. At least petting your lance isn’t belligerent……..

Getting called a nuisance by Permeatefree: priceless

dv said:

Getting called a nuisance by Permeatefree: priceless