|
|
Post by kronan on Dec 17, 2020 11:15:53 GMT -5
Sweden will have its warmest year on record by quite a large margin. www.smhi.se/nyhetsarkiv/2020-blir-med-stor-sannolikhet-det-varmaste-uppmatta-aret-hittills-i-sverige-1.1671952020 will in all probability be the warmest measured year so far in SwedenUpdated December 17, 2020 Published December 17, 2020Not even an unusually cold end to December can prevent the Sweden average temperature for 2020 from being the highest to date. If the weather during Christmas and the holidays continues approximately as forecast for the next 10 days, the annual average temperature will be around 7.5 ° C. It is about 0.5 ° C higher than the previous highest annual average temperature measured.The year 2020 is now coming to an end and will most likely be the warmest year measured in Sweden since the 1860s when SMHI's temperature measurements started. The warmest year so far is 2014, when the annual average temperature for Sweden was 6.9 ° C.- In the long term, we expect more warm temperature records as a result of global warming, but the exact extent to which this occurs between different years varies, says Erik Kjellström, professor of climatology at SMHI. In 2020, we see that Sweden is a small part of a large area over the Arctic, Europe and Russia with very large temperature surpluses. |
|
|
|
Post by knot on Dec 25, 2020 19:48:56 GMT -5
Winter rainfall trends @ Batlow Post Office since 1886. June is particularly harrowing—notice the absolute lack of those extreme wet events after the 2000s; July likewise. The only month to not have suffered such a total lack of wet events, is August.    |
|
|
|
Post by knot on Dec 25, 2020 20:11:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Dec 26, 2020 12:40:47 GMT -5
• Extreme warming trend @ Hunters Hill since 1993:   • Tumbarumba Post Office since 1965:   • Burrinjuck Dam since 1912:  
|
|
|
|
Post by nei on Feb 1, 2021 13:51:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Apr 5, 2021 10:16:19 GMT -5
Probably only UHI... 
|
|
|
|
Post by Donar on Apr 21, 2021 4:56:48 GMT -5
Increase of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), the most potent greenhouse gas (1 kg SF6 has a 26 087 times higher warming potential than 1 kg CO2, and lasts up to 3200 years in the atmosphere). Emissions are mainly from the electrical power industry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Babu on May 7, 2021 5:01:21 GMT -5
 I tried to test out AW's theory. I found this timeseries on BOM, showing a steady rise for the last 100 years  He said the data was fraudulent because it's gone through some sort of gridding, and it represented all of Australia instead of AW's specific region. Fair enough, although it doesn't seem like his region has been seeing any less warming than the rest of Australia  I then found this graph for annual means in Cabramurra very close to AW, showing a very steady rise in the last 50 years.  But maybe this data was tampered with too, so I looked at raw data values for average highs since 1962 and made this little graph  Also, it's important to note that in 1999, the data changes from being a manual station to an AWS station that consistently records 0.5'C cooler highs than the old station (I compared the three years they were co-active). I've heard him talking about old temperature records. Sweden has a lot of temperature records that are really old. The 38'C June temp record was set in 1947 in Målilla, and the 38'C July temp record was set in 1933 in Uppsala. These places have both seen rigorous warming since then. Also, just because a place was using "a stevenson screen" in the 1800's doesn't mean that the "stevenson screen" was of the same quality or standard as a modern stevenson screen. This is a picture from a Norwegian station in Finse taken in 1959.  And I saw you mention some Australian station with data in the 1800's that surely must've been accurate because it had some summer months that were cold, and if the radiation cover was subpar it obviously wouldn't have been possible for it to be cold. As if that's how it works. A poor radiation cover might record 1 to 2'c warmer highs on average compared to a good radiation cover, but a 1-2'C difference is definitely within normal monthly variability; a cold month can deviate 4-5'C from average, and during those deviations, the additional 1-2'C gained from the poor radiation cover isn't going to be large enough to offset that, especially not when the difference is lower during rainy, cloudy and windy days which presumably are plentiful during extremely cold summer months. What I'm saying is: knot you're full of shit |
|
|
|
Post by knot on May 7, 2021 8:08:06 GMT -5
^Well, well, well…someone's about to taste my boot today. Let us begin, shall we? Let's start with Babu's illustrious comments in that very same shoutbox conversation—at which point he even tries to apply Northern European (!) climatic patterns to those of AU:    Babu also insists on referring to the annual mean temperature trend for Australia in its entirety, which is critically erroneous for a plethora of reasons: 1. By piece of shit new age climate, I refer solely to the reduction in both strength and frequency of westerly frontal systems since about the 2000s onwards (and plateauing > 2010s); due chiefly to a faltering South Indian SWW, jointly with a persistent +AAO trend. 2. The BoM's ACORN-SAT dataset is thoroughly adjusted notwithstanding:  3. Australia =/= Western NSW. Different regions of Australia see different trends, from different climate drivers; whilst a +AAO phase brings warmer and drier conditions to Western NSW, it instead brings cooler and wetter conditions to Eastern NSW (owing to the leeward position of the latter). So to lump in regional trends with one another…is disingenuous at best. This most peculiar individual has also tried to claim that the new electronic AWS sites installed from about the 1990s should read cooler than mercury sites, but unfortunately that claim lay mercilessly invalidated:  Conclusion: Henceforth, the individual known as Babu…is to be taken about as seriously as a circus monkey whose apparent mishap it was to stumble upon a key to his (rather arduous) escape. |
|
|
|
Post by MET on May 7, 2021 8:16:37 GMT -5
"Climate change" in the UK = more heavy rain events, cloudier, wetter crummier summers, massive northern blocking at record levels since 2007. And for anyonewho thinks I'm exaggerating, the Met O's own data shows this clearly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Donar on Aug 9, 2021 7:33:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by AJ1013 on Aug 18, 2021 8:37:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by nei on Aug 18, 2021 11:22:01 GMT -5
are those results much different from the previous report? anything particular new or interesting in this report in your opinion? interesting that has the west coast of the US from the northern half of california northwards slightly increasing in soil moisture for 1 and 2°C. If correct (I suspect it's averaging lots of model disagreement) in the near future we won't have massive drought on the west coast all the time due to human climate change, just natural variation that will hopefully leave us soon. |
|
|
|
Post by Donar on Aug 19, 2021 11:34:05 GMT -5
are those results much different from the previous report? anything particular new or interesting in this report in your opinion? interesting that has the west coast of the US from the northern half of california northwards slightly increasing in soil moisture for 1 and 2°C. If correct (I suspect it's averaging lots of model disagreement) in the near future we won't have massive drought on the west coast all the time due to human climate change, just natural variation that will hopefully leave us soon. Of course they are not much different, but human caused global warming is now considered unequivocal (before only the warming itself and a very likely human influence). The earth was already 1.1 °C warmer 2011-2020 compared to 1850-1900 with 1.6 °C over land and 0.9 °C over the ocean. And I think paragraph is worth noting:
Compared to 1850–1900, global surface temperature averaged over 2081–2100 is very likely to be higher by 1.0°C to 1.8°C under the very low GHG emissions scenario considered (SSP1-1.9), by 2.1°C to 3.5°C in the intermediate scenario (SSP2-4.5) and by 3.3°C to 5.7°C under the very high GHG emissions scenario (SSP5-8.5)24. The last time global surface temperature was sustained at or above 2.5°C higher than 1850–1900 was over 3 million years ago (medium confidence)
So even with the unlikely very low GHG scenario we could come near the Paris range, hence I think it will be hard to prevent certain tipping points from swichting. The coral reefs are probably already a lost cause.
|
|
|
|
Post by Donar on Aug 20, 2021 9:35:21 GMT -5
are those results much different from the previous report? anything particular new or interesting in this report in your opinion? interesting that has the west coast of the US from the northern half of california northwards slightly increasing in soil moisture for 1 and 2°C. If correct (I suspect it's averaging lots of model disagreement) in the near future we won't have massive drought on the west coast all the time due to human climate change, just natural variation that will hopefully leave us soon. When zoomed in, it seems like the immediate coast becomes a little drier, only the inland NW becomes wetter; but in any case no dramatic changes expected there. The Mediterranean will be in trouble though, and the Sahel could even benefit. |
|
|
|
Post by srfoskey on Aug 20, 2021 21:10:44 GMT -5
are those results much different from the previous report? anything particular new or interesting in this report in your opinion? interesting that has the west coast of the US from the northern half of california northwards slightly increasing in soil moisture for 1 and 2°C. If correct (I suspect it's averaging lots of model disagreement) in the near future we won't have massive drought on the west coast all the time due to human climate change, just natural variation that will hopefully leave us soon. When zoomed in, it seems like the immediate coast becomes a little drier, only the inland NW becomes wetter; but in any case no dramatic changes expected there. The Mediterranean will be in trouble though, and the Sahel could even benefit. It looks like another Dust Bowl for the Plains states would be in order in this scenario. |
|
|
|
Post by nei on Oct 6, 2021 7:45:42 GMT -5
Climate scientist got a physics Nobel prize; first time awarded for climate related work. Details of his work in the replies, sounds very interesting
|
|
|
|
Post by Ethereal on Oct 13, 2021 20:44:16 GMT -5
Climate change is real, but they've politicized it so much and people from both sides have been stubbornly loud about it. Either they wank over it or they're vehemently against it. Like, relax! That said, I do think it's exaggerated. I was led to believe that Sydney had been getting those freaky and wild storms more often within the past 10 years, but it seems like this sort of shit had always happened -- At least, ever since the records began here. I mean, I had no idea we had those March 2021 style, lands-becoming-seas type of flood in the fucking 1800s! But the alarmist media made it seem like that was the first time we've been getting such horrific floods! This list was pretty surprising: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_storm_events_in_Sydney |
|
|
|
Post by AJ1013 on Oct 20, 2021 20:47:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by 🖕🏿Mörön🖕🏿 on Oct 20, 2021 23:35:57 GMT -5
Yeah well that is what is being done. Except it's not just economic but entirely a societal change. |
|
