bdgwx

Svalbard went crazy. I don't typically highlight individual locations like this, but since it is in the Arctic where it can at least somewhat represent the melting tendency on the sea ice I thought it might be interesting enough.

I have a few reasons to be critical of Dr. Spencer, but to be fair to him he posted this on his blog today. I'm more concerned with the likes of Joe Bastardi and Ryan Maue. I’m even part of the supposed 97% that believes the climate system is warming partly (maybe even mostly) from our CO2 emissions.

August 2024 beat August 2023 in the UAH dataset. Here are the trends over periods of interest... 1st half: +0.14 C.decade-1 2nd half: +0.23 C.decade-1 Last 10 years: +0.39 C.decade-1 Last 15 years: +0.37 C.decade-1 Last 20 years: +0.30 C.decade-1 Last 25 years: +0.22 C.decade-1 Last 30 years: +0.18 C.decade-1 The warming rate acceleration is now +0.028 C.decade-2.

The 14 C is in reference to the ESS (Earth System Sensitivity). From the publication they say ECS (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity) is 7 C. For those that don't know ESS is the amount the Earth warms after the slow feedbacks play out while ECS is only after the fast feedbacks play out. Fast feedbacks are on the order of 100 years while slow feedbacks are on the order of the 1000-10000 years. An example of a slow feedback is ice sheet melt out.

The winters of 12/13 and 13/14 were La Nada.

And that is gaslighting behavior. If you use raw data without correcting for known errors that is fraud. Plain and simple. And depending on the context, authority, etc. this fraud could even qualify as criminal behavior. For example, think of an NHC forecaster who publishes an official hurricane intensity that is grossly under/over estimated because he "only and always uses raw data no matter what". I trust that you understand all the ways dropsondes, buoys, flight level winds, SFMR, ADT, etc. can under/over estimate a tropical cyclone's intensity and that this example will resonate with you.

I'm going to stop you right there. That's straight up brazen fraudulent behavior.

I think it is telling that you only use raw data errors and all when it shows less warming than the corrected data, but refuse to use raw data when it shows more warming than the corrected data. And do you really think nobody knows what the global average temperature is? I want you to seriously sit and think on that before answering. Do you really want to plant you flag there? Or was that just an off-the-cuff remark made more out of frustration than true conviction.

No worries. I was not suggesting that you should make that statement in regard to the Chester County average. I was suggesting you do it for the global average.

Let's test your resolve then. Post on your twitter account that the warming is worse than scientists say because those scientists rewrote history to obscure the true nature and higher rate of the warming.

BTW...I had an absurd debate with Andy May over WUWT recently because he thinks global averages (whether sea level or temperature) are meaningless. Even when I pushed to get him to pull back from the claim he held firm. So his publishing of articles predicting that global warming had stopped is doubly ironic.

Which technically shows MORE warming than the traditional datasets during their overlap period. And furthermore the net effect of all adjustments globally actually results in LESS warming relative to the raw data. This is why I've asked @ChescoWx in the past if he really wants to hang his hat on the adjustment-bad argument and accept all of the consequences that go along with it.

The Kalshi prediction market shows a 28% chance of breaking the 2012 record.

Unsurprisingly global sea ice extent is at a record low for July 26th beating the previous record set in 2023.

I've been skeptical regarding research showing that the Hunga Tonga eruption had little impact on global average temperatures. It's probably time for me to throw in the towel. Hot off the press is yet another study showing no augmentation of the global average temperature. In fact, if anything, it may have slightly contributed a cooling influence. This is obviously more bad news for skeptics of global warming since Hunga Tonga was a factor that some used as evidence against Hansen's accelerated warming hypothesis. [Shoeberl et al. 2024]