5 hours ago, Bhs1975 said:

Is there a chart like that for the SE?


.

I haven't seen one

4 hours ago, raindancewx said:

I'm absolutely convinced that those of you in the Northeast are only capable of posting in this thread when unusual things happen in the wide wide world of not-New Jersey. At the end of the day 3 inches of rain in an hour is way more impressive than the west beating old highs by a small amount for five minutes a day whether you want to admit it or not.

Yes the rains this week were impressive, humidity/moisture could be a better local indicator of summer climate change than temperature

Analysis of SST of gulf waters that IDA passed over. Below are the odds of being above the given SST by decade.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2021/09/02/hurricane-ida-climate-change-makes-a-monster-storm/#more-11625

3 minutes ago, jrips27 said:

 

The station trace

12 hours ago, bluewave said:

Great thread on Twitter today explaining why those charts comparing past heatwaves to today are misleading.

 

Thanks, good example of the "sociology" of climate change. If your world view is that it isn't warming or that warming is insignificant, then misinformation is readily accepted.

50 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Charlie that is a fake news site from 2018 "kids lives matter" ....let's come up with some real data

LOL - Tamino is a mathematician with one of the best climate blogs, almost entirely data analysis. Sad when sound data analysis is fake news. As described in the article Heller's US temperature charts are bogus.

1 hour ago, FPizz said:

The chart is real though.  But it doesn't really mean too much.

Don't be a sucker - Below is the average latitude of the stations used to make the "real" plot above.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/usa-temperature-can-i-sucker-you/

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Okay, is there a point being made here - LOL

From Tony Heller, climate denier. Well known for misleading charts.

Free access:

https://t.co/6eVQqDg8NS?amp=1

2 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-rss-noaa-uw-which-satellite-dataset-should-we-believe/

Telling that Spencer avoided the 1998 to 2004 period of interest when comparing to other series. Below are trends from Dec94 to Jan2009, (broadening both ends to improve stats)

Slope deg/decade

UAH:  -.014

RSS:   .175

HAD5: .167

GISS  .184

NOAA  .146

BEST .154

UAH is a clear outlier, for the period of interest, but much closer to the other series before and after. 

5 hours ago, so_whats_happening said:

The only thing I can think of is Kyoto Protocal was enacted in 1997 but I dont believe it made strict cuts on anything just incentivized new cleaner technology paths instead of old paths.  You would think we took another step down with the 15/16 el nino if the super nino struck up something. So at a loss with why there was a 8 year long reduction in cloud cover.

Yes, correlation between the two datasets plotted is weak. In addition to problems with UAH, need to look at clouds more carefully - types, low vs high, location, etc. Also don't trust the site that prepared the chart - specializes in flawed datasets to promote climate denial.

12 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Disagree. RSS detains the warmer NOAA14, UAH matches the radiosondes much better.   The RSS upward trend was done to match the flawed surface records. UAH is the best dataset. Why does RSS maintain data from a spuriously warm NOAA14 satellite?  I will agree to disagree. UAH is the gold standard IMO. 

NOAA-14 was dropped because it warms "too much" in UAH's judgement, a qualitative call. Surface records are much less uncertain than satellites because multiple stations can be inter-compared within a region to correct equipment changes or malfunctions, heat island, etc.

17 hours ago, raindancewx said:

Clouds are difficult to study. Shape, size, location, color all change very quickly. Even something like a count of the clouds is hard. How many clouds are in the GIF below would you say?

 

There are 2 decades of cloud satellite obs. This study is in-line with others estimating cloud feedback using satellite data. Scientists have been gradually paring down the uncertainty in climate sensitivity with better obs and models, as they do that there is no indication that warming has been overstated. Instead the tightening is mainly from raising the lower-bound.

Another chart tweeted by author - climate models are doing a good job with clouds.  The chance of climate science "missing something" is vanishly small.

Saw this on twitter, the increase in severity of heat waves hasn't been evenly distributed. Much of the US has been spared the worst.

16 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

This won't sound altogether cogently scientific, admittedly .. but, I get the weird 'feeling' this is ...sort of an introduction ceremony into a new climate realm where this occurrence takes place in certain regions with more ease than those staggering odds implicate in rareness. 

I have some analytic reasons for that, but I am trying to limit my verbosity in social media; in an increasingly patience reducing/aversion to spending that much time with it, it's wasting time.

In short, there are regions of the planet that favor "synergistic" results. Those by convention ( being more than the sum of the contributing forces ...) will exceed the mean standard deviation models - by these exotic ranges, more readily so than regions that do not have feed-backs.  Those location will be able to get those +8 and +10 oddities over that base-line numerical/statistical layout.  The Pac NW is one of those regions.  I think the Pac NW and also San Francisco and L.A. can do this again sooner than we think. The shit with fires and heat last summer ?  that was no fluke and is related - whether the scalar values of the extremes match or not.  And I would tend to assert that the aggregate speaks to the real state of the 'rareness' - I.e. not as much so as we may think.

 

Recent summer warming has favored the W US.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/july-2020-climate-outlook-has-no-good-news-us-southwest

4 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

That would be amazing but wont there be some lag before we can get CO2 levels to come down?

 

The main sink for CO2 is the oceans and the oceans take up heat and CO2 at roughly the same rate. If emissions stopped, CO2 concentrations would decrease fast enough to stabilize temperature.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6131/438.abstract

6 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Any changes we make towards renewable energy will be too late to change anything for the next century or so.  We're going to have to go full tilt towards climate modification, and part of that means redistributing rainfall from the east to the west.  Whatever the cost is, it must be done.  We do plenty of engineering in the other sciences, weather should not be off limits.

 

 

This is too pessimistic. Warming will stop when emissions stop. It is feasible to go all renewable plus other non-CO2 emitting in a couple of decades.

6 hours ago, raindancewx said:

A lot of the climate stuff is treated as factual, in the way that a sperm and egg make a baby is factual, when it is in large part as good as the assumptions built into the models. It's much more akin to economics and social sciences that use math to help arrive at the truth, with the caveat that you can never really get replication or clean control groups to test the ideas because we can't ever have the same Earth with less greenhouse gasses, to compare to the current Earth, the way you could have near identical populations of humans split it half to test something like a COVID vaccine. Without those more rigorous methods to test ideas impacting the Earth's climate, you have the potential for massive systemic biases, and much of the research can't be proven/dis-proven or falsified. My point is that 20 years is a pretty short time for Mann to be giving up on one of his major ideas. No one is ever right about everything, but you have to expect he's probably wrong about many other things.

You don't have a good understanding of climate science or any science for that matter. Science is evidence-based using observations and models are together. Climate models are not like economic models. They are built on well physical laws: conservation of energy, + momentum, radiation physics, etc. When observations agree with models based on known physical laws then confidence increases. That is where we are today. We have decades of observations that match model predictions and theory closely, including observations of past climate which cover a very wide range of climactic conditions, much warmer and colder than today. There is a literally a mountain of evidence supporting the climate science consensus and zero evidence supporting a natural cause for the current warming.

This thread is poorly titled. There is no science discussed here and no evidence presented that the science is "unsettled". Instead it is mainly about the political talking points that skeptics respond to. In the past few pages experts can't be trusted because of one perceived foible or another. Instead you trust Rupert Murdoch and others in the climate denial space, who have publishing climate misinformation and discrediting experts for decades.

16 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

isn't the sea level rise along the east coast of the US and the gulf coast supposed to be accelerating more than most?

It would be a nice to see a global map of where sea level rise has been higher than other areas and where it will accelerate the most in the future.

Sea level trends from satellite. This doesn't include local land rise/fall or compaction of sediments, which is increasing the rise in Louisiana and some areas of east coast (NJ).

https://sealevel.colorado.edu/trend-map

17 hours ago, etudiant said:

The late John Daly had a website titled: 'Still waiting for Greenhouse', which prominently featured a high tide marker placed in 1841 on an island off Tasmania by British Admiral Napier.

That benchmark is still quite visible and well clear of the water at low tide, as shown in the associated photos.  http://www.john-daly.com/

It does cast some doubt on the claimed sea level rise acceleration.

Not really. Local ground-level changes can be larger than sea-level rise. Also sea level rise is not uniform. Areas close to Greenland and Antarctica have less rise due to gravitational effects from shrinking ice sheets. Individual tide gauge records don't provide useful information on SLR, need to look at a large group of gauges with the proper weighting of different regions. The satellite record plotted above covers the globe and is robust.

11 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Is the level of sea level rise currently 1 inch per decade, Don?  And expected to accelerate?

 

Its been accelerating since the start of the industrial revolution. Almost no sea level rise from Roman times to 1800. 1" in the 1800s, 6" in the 1900s. 1.5" per decade now.

https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2016/08/what-roman-ruins-reveal

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

scary views here.....sad for our country - debate is not encouraged anymore.....

Huh? Did I say anything about not encouraging debate. I strongly support honest debate. You can deny science all you want, but don't whine and cry when you are called a science denier.  If the WSJ's position was supported by science, they would site science in defense, instead they play the victim card.

23 hours ago, TimB84 said:

You lost me with this ridiculous, nonsense insinuation by the WSJ that we use the term “climate deniers” in a deliberate attempt to equate people who don’t believe in climate change to Holocaust deniers.

On second thought, one could successfully make the argument that both are equally wrong, detrimental to society, and sociopathic, so if the shoe fits.

Climate deniers playing the victim card are the only people I've seen raise the holocaust in a climate discussion.  WSJ the most recent example.

12 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

settled....of course not

If you don't think the main tenets are settled, then you are not exposing yourself to scientific information.  A book that is labeled misleading by scientists, isn't strong evidence for anything. Below are a couple of statements from scientific organizations:

American Meteorological Society:

Scientific evidence indicates that the leading cause of climate change in the most recent half century is the anthropogenic increase in the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO₂), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide.

https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-change1/

American Geophysical Union:

Extensive observations document that the global average surface temperature in the atmosphere and ocean has increased by about 1°C (1.8°F) from 1880 to 2018. The current decade is now the hottest in the history of modern civilization. Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. There is no altenrative explanation supported by convincing evidence.

https://www.agu.org/Share-and-Advocate/Share/Policymakers/Position-Statements/Position_Climate

Wall Street Journal article repeats multiple incorrect and misleading claims made in Steven Koonin’s new book ’Unsettled’

Analysis of "‘Unsettled’ Review: The ‘Consensus’ On Climate"
Published in The Wall Street Journal, by Mark P. Mills on 25 April 2021

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/wall-street-journal-article-repeats-multiple-incorrect-and-misleading-claims-made-in-steven-koonins-new-book-unsettled-steven-koonin/