chubbs

Ironically, in this case resisting change is accelerating change.

Hasn't peaked yet, but rate of increase has slowed. Will peak by 2030 according to IEA. Need to speed things up to hit climate targets. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/10/iea-energy-peak-fossil-fuel-demand-by-2030/

Here's a good free review article on tropical cyclone frequency. Bottom-line: we don't know whether the number of storms will change with climate change. The 78F threshold will tend to increase however because the upper troposphere is also warming. Has to be warmer at the surface to generate the same amount of convection in a warmer world. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2021EF002275

Like batteries, solar is ramping rapidly as costs continue to drop on a well established learning curve. Under this recent forecast, solar will be roughly 10% of global energy use in 2030. This forecast also follows the IEA net zero scenario which has 1000 GW of yearly solar AND wind installation by 2030. Moreover solar could do better, forecasters have been underestimating solar growth since solar forecasting began. Solar exponential growth wouldn't have to continue too much longer beyond 2024 to rapidly turn down fossil fuel use.

Tamino's latest on removing 3 main natural factors from global temperature series: enso, volcanoes and sun. Makes the recent acceleration easier to see and statistically significant. My only quibble is whether he has removed all of the enso variation. I don't think that would change the result though, removing more year-to-year variation should make it easier to detect acceleration. https://tamino.wordpress.com/2024/02/16/adjusted-global-temperature-data/

Yes the free-market system isn't going to ditch fossil fuels on its own, at least not quickly. The incumbent has large competitive advantage. Everything from installed infrastructure, favorable laws and regulations, to brainwashed media and bought politicians. However, we wouldn't have solar, wind, and EV without past government support. I'd argue that government support is likely to increase, now that commercial success has been achieved. Who wants to be left behind? For instance in the US, IRA has spurred record-breaking investment in the past year. I suppose we could pull the rug out from under clean-energy technologies in the US, but China, Europe and others would plow ahead without us. On a global basis, investment in clean energy technologies has become much larger than fossil fuel investment. I expect the gap to continue to widen. There are tipping points in economics also.

Per this study, steep SST gradients near Gulf stream and downstream of East Asia act as winter thermostats under climate change. The SST gradients evolve slowly producing uneven winter warming: relatively cool hiatus decades followed by decades with rapid warming. One more factor to throw into the pot when discussing our winter weather fortunes. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-43686-1

You tilt the odds in your favor by going warm.

A report on batteries came out recently. Would be concerned if I worked in the fossil-fuel industry or any industry based on use of fossil fuels. Climate and energy technology are going to continue to change rapidly, whether we are ready or not. https://www.theclimatebrink.com/cp/141643938 https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2023/12/xchange_batteries_the_battery_domino_effect.pdf

Blog article on study. Including an update at the end that clarifies the implications of the model simulations. Update 10. February: In the reactions to the paper, I see some misunderstand this as an unrealistic model scenario for the future. It is not. This type of experiment is not a future projection at all, but rather done to trace the equilibrium stability curve (that’s the quasi-equlibrium approach mentioned above). In order to trace the equlibrium response, the freshwater input must be ramped up extremely slowly, which is why this experiment uses so much computer time. After the model’s tipping point was found in this way, it was used to identify precursors that could warn us before reaching the tipping point, so-called “early warning signals”. Then, the scientists turned to reanalysis data (observations-based products, shown in Fig. 6 of the paper) to check for an early warning signal. The headline conclusion that the AMOC is „on tipping course“ is based on these data. In other words: it’s observational data from the South Atlantic which suggest the AMOC is on tipping course. Not the model simulation, which is just there to get a better understanding of which early warning signals work, and why. https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/02/new-study-suggests-the-atlantic-overturning-circulation-amoc-is-on-tipping-course/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=new-study-suggests-the-atlantic-overturning-circulation-amoc-is-on-tipping-course

Yes, media is doing a lousy job informing the public on climate science. Science has a good handle on the likely temperature changes vs man-made CO2 emissions. There is no scientific debate than man-made emissions are changing the climate at a rapid rate. The big uncertainty is how will the Earth's systems respond. We are conducting a big science experiment in that regard. Nothing in nature or man-made is designed for the climate we are rapidly headed for. Change is going to continue to accelerate as we pull away from our historical climate. The funny thing is. A world without fossil fuels is looking better and better from an economic standpoint. We are giving ourselves climate angst for no reason, other than we are uncomfortable facing the facts.

Well you views are much different than mine. Fossil fuels are steadily losing competitive advantage. Wind, solar, EV are all much cheaper than they were a decade ago and growing rapidly on a global basis, often without subsidies. I think we will be kicking ourselves in a decade for not ditching fossil-fuels earlier.

I would love to see a conservative solution to climate change. For instance a carbon tax with the monies used to reduce income taxes or the deficit. Has been a no-brainer for decades. By letting the problem fester, conservatives are inviting a big government solution

This is a good comment. The 4-station average is not representative of the county. All 4 stations are at low elevation and the coldest, Coatesville, is the most centrally located. Others are on the warmer south and east side of the county. Below are the station bias adjustments for Coatesville (based on material downloaded from the GISS site a while ago). They are generally smaller than the ones Paul calculated and can be negative. The average is 0.8F. I have also shown the difference between NOAA County temps and the bias adjusted temperatures for Coatesville. The measured values for Coatesville with proper bias adjustment are close to the NOAA County values. On average NOAA is 0.1F warmer than the corrected observations. Remember that Coatesville best represents the county as a whole, albeit at lower elevation than most of the county. Pretty good job by NOAA I would say. This looks like a tempest in a teapot to me.

Here's a good blog article on time of observation bias. I've linked it for you before. https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/

Here is an example of problematic coop data that I have shown you before. Coatesville cooled by roughly 2F relative to other nearby stations after World War II and received a well-deserved bias adjustment. Crickets when I presented this to you previously and you are pleading ignorance today. Its not my job to justify NOAA's work to you. Everything is documented by NOAA and by others. If you want to criticize NOAA's work, educate yourself and provide technical arguments. Otherwise you are just handwaving or whining.

You shouldn't be surprised. I've told you repeatedly about large bias adjustments at Chester County coop stations. To be frank the raw Chesco coop data that you use is useless for climate purposes. All the data, methods, and bias adjustments that NOAA (and others) use are publicly available. I have showed you how to access the info before. Your response - crickets. Now you are suddenly up in arms. LOL

Burlington Vt, is having Philly-style winter temperatures. An extreme example, but this winter continues a decade+ long winter warming surge in the northeast.

Must be 2 Northeast Philly Airports

Good blog article. One thing that interested me is the differences in timing between Arctic and Antarctic. Hints of a see-saw, with the Antarctic having the bigger losses recently.

Roundy is providing a qualitative argument. I would need to see his argument developed further with quantification to give it some credence. I haven't seen any detailed analysis that indicates that enso has had any effect beyond the short-term, 0 to 3 years. There is plenty of evidence that warming has accelerated since the end of the hiatus independent of enso, not surprising since the rate of forcing has accelerated a bit also due to aerosol reductions. That said we need to wait a bit to understand the ramification of the current nino. Need to run enough clock to erase this nino's memory. Don't think we will have to wait long. This nino will probably be a faded memory by next winter, completely erased in two years.

If you look at all the enso regions, this year doesn't look as unusual and enso can explain more of the warming. Charts from blog article I posted above, that looked at temperatures through October. Nice job by an amateur. https://dmn613.wordpress.com/2023/11/20/more-details-on-sep-oct/

Ocean heat data is out for 2023. Overall the data is similar to recent years. The oceans continue to warm at a steady clip. Found this twitter exchange interesting. There is considerable uncertainty in short-term trends making it hard to determine how much acceleration is occurring. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-024-3378-5