chubbs

6 hours ago, dseagull said:

Fascinating article.  Equally terrifying if it were to verify.  Unfortunately, most of us have read and consumed a myriad of similar "scary" articles that have not verified over the past 3-5 decades.   While this could be the tipping point, this article is only highlighting one of many potential studies that have resulted in any number of potentially devastating outcomes.  

 

This is where sensationalism comes into play.   There also exists a tipping point for where people no longer pay attention to every single prediction or publication.   CNN is still somewhat mainstream, although part of a dying type of "journalism."   Similar to the "boy who cried wolf," many media outlets have overplayed their hands with sensationalism (in an effort to gain clicks or views for advertising profits,) and as a result, reach fewer and fewer members of an audience that is growing skeptical.  

 

Having offered that perspective, I will admit that I am inclined to believe that ocean currents and the rate at which gyres are able to reach and maintain stability, PROBABLY have the most rapid and drastic effects on the climate of our earth.  Our oceans (as sinks,) and mediums of thermal energy, are responsible for the vast majority of weather on earth.  When the red flags go up, we need to invest resources to determine all possible outcomes. 

 

This sudden of a climate disaster is more in line with other types of geological extinction events.  Many scientists have always theorized that this very scenario is responsible for most of the sudden climate swings, not unlike an impact from a large meteor or other space object.  

 

If this sort of cataclysmic even were to verify, there is unlikely any way to prepare for it effectively.  The tipping point, would ultimately become an extinction event for a large swatch of the world's population.  

 

Or... this could be just another sensational study and article, following a host of others.  This doest mean that we should write it off, but rather delve into the scenario, and scrutinize it carefully.   It has very meaningful merit, regardless.  

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.

4 minutes ago, dseagull said:

I'm not sure how a carbon tax will be used in any meaningful way.  I understand your comment, but I see no way in which a "carbon tax" solves any percieved problems that are defined as a "crisis."

 

You must remember that most people are just trying to get by.   The last thing on their mind is climate change.  They don't want to pay 3x more for wind generated electricity.  They don't have money for an electric vehicle.  They can barely afford rent, even with government subsidies.

 

I admire the people who believe that humans can lower global temperature, because that is admirable conviction.  But, how will you achieve this?  The world doesn't work this way.  By all means, try to make the earth a cleaner and healthier place to live, but raising and lowering global temperature through carbon reduction is setting an unrealistic goal at this point in time.

 

The man-made problems that we are facing right now (literally as I type this,) are much more dire.   Those problems are not related to climate change, which does not meet "crisis" criteria for 99 percent of the world's population.

 

Our biggest threats are immediate.  Let's address those problems and then collectively brainstorm our way out of other issues, after we unify and heal from the societal issues that are man-made and intentional, rather than unintentional (carbon production.)

 

You will not see a world in which anthropogenic climate change can be accurately and honestly assessed and addressed until human beings solve those immediate issues.

 

Again.... we have MUCH MUCH bigger problems to focus on in the near-term.  All signs point to some very dark times ahead for us.  

 

 

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.

26 minutes ago, dseagull said:

The bunkers are for the civil unrest that results from authoritarian measures and the same brainwashed fools that went bonkers (and still are bonkers) from the "pandemic."

It's all about control.  NOBODY is denying that the climate changes or that anthropogenic climate change (to some extent,) is real.  We disagree with the suggested measures, the gaslighting, and the propaganda.  (All for profit and power.)

If people would come together and develop sane solutions to problems instead of falling for "crisis after crisis," they wouldn't be so easily controlled and manipulated.  If you think your government cares about you in 2024, you need to wake up.  

Having said all of that, It is America.  You are free to believe what you would like to believe and say what you would like to say.  It is your God given right.   What you are not free to do is dictate how other free citizens in our republic would like to live our lives without interference from our government or a "global governing body."

The next few years are going to be unimaginably difficult for many Americans.  This has nothing to do with climate change. 

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

1 hour ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Countywide averaging is not an adjustment, though. The countywide average can, in fact, be less than all official observing sites if the observing sites are located generally in warmer locations (low elevation, latitude). The county averages shown by NCEI are still often lower than the official temperatures. 

 

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.

7 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Just to correct one point Charlie and others have often made on what Charlie calls a "major source of bias being the older temperature max and mins aren't on a midnight-to-midnight basis" This is a non-material difference. For a quick example I notice many of the old historical obs took place at 9pm. So I went back and recast the month of December at East Nantmeal and took the High and Low as of 9pm for the previous 24 hours. This resulted in a December average temperature of 40.4 degrees....this compares to.... you guessed it 40.4 degrees from the calendar day midnight  to midnight obs for December. Over a month and especially over 365 days of annual records the observation time will not impact the average temperature for any location no matter what time it is taken - as long as it is consistently observed at the same time. Also of note in many historical months the observer took multiple recordings for example 7am-2pm and 9pm. Between these 3 obs they would take the lowest and maximum and record those. In some months they even listed those multiple observations on the written records they forwarded to the weather service or Department of Agriculture as it once was.

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/

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

Charlie not crickets you have simply only showed the cumulative adjusted data...without any data that supports such post hoc adjustments across every single available station in Chester County PA.  Did they use another counties data as the control? Berks? Montgomery? Lancaster? Where is proof that 95% of the county obs required after the fact adjustments?

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.

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

Hey bdgwx how about showing me the analysis specific to Chester County PA that details what station or area they used as the control to make the after the fact adjustments to the NWS cooperative data for 95% of the years from 1895 thru 1970??

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.

19 hours ago, bluewave said:

 

Must be 2 Northeast Philly Airports

9 hours ago, Prismshine Productions said:

Funny enough, the arctic currently has the same extent as it did on Valentines Day 2023, so we a few weeks up this year

Sent from my SM-S146VL using Tapatalk

 

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.

17 hours ago, bluewave said:

 

 

 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

19 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Thanks, so is it your estimate that we'll peak around +2.0C and not get to +2.5C (maybe we'll peak between +2.2C and +2.3C?) I wonder how much of a lag effect there is between emissions peak and global temperate peak?

Let me put it this way. I believe it is possible to peak around 2C without hurting the economy but we will need to pick up the pace of global policy implementation.

Temperatures are proportional to cumulative CO2 emissions. To stop warming, net emissions must go to zero, hence net zero is the goal.  If we cut emissions in half the warming rate will drop by roughly 50%. Because emissions are cumulative it is much better to reduce emissions today than 10 years from now. That's the problem, we've procrastinated so long our options are more limited.

3 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

so is this more of a case of capitalism winning or regulations finally having an effect?

also, does this apply to us only? what about nations like China and India, aren't they increasing the usage of coal?

 

You are asking some complicated questions. I can only give a brief response. It has taken decades of government support to allow solar/wind/EV to compete in the marketplace. However capitalism can claim some credit also. Pushing these technologies into the marketplace, where they were able to learn by doing, before they were competitive was key for their development.

Its complicated to compare countries at different stages of development. Europe and the US are de-industrializing so its easier to reduce emissions. We have exported our emissions to the countries that supply our imports.  China is closer to peaking emissions than India due to heavy investment and government policies supporting solar/EV/batteries etc.. While China has been building coal plants, coal use isn't increasing very fast as newer plants often just replace old in-efficient plants. 

Solar/batteries/EV have become big commercial successes in China. China dominates world production both for internal use and export. Recently these technologies have made up a large fraction of China's export growth. The IRA program adopted by the US last year is our attempt to catch up. Already IRA has spurred big investment in the US, more than doubling US manufacturing investment. Big investments around world, spurred by government policy, is why emissions are likely to peak this decade.

2 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

This is a vicious circle feedback effect, so I do agree with him that 1.5C has for all intents and purposes been breached and 2.0C isn't far behind.

Agree on the 1.5C, we are not acting fast enough. Note that even if Hanson is wrong about climate sensitivity, some acceleration in warming is expected because forcing is increasing at a faster rate as aerosols are reduced. The only way to slow down warming is to reduce CO2+CH4 emissions, fortunately there is some hope of peaking and starting to turn down emissions this decade as fossil fuels continue to lose competitive advantage and the need to do more slowly gains proponents.

On 1/5/2024 at 8:45 AM, bdgwx said:

I am going to go ahead and kick this off with Hansen's latest monthly update. What he is saying is that the 1.5 C threshold will effectively get breached in 2024 and say that way.

https://mailchi.mp/caa/groundhog-day-another-gobsmackingly-bananas-month-whats-up

Figure 4 includes our expectation that continuing record monthly temperatures will carry the 12-month temperature anomaly to +1.6-1.7°C. During subsequent La Ninas, global temperature may fall back below 1.5°C to about 1.4±0.1°C, but the El Nino/La Nina mean will have reached 1.5°C, thus revealing that the 1.5°C global warming ceiling has been passed for all practical purposes because the large planetary energy imbalance assures that global temperature is heading still higher.

I think the yellow-cone is too high but at least he is giving a testable prediction. We should have an indication by the end of this year if he is right. In the Climate Brink's year-end podcast, Zeke Hausfather said that Hanson's yellow-cone predictions were similar to the CMIP6 ensemble mean.

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

The global temperature spike occurred earlier than usual with this El Niño for some reason. The big annual temperature jump usually occurs following the fall and winter like in 2016 and 1998. This one began in 2023 instead of 2024. Perhaps it was related to how long the La Niña lasted. None of our other El Niños near this magnitude had such a strong 3 year La Niña and -PDO before them. 

The 3-year nina was probably also a factor. The 2023 projections were based on the weak nina conditions that existed in the 34 region at the start of the year and 2022 temps (in Hausfather's method - Schmidt uses a 20-year Loess) which were held down by the 3-year nina. The rapid onset of east-based nino flipped the script. Large areas in the EPac went from cool which favors inversions and low clouds to warm which favors mixing and sunshine. There are other factors also. Like you say will take a while to unpack.

2022  10   19.23   -1.78   23.88   -1.11   27.64   -1.12   25.73   -0.99
2022  11   20.52   -1.13   24.16   -0.94   27.71   -0.99   25.80   -0.90
2022  12   22.35   -0.46   24.41   -0.82   27.70   -0.84   25.75   -0.85
2023   1   24.00   -0.56   25.10   -0.56   27.66   -0.66   25.83   -0.72
2023   2   26.58    0.48   26.31   -0.10   27.65   -0.55   26.29   -0.46
2023   3   27.98    1.49   27.50    0.30   28.07   -0.25   27.17   -0.11
2023   4   28.16    2.62   28.05    0.47   28.75    0.13   27.96    0.14
2023   5   26.64    2.22   28.09    0.84   29.22    0.30   28.39    0.46
2023   6   25.63    2.50   27.88    1.26   29.55    0.58   28.57    0.84

2024 in unchartered SST territory out of the gate.

23 hours ago, bluewave said:

2023 came in at 1.48C on ERA5 and 1.43C on JR-55. It will probably take them a while to figure out why this year came in some much warmer than original expectations.

 

 

Neither come out and say it, but one source of error in the predictions at the beginning of 2023 was the rapid shift to strong el nino. Will make following this year more interesting. If the predictions for 2024 are good then we can probably give el nino or natural variability most of the blame since the other factors are still in play (Hunga-Tonga, shipping and other aerosols, high climate sensitivity).

13 hours ago, bdgwx said:

[Miniere et al. 2023] - Robust acceleration of Earth system heating observed over past six decades

Unfortunately study doesn't cover last couple of years, when Ceres energy balance estimates have continued to spike higher. There is brief discussion in the paper comparing Ceres to the ocean heat data. Ceres is running higher than OHC at the end of the study period, (ending in 2020). There are large error bars though and the difference is not statistically significant. They mention that the ocean heat data only covers 60S to 60N and 0-2000m and could be missing some heat content increase. Bottom-line confirming the recent Ceres spike with ocean heat content data is still an open question.

15 hours ago, michsnowfreak said:

I was using the official Detroit data, not a coop station. If anything temperatures are now taken in concrete laden areas when they use to not be. 1970s winters were exponentially harsher than Winters of any other decade of the 20th century here. Likewise, 2000s & 2010s winters were also harsher than winters of the middle third of the 20th century. 

NOAA climate analysis uses all the local station data and corrects for bias including heat island effects. My understanding is that currently official NWS data is collected at Metro Airport. The Metro data lines up well the NOAA analysis. Starting the regression in 1959 (as far back as I can obtain data) instead of 1970 doesn't appear to make much difference. Bottom-line: I don't see any evidence that your winter temperature trend experience is much different from mine.

25 minutes ago, michsnowfreak said:

LMAO. There it is again. "Since 1970". Imagine how boring these maps would be if they didnt start in the brutally cold winters of the 1970s?

Detroit winters warmed 5.0F from 1970-2023...but Detroit winters COOLED 4.0F from 1930-1980. I have seen countless graphs starting in 1970, but NEVER ONCE have I seen 1930-80.

 

From 1880-2020, Detroit winters warmed 1.6F

From 1921-2020, Detroit winters warmed 0.6F.

 

The rolling 100-year avg, 1924-2023, warmed 1.2F and the entire POR, 1874-2023, warmed 2.0F. You can check ANY of that data on X-macis, a site which uses all of the actual weather data in the period of record (not only since 1970). "Since 1970" has been used for years, and it will continue to be the go-to because it will always show the most extreme warming.

 

Relax, !970 is used because that's when net man-made climate forcing took off. Here is the whole NOAA analysis for the SE Michigan climate division. 1970 was warmer compared to the period before 1920 and about the same as the 1896-1950 baseline. You need to be careful using raw COOP data, the older data has a known warm bias.