WolfStock1

OK fair enough. I see there are factors that result in differences between the hemispheres, though 3 degrees C (about what's shown on that chart) just seems like a bigger range than one would expect as variation. It doesn't seem like the physics would be such that land-vs-water heating rates would be a factor - it should even out should it not? Yes the land heats faster than water, but it also cools faster at night. I could be wrong but I wouldn't think that the cause of heating faster during the day is due to higher level of actual heat absorption, but rather due to the higher level of thermal conductivity of the oceans (they absorb just as much heat - it just spreads out mostly across the depth vs remaining on the surface) Biggest factor though would probably be Antarctica reflecting the energy from the sun back to space. I see another factor is currents; one would think that factor would be minimal, as most currents don't cross the equator; though I know it's complex and there is some crossing.

Yes I know. I was talking about the annual seasonal fluctuations. E.g. if you set up a series of sensors in Iowa and monitored them for 86 years you could show the same type of data, with the same chart showing the seasonal variability as well as a general yearly upward trend. My point is that you wouldn't call that "global air surface temperature", because you're not measuring the whole globe with evenly-spread sensors - you're just measuring Iowa; and that explains why it goes up and down with the seasons - because all of your sensors are in the northern hemisphere. If instead the data was actually the whole global temperature - you shouldn't see the seasonal up-and-down like that, because the temperature rise in the southern hemisphere in the winter should match the temperature rise in the northern hemisphere in the summer - because that's the way the seasons work on earth.

No offense but - seems like you ought to know such things if you're posting so much on the subject. It's hard not to be skeptical of the data you post otherwise. If it's just a general global singular heating trend - shouldn't we just cross 16C once or twice and be done with it, forever more above that level? (Aside from ENSO, which would cause us to cross that level a couple of times during the transition)

Hmm - this implies annual oscillation of the Earth's temperature, does it not? I didn't think that was a thing. I know there are oscillations, but they tend to be correlated with ENSO cycles and such, do they not? IOW - seems to me this is just a subset of global mean temperature - e.g. the northern hemisphere only, is it not?

Wow big last-minute drop at my place near Leesburg. Had leveled off at 35-36 for a couple of hours and even started rising a bit, then starting at 5:30 plunged down to 32 within 90 minutes.

Thanks guys! Both of those are great.

You're missing the point and whole picture here though. The scope of the original point wasn't actually about consensus on science. Allow me to re-quote what I was addressing: "The scientific consensus is that the long list of CO2/warming debits far outweigh a couple of benefits. " That's a misleading statement. Note that it's NOT specifically addressing the *science* of CO2/warming, but rather it's addressing the *whole* of pros vs cons - generally this is going to refer more to the societal pros and cons (economic, social, and political) than it is to the scientific. One could have complete 100% consensus (if one found some way to reasonably measure it) on the science of AGW (if that were possible), but still not have any consensus on the other aspects, vis a vis the policy prescriptions. And of course the debits vs benefits very much includes the non-scientific aspects. Stated in the form of a question: Is it scientific consensus that mankind, as a whole, would have been better off - through all of time, both historic and future - if we never emitted any CO2? I have see no such claim made by anyone, let alone any documentation of "consensus" of such a claim. If such a thing exists - please show the measurements, given that this is a scientific thing.

Sorry but the notion that *any* person or organization could have enough information to make such a judgment - let alone there be "consensus" on it, is laughable. This kind of judgment requires essentially omniscience - a full and complete view of the long lists of benefits and drawbacks, with appropriate weighting, and timescales, applied to each. This is some that people and organizations - even collectively - don't have. Let alone on an individual basis, such as what would be required for "consensus". In case you're wondering why there's so much pushback - this is why. People don't like baseless statements like this.

Given that the greater Kyoto area has a population of 3.6 million people (with I'm sure a similar but upward-sloping curve), and is thus subject to UHI effect - I'd say yeah you could adjust that. Not saying UHI accounts for that - just saying that it can account for some portion of it. I'll reiterate what I have often before - IMO the only fully valid datasets with regards to MMGW are ones from truly remote areas. Sea ice, ocean temps, and fully-rural sensors - thumbs up. City-based or even suburban sensor data - not so much.

That's broad temperatures over a long timeframe and a large area - i.e. climate. This thread is about the recent weather in one city, not general climate.

Don't forget - Artemis II launches this evening! First time mankind has been beyond Earth's orbit since 1974. Where to watch: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/where-to-watch-artemis-ii-launch/ (in addition to NASA channel of course)

Hope you all don't me me starting a thread on this. As a layman weather enthusiast, and a "visual person", one of my go-to things for getting a good feel for the weather coming was a "radar forecast" loop that was created from the NAM, and posted here: http://hp5-dev.wright-weather.com/nam-conus-radar-loop_1hour.gif As of February it stopped being updated though - the last one was Feb 24th. That website doesn't even exist as a site anymore - my guess is the creation and posting of that gif had been automated many years ago and it just wasn't being maintained, and something along the chain of automation was taken offline or broke on that day. Anyone know if such a thing is created and posted anywhere? (I'm sure the pros on here view that as an amateurish thing, but it actually seemed to be fairly accurate from what I could tell; certainly more useful than not having anything, and more useful to me at least than static maps)

Thanks.

A general request for everyone. Whenever you post a chart - can you post a link to the source? (I get into discussions with others and often want to point them to the data; or in some case I want to look at subsets / variations of the data - e.g. this case it's not clear which year is the record year that we're contending with.) Thanks.

So a big *wow* at that super-strike the other night. Talking with a Leesburg FD person in church this morning - they got a bunch of calls from people reporting "a big explosion". And this is 15 miles from where the strike happened. I can't image how loud it must have been in Brunswick. Anyone happen to have any direct reports or pictures of where it struck?

50 states x 12 months = 600 records for "highest temperature for state X during month Y". To be honest - breaking one of those every now and then seems like not so much of a big deal, and would be expected regardless of whether the planet is warming or not. Point being - perhaps showing trendlines of more broad data would be a lot more meaningful and poignant that touting a given broken single-state record for a given month. As it is these posts with their desert graphics, and the obvious troll phrasing, seem very... tabloidish (or perhaps clickbait-ish being the modern equivalent), especially on a forum that thrives on deep data analysis.

That's fine, except the rest of the world is generally in a different situation than the US. And the switch to renewables has been painful in many places. Germany has been the poster child, but their electricity prices have been skyrocketing, and their economy is struggling as a result. But even with that - most of their energy use is still fossil - well over 70%: So again - what is the scale of those charts you posted? It's not there, for a reason. All they show is "up", but they don't show how *much* up, relative to actual fossil usage. China has indeed been going full-bore to renewables, but they're still mostly fossil: They're at about 10% wind and solar. Again - low-hanging fruit; not baseline power. And they generally have zero respect for the environment; doing big projects that just aren't feasible in the US. With regards to EV sales - apples to oranges situation-wise. They're still heavily subsidized in most places. If they're a slam-dunk - then why are they so heavily subsidized? China's EV sales have been doing great - and that's great - but Chinese workers are paid about 1/3 the salary of the US; they can afford to do everything cheaper. Low hanging fruit, as they try to catch up with the developed work economy-wise. If they had our level of prosperity they would not be able to do this. China is also building tons of new coal power plants BTW, along with their renewables growth.

Look - I'm not trying to argue that renewable energy isn't a good thing, and that it's use is not growing. I'm just saying that the over/under on benefits vs costs are generally way overblown and propagandized; that the reality is that it's harder than people such as yourself think it is, in particular when it's applied on a universal scale of all energy.

Except that data is old. And there's no scale. And it's obviously cumulative, not showing actual new deployments over time. In short - it's fluff propaganda, not reflecting reality. E.g. EV sales are now on the decline - e.g. see CA and NY who have detailed trackers on sales, due to their mandate (which will clearly not be met at this point) As I've maintained - much of renewable energy has been "low hanging fruit" so far, in particular in the U.S. Specifically - nearly all of our wind-based electricity and our solar-based electricity in the US is generated in places that have... lots of wind and lots of sun. But - not coincidentally - that tends to be places where there aren't as many people living. The fraction of renewable generation and use that happens in states that don't get as much sun is much smaller. The problem is that the highest population concentrations in the US live in those areas - in particular the NE population corridor.

Making a blanket statement like that shows how how much you've been influenced by the propaganda machine, and generally ill-informed. In general no - renewables are not cheaper in most circumstances, when all factors are considered (inclusion of additional baseline power sources for when the wind and sun don't cooperate, additional transmission infrastructure, higher land use, etc.). They can be cheaper only in specific circumstances when the stars align; they are not cheaper in a broad-use infrastructure sense. If they were cheaper, then power companies wouldn't need the much-higher-level of subsidies to incentivize their use.

Presuming that you're talking about nuclear - the problem is that there has always been *too much* talk about the tail risk; i.e. blowing out of proportion.

Interesting. Got a link for that? I didn't realize wind and solar prices had been going up like that. You hear about prices going down, though generally it doesn't include the transmission aspect; which is generally much higher because wind and solar are prevalent in areas where people that use the energy *aren't* as prevalent. As such I've maintained that we're about done picking the solar and wind "low hanging fruit"; this chart appears to show evidence of that.

The physics I was referring to is simply energy density. Fossil simply has much, much higher energy density than solar, wind, or hydro. (though a lot less than uranium) As an example of that - the county that I live in has two interestingly-comparable new power plants: 1. A natural gas plant that produces 780 MW of power, on 100 acres of land 2. A solar farm (being built) that will produce 100 MW of power (when the sun peaks), on 800 acres of land When accounting for base load levels - the solar farm will produce roughly 1/250th the amount as the natural gas plant, on a per-acre basis. That's what I mean. (Obviously there's more to it than just acreage-used; that's one example facet) With regards to India - I don't see any "fast track" in that chart you posted. It looks like they're behind to me. They are, however, rapidly catching up in regards to how much CO2 they are emitting, at least compared with the US:

It was *never* going to be anywhere close to "cheap" to hedge, at any point. You're fighting not only physics, but politics and human nature. It would require not only taking a huge hit to our prosperity - but convincing all the other countries in the world to take that same hit. Good luck with that. I don't think you understand just *how* much of our prosperity is based on the foundation of fossil fuel use. It's literally been the basis for the industrial revolution. The big inflection point was 150 years ago - not 20 years ago. But if we somehow had managed to avoid that inflection point - we wouldn't have anything close to the prosperity we do today. We perhaps had a smidgen of a chance decades ago, with the advent of nuclear power. But then the clueless anti-nuke lobby, led by the likes of Ralph Nader, ensured that wasn't going to happen*. Even still that would have only gotten us so far; even with all-nuclear electricity we still would have other fossil fuel uses in transportation and industry to deal with. (*Edit: In his defense - he didn't know about MMGW back then. He might have a difference stance today if so. Nevertheless - he and others like him were responsible for the extreme over-reactive risk aversion that killed nuclear.)

SW of Leesburg: Big drop yesterday was storm line. Now down to 32.7 and snowing hard.