5 hours ago, GaWx said:

 
 Although US heat related deaths are rising and should continue to rise from GW, it’s true that far more people have died from cold than from heat (>10:1) and thus GW should in theory result in a net of fewer cold/heat related deaths there for a good while into the future. And this isn’t even taking into account any increases in food supply attributed to longer growing seasons and increased CO2 fertilization effect. So, CC clearly has some benefits regardless of the often emphasized harms that include rising sea levels, increased extreme flooding incidences, and more powerful tropical cyclone peaks/heavier rainfall from warmer temps holding more moisture and slower moving (on avg) TCs:

Heat- and Cold-Related Mortality Burden in the US From 2000 to 2020

The Yale University Institutional Review Board approved this case series

Findings  This case series of 54 223 429 deceased individuals found that both low and high temperatures were significantly associated with mortality burden, with low temperatures associated with more mean annual deaths (45 992) than high temperatures (3414). However, the burden from high temperatures increased by 53% from the 2000-2009 to 2010-2020 study periods.

 The annual mortality count attributable to low temperatures increased by 7% between the 2000-2009 and 2010-2020 study periods, from 44 278 to 47 551 annual deaths. However, the annual mortality count attributable to high temperatures increased by 53%, from 2670 to 4091 annual deaths.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2841063

One thing of note is that data doesn't take into account demographics.   Specifically:

 - The rate of change is not population-adjusted

 - It does not account for age

As our population ages (boomer bubble) the rate of deaths from both heat and cold, all other things being equal, are going to rise, since older people are more susceptible:

https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/out-cold-most-common-wintertime-injuries-warming-world

It's also very much a measurement problem.   Whether or not someone has died as a cold-driven or heat-driven factor is very subjective.   E.g. that same data shows a far lower number - and decreasing not increasing - for worldwide cold-related deaths:

35 minutes ago, Brewbeer said:

nice touch, but there are numerous and varied factors hat influence food production; specific evidence is required to conclude they are directly related 

 

Related how?   The data presented shows they very much are related, in time.

I didn't intend to address/imply a *causal* relationship - that increased CO2 / global warming actually causes increased food supplies.   While there is probably some driver there (e.g. myriads of data shows that higher levels of CO2 generally results in more plant growth, and warmer temperatures could open up new areas to agriculture that were previously too cold) - the main driver has been simply higher levels of production - more yield per acre.   As you say this is due to a myriad of factors including hybridization etc.    One big factor certainly has been mechanization - the development and more ubiquitous use of more efficient harvesting and processing tools (combines etc.), more efficient transportation (trucks, trains, ships, etc.) - things that rely on fossil fuels.

The main point of the data presented is to disprove the notion that climate change will not be causing "food shortages" - i.e. making food production trend downward relative to population.   There is zero evidence of that, as the data makes clear.

2 hours ago, Brewbeer said:

more people die from cold exposure per year than heat exposure, there isn't much to disagree about with that 

what we aren't going to agree on is that AGW is going to result in a neutral or net reduction in deaths, perhaps from believing that fewer people dying from cold exposure will more than make up for the greater number of people dying from heat related deaths ?

And this isn’t even taking into account any decreases in food supply attributed to changes in the locations of arable land and longer / more severe droughts disrupting water supplies.

 

 

As the planet's been warming food supplies have been going up.   Way up.

https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/food-supplies-have-grown-even-faster-than-the-population-on-every-continent

Try again.

*Please* don't be so brainwashed by the scaremongers.   Look at the data behind the claims.   It simply does not support the claims of some growing apocalypse.

17 hours ago, Brewbeer said:

agree if we are referencing folks in the USA who have financial resources and air conditioning; elsewhere across the world?  too bad, so sad

Part of the means of having the resources to have AC is access to abundant inexpensive energy.   In less-wealthy countries that means one thing - fossil fuels.   

Deaths from heat are often caused by excessive strain from physical activity.   Activity that can be relieved by machines that are powered by fossil fuels.

But that aside - let me reiterate that more people die of cold than from heat each year.  You seem to be willfully ignoring that fact.

Holy moley - this thread is starting to get quite extremist, I have to say.

You folks do realize that a lot more people die of *cold* each year, than die of *heat* - right?   I don't think you really want to go where you're going.  

Let's be pragmatic here.   MMGW, while certainly an issue, is not a practical threat to human life, in any way, shape or form.   People are going to die from extreme heat waves - just as they have since the beginning of time.   As the planet warms *less* people will die (and have been dying) due to weather events, not more.

1 hour ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Ah yes, the famous 1919 heat wave where Orlando had 2 weeks more 90F days than anywhere else. The same year where Pensacola registered 4 days at or above 90F, Miami recorded 6 - yes 6, and Key West a paltry 21. These numbers are unthinkable today. Did you ever stop to think that perhaps century-old local observations, with questionable exposure, rooftop siting, nonstandard instruments, observer changes, missing data, and who knows what else, should not be treated as sacred, apples-to-apples climate records? Or do you just repeat the one raw number that flatters your narrative while ignoring the rest of the statewide data screaming that something may be off?

Orlando is the only one of those cities that's inland, and thus is by its nature hotter than almost every other Florida city.  Florida had almost no inland population then; so best comparison would be to some cities in Georgia.   (there wasn't a single city in FL off the coast - including Orlando - that was over 10k population)

(I used to live in FL, and noticed how the coast of FL rarely got into the 90's compared with inland; they got less 90+ degree days in fact than central NC where I had come from)

On 6/11/2026 at 3:00 PM, LongBeachSurfFreak said:

Exactly what predictions are failing, other then nonsense from Al Gore?


.

Google is your friend.

https://www.agweb.com/opinion/doomsday-addiction-celebrating-50-years-failed-climate-predictions

https://bradleyhook.com/why-extreme-climate-change-predictions-failed-what-we-can-do-now/

https://reason.com/2025/04/16/3-apocalyptic-climate-change-predictions-that-failed-to-come-true/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/

(does include some Al Gore stuff)

etc. etc.   Just search on "climate change failed predictions"

On 5/16/2026 at 2:17 AM, Silver Meteor said:

Some good replies on this one (especially the one about banks):

https://x.com/mazemoore/status/2055376238345076837

Wow.

But... he's a climate scientist with over 55 peer-reviewed publications!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_McPherson

Al Gore on steroids

On 5/11/2026 at 12:45 PM, TheClimateChanger said:

What are you talking about? Nobody is "having a discussion with AI"... I use it for assistance in creating an engaging headline, that's all. As Don pointed out, there is, in fact, evidence that it is better at that than a human. And I can say from my personal analytics, that this is certainly the case.

You said "I don't have time to write my own posts."    That sounds to me like the whole post, not just the headline.

Wait - so we're basically having discussion with AI, with TCC as a proxy?

No thanks.

Can we perhaps start a separate "No AI" thread?

22 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

https://www.weather.gov/buf/LakeTemp

OK thanks - that's the raw data at least.  Don't want to provide a link to a larger more readable version of your analysis?

13 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

NWS Buffalo.

Can you be more specific?    There's a ton of stuff on their site, and I'm not finding that.

https://www.weather.gov/buf/

There's a Rivers and Lakes page, but generally that just seems to have gauge data for water levels and flows - not seeing anything with regards to temperatures, including those charts.

On 5/2/2026 at 4:53 PM, TheClimateChanger said:

 

Any chance you could post a link to the data and/or a full-size pic of that?    Pretty hard to read as is.

On 4/29/2026 at 8:04 PM, TheClimateChanger said:

 

That sounds logical, but it’s not how the real Earth behaves.

A true global average does have a seasonal cycle, and it’s not a sampling problem—it’s physics.

The key issue is that the hemispheres aren’t equal. The Northern Hemisphere has a lot more land, and land heats and cools much faster than oceans. The Southern Hemisphere is mostly ocean, which responds slowly and dampens temperature swings. So when the Northern Hemisphere warms in summer, it pushes the global average up more strongly than the Southern Hemisphere can offset during its winter. The result is a real, global annual oscillation.

If both hemispheres were identical (same land/ocean mix, same heat capacity), then yes—your cancellation idea would work. But they’re not, so it doesn’t.

Also, every independent global dataset—NASA GISS, NOAA, HadCRUT—shows the same seasonal wiggle. That wouldn’t happen if it were just “Iowa with a fancy name.”

So the graph is doing two things at once:

• The up-and-down is the seasonal cycle (dominated by Northern Hemisphere land)
• The overall rise is the long-term warming trend

Seeing both together is exactly what you’d expect from a properly constructed global temperature record.

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.

4 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Well, it’s clear that there’s a long-term warming trend on top of oscillations like El Niño–Southern Oscillation—and it’s especially noticeable over the past decade. ENSO explains short-term variability, not the rising baseline.

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.

39 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

I don't know. Recent heating seems to be overpowering any natural variability/oscillations. Obviously, not every year is warmer than the previous, but the change seems to be more pronounced over the past several years - and I would expect that trend to continue at least through next year with the likely strong El Nino. 

 

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)

On 4/24/2026 at 10:49 PM, TheClimateChanger said:

 

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.

17 hours ago, bdgwx said:

 

I want to touch the concept of consensus for a moment. Consensus in science works a bit different than what you may be thinking. It's not a majority opinion of people. Instead it is the position most likely to be true based on the aggregation of multiple lines of evidence. An example that might resonate best with the audience here is weather forecasting. Model ensembling (like intensity and track forecasts of tropical cyclones with IVCN and TVCN) incorporate multiple lines of evidence. They are often referred to as consensus forecasts. It has nothing to do with people's opinions or even people at all. And as long as there are 2 or more lines of evidence then a consensus exists. It turns out that consensus forecasts have superior skill vs utilizing only one line of evidence. It doesn't matter if a majority of people accept it or not. In reality you do find that majority opinion tends to rally around the scientific consensus at least eventually. It is important to mention the concept of consilience as well since "consensus" and "consilience" are sometimes used interchangeably though they are subtly different. But that's a topic for another time. My point is that when many of use the word "consensus" to describe our understanding of climate change we aren't necessarily invoking the opinions of people, but instead the consilience of evidence.

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.

19 hours ago, chubbs said:

 

The scientific consensus is that the long list of CO2/warming debits far outweigh a couple of benefits. 

 

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.

1 hour ago, TheClimateChanger said:

 

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.

On 3/31/2026 at 7:58 PM, GaWx said:

 From outspoken pro met. Chris Martz fwiw:

 Any comments?

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)