WolfStock1
-
Posts
231 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Forums
American Weather
Media Demo
Store
Gallery
Posts posted by WolfStock1
-
-
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?
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:
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.
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
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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)
-
4
-
2
-
-
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)
-
45 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:
The SST chart comes from here: https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=world2
Thanks.
-
1
-
-
On 3/25/2026 at 7:14 AM, chubbs said:
Daily oisst has moved into record territory, continuing to track 2023; but 0.1 - 0.2C warmer. It is likely that SST will continue to set daily records until the developing nino fades sometime in 2027.
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?
-
10 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:
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.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, chubbs said:
No the big difference in my EV chart and yours, is the US vs global. The final numbers aren't in yet, but global EV sales grew by roughly 20% last year, held down by slowing sales in the US. The US is a laggard in both EVs and solar with costs higher than the rest of the world due to tariffs and other factors. Expect the global EV ramp to continue in 2026 spurred by the current oil crisis.
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/international-issues/ev-sales-grew-20-globally-in-2025/
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.
-
14 hours ago, chubbs said:
Most of the misleading information I see comes from fossil fuel and utility incumbents. For instance, per top link below, the "expense" of additional baseline power to backstop renewables is a fossil fuel fallacy. Renewables are becoming cheaper. Not everywhere and in every application; but, the long term trend is clear. In the future fossil fuels will be less competitive than they are today. Its not only renewables. A number of key energy technologies are on long-term improvement curves: batteries, EV, heat pumps etc. They work together to make energy generation, storage, transmission and use cheaper and more efficient. Meanwhile fossil fuel use is a mature technology; that uses a diminishing resource; and, that carries geopolitical and climate risk that isn't baked into the price.
https://www.electrotech-revolution.com/p/renewables-allow-us-to-pay-less-not
https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
https://www.electrotech-revolution.com/p/what-is-electrotech-and-what-will
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.
-
On 3/14/2026 at 6:29 AM, chubbs said:
... renewables are cheaper ....
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.
Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change
in Climate Change
Posted
You said "I don't have time to write my own posts." That sounds to me like the whole post, not just the headline.