donsutherland1

Yes, Antarctic ice cores show that the temperature rose shortly before CO2 started rising by centuries to 1,000 years. The initial warming was triggered by changes in the Earth's orbit, which allowed for an increase in solar insolation. As oceans warmed, CO2 was released (the outgassing you mentioned). The released CO2 then drove a continuation of the warming. Today, humanity has bypassed Milankovitch Cycles, which once served as the trigger for the initial warming. Humanity began reintroducing CO2 to the atmosphere via the burning of fossil fuels. As atmospheric CO2 has increased, that has driven temperatures higher. In terms of incoming solar radiation, a 3.7 W/m² increase in forcing (just over 1%) may seem small. But it's the imbalance that matters. For example, during the last ice age, there was a -3.9 W/m² imbalance (1.1%). Nevertheless, the latest research now suggests that the Last Glacial Maximum was about -6.1°C cooler than current temperatures. Regarding the recent 4.8°C estimate, I need to see more. I am open to it, because highly respected scientists in the field are now suggesting that climate sensitivity could be higher than consensus estimates when a better understanding of feedbacks is considered. I will watch the evolution of the debate and incoming data on this matter. Finally, I think there's a world of difference between one's having honest questions (your case) and those pontificating on the matter when they provide no credible alternative explanations and/or have done no research whatsoever on climate/climate change.

That post was from six years ago. Science has continued to advance since then. Confidence in the anthropogenic driver for the current warming has increased since then. The general ideas from that post remain largely accurate and have stood up quite well. That's a testament to the scientific work on which they were based. In general, credible science holds up over time, especially when basic physics is involved. The properties of CO2 have been understood since the 19th Century. There is some nuance as it applies to central Antarctica where the surface is typically colder than the stratosphere. One paper suggests that there is a "negative greenhouse effect" that is unique to that region. The paper also makes clear that this is an exception that does not raise serious questions about the role of greenhouse gases in the warming of the Earth's climate. The paper states: It is important to note that these results do not contradict the key statements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ..., namely, the well-known warming effect that CO₂ has on the Earth’s climate. Yet we showed that for the cold Antarctic continent some care needs to be taken when discussing the direct warming effect of CO₂. CO2 has not doubled from the pre-industrial level (it reached 430 ppm earlier this year vs. the pre-industrial figure of around 270 ppm -280 ppm). There are numerous feedbacks. Aerosols have gained some increased attention recently from some work by Hansen et al. The reduction in aerosols has limited the masking of warming and likely contributed, in part, to the recent acceleration in the rate of warming. A reduction in aerosols likely also contributed to the cloud-related changes that have been observed, but paleoclimate work suggests that more than aerosol changes are involved. A growing body of evidence strengthens the argument that clouds have a positive feedback, namely that at higher CO2 levels, cloud-related changes amplify the warming. Back in 2019, there were some who still argued that clouds would be a negative feedback and help reduce the rate of warming. That idea has now largely lost merit. Paleoclimate work by Jessica Tierney among others revealed that cloud-related changes at higher levels of CO2 enhanced warming. Recent data from NASA confirms changes to clouds consistent with promoting increased warming. Indeed, even more recent research on climate sensitivity has suggested that perhaps the CMIP6 models weren't "running hot" as initially thought, but that they might be doing a better job capturing cloud-related changes. A new paper, aside from Hansen's recent work, has suggested that climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 may be around 4.8°C based on the Pliocene Epoch. I'm not yet sold on that, but am open to this idea. I didn't state or suggest that the climate system will spiral out-of-control so to speak from ongoing anthropogenic warming. No runaway greenhouse effect is likely on Earth. That won't happen until the sun starts moving into its red giant phase as it begins to exhaust its hydrogen and begins to boil away the oceans. My point is that clear scientific understanding of climate change now exists concerning what is happening (warming) and why it is happening (antropogenic greenhouse gas emissions). The scientific debate over those two issues is finished. No credible alternative hypothesis exists. Nevertheless, that does not mean that there is anything close to perfect understanding. There remain some uncertainties, but those don't rise to the level of undermining the basic idea of anthropogenic warming. Feedbacks are real. Some amplify the warming as CO2 increases, while others damp the warming. Climate change has increased the frequency, magnitude, and duration of extreme heat events in the United States and worldwide. Evidence suggests that quasi-resonant amplification is contributing to the kind of "stuck patterns" that have led to long-duration severe heat outbreaks in parts of North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa, among other extreme events. Recent research also suggests that Pacific-related changes are creating a negative PDO-type scenario, which is contributing to the Southwest's growing hotter and drier. Finally, internal variability occurs within the context of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing. Thus, there can be cold periods, including cold winters. Synoptic events also occur within the context of increasing anthropogenic forcing, so climate change impacts such events but does not necessarily cause them. Second order effects can see climate change driving changes in synoptic scale events e.g., aridification of regions can feed back into the development of more persistent and larger heat domes.

You're correct. I took a look since 1970 when the current wetter regime (cyclical + climate change-forced) developed. August has grown wetter than any other month since then. Here are the per century trends.

Actually, even as August has been growing much wetter since 1970, it has been growing wetter at a slower pace than many other months over New York City's historical period. Spring and fall are growing wetter at the fast pace. Winter is growing wetter at the slowest pace.

This morning, the temperature fell to 64° in Central Park. That was the fourth consecutive day with a low of 64°. The last time that happened during the first ten days of August was August 5-8, 1997. August 1-9 has had a mean low temperature of 64.8°. That is the coolest average low during that period since 1992 when the mean low was 64.0°. Overall, the August 1-9 mean temperature of 73.4° is the coolest since 1992 when the mean temperature was 73.3°. It will turn warmer tomorrow. The region will likely experience a return of 90° or above heat next week. Temperatures could top out in the middle or perhaps even upper 90s in the hot spots when the heat peaks during the Tuesday through Thursday period. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was +0.4°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was -0.3°C for the week centered around July 30. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged +0.37°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged -0.08°C. Neutral ENSO conditions will likely continue through the summer. The SOI was +0.06 today. The preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) was +0.305 today. Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, there is an implied 53% probability that New York City will have a warmer than normal August (1991-2020 normal). August will likely finish with a mean temperature near 76.4° (0.3° above normal). Supplemental Information: The projected mean would be 1.2° above the 1981-2010 normal monthly value.

This isn't surprising when one makes an "Apples-to-Apples" comparison. Philadelphia's heat island is relatively mature. So one sees a relatively constant UHI effect (I illustrated it below on the graph you created) amidst the year-to-year variability and a similar longer-term trend in temperatures. Most or virtually all of the recent warming is from climate change, as one would expect when a heat island is mature. Reading is likely exhibiting a faster warming trend, as it has seen very rapid population growth (proxy for an expanding heat island that is amplifying its warming trend) since 2000 (population +350% 2000-24) relative to Philadelphia, which has seen a 3.7% increase in population over that same period.

This essentially captures the X-based campaign to discredit Phoenix's August monthly high temperature record from August 7. It was a good test of GPT-5:

Apparently, it seems that there is a concerted effort underway to discredit Phoenix's monthly temperature record from yesterday. Apparently, the individual is unaware that Phoenix's ASOS was commissioned, which means it meets federal siting requirements. Therefore, there's no need to throw out its readings. Second, and more importantly, the heat was real as nearby data from East Mesa, Tempe ASU, Scottsdale, etc., show. That additional data reveals that Phoenix was not an isolated hot spot. The individual's statement is unserious and ill-informed.

May John Burns rest in peace. May his memory always be an inspiration.

This morning, the temperature fell to 64° in Central Park. That was the third consecutive day with a low of 64° or below and the second such streak during the first 10 days of August. The last time that happened was way back in 1921. Tomorrow will again see highs in the upper 70s and lower 80s with lows falling into the upper 60s in New York City. A new round of heat will likely begin to develop on Sunday. The region will likely experience a return of 90° or above heat next week. Temperatures could top out in the middle or perhaps even upper 90s in the hot spots when the heat peaks during the Tuesday through Thursday period. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was +0.4°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was -0.3°C for the week centered around July 30. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged +0.37°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged -0.08°C. Neutral ENSO conditions will likely continue through the summer. The SOI was +15.11 today. The preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) was +0.595 today. Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, there is an implied 53% probability that New York City will have a warmer than normal August (1991-2020 normal). August will likely finish with a mean temperature near 76.4° (0.3° above normal). Supplemental Information: The projected mean would be 1.2° above the 1981-2010 normal monthly value.

Maybe he shouldn't weigh in when he doesn't have the data. There were numerous stretches where Phoenix was at 118°, some of which were five or more minutes long, which precludes his "gust hypothesis." One example from the minute-by-minute readings: Also, NWS Phoenix is one of the few sites with a backup sensor. If the numbers are off, the NWS looks into issue. Finally, from the NWS Phoenix Weather Area: El Centro (118°) missed its monthly mark by 1°; Blythe (120°) missed its monthly mark by 1°; East Mesa (117°) tied its monthly mark, Scottsdale (116°) broke its monthly mark by 1°, and Tacna NE (120°) missed its monthly mark by 1°. Some of these are small communities. Outside of the Phoenix area, Tucson (112°) tied its monthly record.

The cool start was even more impressive in other parts of the area: Bridgeport, Central Park, Newark: Coolest since 2013 JFK: Coolest since 1996 LGA: Coolest since 1985

The temperature has reached 64 at Central Park. That is the second 3-day streak with lows of 64 or below. The last time that occurred in August was 2008. The last time there were two such streaks during August 1-10 was 1921.

Next week's heat is continuing to look more significant, even as the most anomalous heat will likely be focused on western and upstate New York, eastern Ontario (including Toronto), southern Quebec (including Montreal), and northern New England. In that area, daily records could be challenged during the peak of the heat. The latest ECMWF maps are below. Extreme Forecast Index (August 11-18): Monday, August 11: Tuesday, August 12: Wednesday, August 13: Weekly Temperature Anomalies:

I've revised the post and added it.

The remainder of the week will see temperatures average somewhat below normal. Highs will mainly be in the upper 70s and lower 80s with lows falling into the upper 60s in New York City. A new round of heat could begin to develop on Sunday. The region will likely experience a return of 90° or above heat next week. The probability of extreme heat has increased in recent days. Temperatures could top out in the middle or perhaps even upper 90s in the hot spots Tuesday through Thursday. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was +0.4°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was -0.3°C for the week centered around July 30. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged +0.37°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged -0.08°C. Neutral ENSO conditions will likely continue through the summer. The SOI was +16.63 today. The preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) was +0.560 today. Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, there is an implied 56% probability that New York City will have a warmer than normal August (1991-2020 normal). August will likely finish with a mean temperature near 76.7° (0.6° above normal). Supplemental Information: The projected mean would be 1.5° above the 1981-2010 normal monthly value.

The PDO- is, in large part, a function of the marine heatwave in the West Pacific. It is not due to cold sea surface temperatures. I'm not sure the quoted individual knows what constitutes a negative or positive PDO, much less that the PDO- does not support whatever climate-related argument he is trying to make.

August has grown hotter and drier in Phoenix. It is also warmer than July was in the past. That includes extreme heat. August 2020-2025 has had more high temperatures of 115 or above than the entire August 1895-2019 period. This year’s monsoon season is also off to a dismal start in the Phoenix area.

I agree. Without the rain, I am sure Central Park's lows would have been several degrees warmer.

New York City (Central Park) recorded its second consecutive 64° minimum temperature today. That is the second consecutive day its low temperature was below those at Bridgeport, Islip, and White Plains. The last time that occurred was July 23-24, 2007.

China has lots of other issues, so even if it widens its lead on energy, those other issues could still adversely affect China. Authoritarian approaches tend to be rigid and rigidity ultimately undermines innovation. It also has an aging population, which will constrain its labor market growth.

Under mainly cloudy skies, the temperature topped out at 79° today in New York City. The remainder of the week will see temperatures average somewhat below normal. Highs will mainly be in the upper 70s and lower 80s with lows falling into the upper 60s in New York City. A new round of heat could begin to develop on Sunday Parts of the region could see a return of 90° or above heat. The probability of extreme heat has increased in recent days. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was +0.4°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was -0.3°C for the week centered around July 30. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged +0.37°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged -0.08°C. Neutral ENSO conditions will likely continue through the summer. The SOI was +0.79 today. The preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) was +0.312 today.

Acid rain was a simpler issue to address. The ozone issue saw similar arguments made by fossil fuel proponents today, e.g., that there are no alternatives to CFCs for refrigeration. Then, the global leaders had the courage and foresight to agree to phase out the CFCs despite the objections. They understood the bigger picture of what enhanced solar radiation would mean to human society. No such courage or foresight is present among the current generation of global leaders when it comes to a far more gradual phaseout of the burning fossil fuels. Moreover, the problem with fossil fuels is arguably simpler to solve, as many cheaper alternatives currently exist, which had not been the case when the phaseout of CFCs was considered. That global subsidies of $7 trillion annually are provided for fossil fuels badly distorts energy prices. It also doesn't deter ongoing political commitment to the preservation of the status quo, even as many of those same political leaders targeted far smaller investments in research and clean energy to fund their tax and policy preferences. Even as China continues to construct coal plants, it has been the most aggressive nation in terms of scaling up renewables. It also has made rapid recharging stations widely available in its major cities (a logistical problem that seems beyond U.S. capability and/or will). It has also developed a battery that can fully charge in just 5 minutes, which will likely be commercialized in the next few years. It now manufactures EVs for the mass market, something that Tesla has been unable to do. Tragically, the U.S. choice to substantially diminish its scientific enterprise via disinvestment, increasingly stringent requirements on international students, and ideological intrusions into Higher Education will widen the competitive gap in energy, EVs, and potentially create qualitative disadvantages in a wider range of high-tech/science-driven fields (including military applications) over the next decade or so. That could make the U.S. even more reliant on yesterday's energy at a real cost to its consumers and the environment. I suspect that China will leverage its increasingly decisive competitive advantage in EVs and solar power in coming years and will make a major shift toward clean energy during the 2030s and its emissions will fall fairly dramatically during that time.

The UN created the Conference of Parties. However, each nation is allowed to include anyone it finds suitable in its delegation. That's where the problem arises. Nations include major polluters (likely because they seek to perpetuate the status quo), even as the polluters are the cause of the problem, have conflicts of interest, and have history of resisting change.

I agree that it has to be a global effort. That's where leadership deficiency comes in. The ozone and acid rain issues were handled globally. That's also where corrupted processes via frameworks that include major polluters as equal stakeholders come in.