Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[donsutherland1]

45 minutes ago, rclab said:

To educate/help the non professional (and I don’t mean not intelligent) descriptive terms like heat dine are preferable to ‘ mid-tropospheric ridges’. When you’re trying to get the public’s attention on heart health would you talk about the potential of getting a ‘widow maker’ or a mycardio infarction. Which one is likely to keep the pedestrian reading? In either case both sides of the equation is equal. 
it’s actually good to have a person of different opinion in a group as a leavening agent. Providing  that all discussions and retorts are civil and not just superficial. For that reason, during a period of time when our sub forum area may face a cold season event I look to read S19’s thought. and forky’s along with, like yourself, other well versed members..if all else fails I just listen to the ballad Turn, Turn, Turn and straighten myself out. Stay well, as always ……

 

Yes, that's a key point. Good communication is essential in a field like meteorology. Even if one might prefer to use a different term, one shouldn't portray one's preference as a requirement, especially when one's own profession recognizes the term one objects to. 

[TheClimateChanger]

On 8/24/2025 at 8:01 AM, bluewave said:

Yeah, this has been the opposite of the Dust Bowl pattern over the last decade. Record summer warmth in the West and East with less warm over the middle section of the CONUS. The Dust Bowl pattern had the record summer heat in the middle and cooler along both coasts. 

 

Funny, you don't see Bastardi trot out his population-weighted metrics in recent summers. Loves to pop them out when there's a trough in the east though.

[TheClimateChanger]

On 8/22/2025 at 6:30 PM, LibertyBell said:

But heat increase is measured by rising temperatures, not dew points.

Q: How about ignoring the human aspect? Which one carried more total heat? A temp of 92F, and dewpoint of 75F, or a temp. of 104F, and dewpoint of 50F?

 

 

To determine which condition carries more total heat, ignoring the human aspect, we need to evaluate the total energy content of the air, which depends on both temperature and moisture content. The enthalpy of the air, which measures the total heat (sensible heat from temperature plus latent heat from moisture), is the appropriate metric. Wet bulb temperature can help approximate this, but we’ll calculate enthalpy directly using the given temperatures and dewpoints.Given Conditions:

1. Condition 1: Dry bulb temperature = 92°F, Dewpoint = 75°F
2. Condition 2: Dry bulb temperature = 104°F, Dewpoint = 50°F

Step 1: Understand the Components

• Dry bulb temperature reflects the sensible heat (energy associated with temperature).
• Dewpoint indicates the moisture content, which relates to latent heat (energy tied to water vapor).
• Higher dewpoint means more moisture, contributing to latent heat, while higher dry bulb temperature increases sensible heat.
• Enthalpy (in Btu/lb of dry air) combines both sensible and latent heat and is commonly used in psychrometrics to compare total heat content.

Step 2: Approximate Enthalpy CalculationEnthalpy of moist air can be calculated using the formula:

h=0.24⋅T+W⋅(1061+0.444⋅T)h = 0.24 \cdot T + W \cdot (1061 + 0.444 \cdot T)h = 0.24 \cdot T + W \cdot (1061 + 0.444 \cdot T)

where:

• ( h ) is enthalpy (Btu/lb of dry air),
• ( T ) is dry bulb temperature (°F),
• ( W ) is the humidity ratio (lb of water vapor per lb of dry air),
• 0.24 is the specific heat of dry air (Btu/lb·°F),
• 1061 is the latent heat of vaporization of water (Btu/lb at 0°F),
• 0.444 is the specific heat of water vapor (Btu/lb·°F).

The humidity ratio ( W ) depends on the dewpoint, which determines the vapor pressure of water in the air. We can estimate ( W ) using the saturation pressure at the dewpoint and the atmospheric pressure (assumed standard at 14.696 psia or 101.325 kPa).Step 2a: Calculate Humidity RatioThe humidity ratio is given by:

W=0.62198⋅PvP−PvW = \frac{0.62198 \cdot P_v}{P - P_v}W = \frac{0.62198 \cdot P_v}{P - P_v}

where:

• PvP_vP_v
  is the vapor pressure at the dewpoint (psia),
• ( P ) is atmospheric pressure (14.696 psia).

The vapor pressure

PvP_vP_v

can be approximated using the Antoine equation or simplified correlations for saturation pressure at the dewpoint temperature. A common approximation for saturation pressure (in psia) over liquid water is:

Pv=exp⁡(20.386−5132Td+459.67)P_v = \exp\left(20.386 - \frac{5132}{T_d + 459.67}\right)P_v = \exp\left(20.386 - \frac{5132}{T_d + 459.67}\right)

where

TdT_dT_d

is the dewpoint in °F, and

Td+459.67T_d + 459.67T_d + 459.67

converts to °R (Rankine).Condition 1: Dewpoint = 75°F

• Td=75°FT_d = 75°FT_d = 75°F
  , so
  Td+459.67=534.67°RT_d + 459.67 = 534.67°RT_d + 459.67 = 534.67°R
  .
• Pv=exp⁡(20.386−5132534.67)≈exp⁡(20.386−9.599)≈exp⁡(10.787)≈0.487 psiaP_v = \exp\left(20.386 - \frac{5132}{534.67}\right) \approx \exp(20.386 - 9.599) \approx \exp(10.787) \approx 0.487 \, \text{psia}P_v = \exp\left(20.386 - \frac{5132}{534.67}\right) \approx \exp(20.386 - 9.599) \approx \exp(10.787) \approx 0.487 \, \text{psia}
  .
• W=0.62198⋅0.48714.696−0.487≈0.302914.209≈0.0213 lb water/lb dry airW = \frac{0.62198 \cdot 0.487}{14.696 - 0.487} \approx \frac{0.3029}{14.209} \approx 0.0213 \, \text{lb water/lb dry air}W = \frac{0.62198 \cdot 0.487}{14.696 - 0.487} \approx \frac{0.3029}{14.209} \approx 0.0213 \, \text{lb water/lb dry air}
  .

Condition 2: Dewpoint = 50°F

• Td=50°FT_d = 50°FT_d = 50°F
  , so
  Td+459.67=509.67°RT_d + 459.67 = 509.67°RT_d + 459.67 = 509.67°R
  .
• Pv=exp⁡(20.386−5132509.67)≈exp⁡(20.386−10.071)≈exp⁡(10.315)≈0.300 psiaP_v = \exp\left(20.386 - \frac{5132}{509.67}\right) \approx \exp(20.386 - 10.071) \approx \exp(10.315) \approx 0.300 \, \text{psia}P_v = \exp\left(20.386 - \frac{5132}{509.67}\right) \approx \exp(20.386 - 10.071) \approx \exp(10.315) \approx 0.300 \, \text{psia}
  .
• W=0.62198⋅0.30014.696−0.300≈0.186614.396≈0.0130 lb water/lb dry airW = \frac{0.62198 \cdot 0.300}{14.696 - 0.300} \approx \frac{0.1866}{14.396} \approx 0.0130 \, \text{lb water/lb dry air}W = \frac{0.62198 \cdot 0.300}{14.696 - 0.300} \approx \frac{0.1866}{14.396} \approx 0.0130 \, \text{lb water/lb dry air}
  .

Step 2b: Calculate Enthalpy Condition 1: 92°F, Dewpoint 75°F

• T=92°FT = 92°FT = 92°F
  ,
  W=0.0213W = 0.0213W = 0.0213
  .
• Sensible heat:
  0.24⋅92=22.08 Btu/lb0.24 \cdot 92 = 22.08 \, \text{Btu/lb}0.24 \cdot 92 = 22.08 \, \text{Btu/lb}
  .
• Latent heat term:
  W⋅(1061+0.444⋅92)=0.0213⋅(1061+40.848)≈0.0213⋅1101.848≈23.47 Btu/lbW \cdot (1061 + 0.444 \cdot 92) = 0.0213 \cdot (1061 + 40.848) \approx 0.0213 \cdot 1101.848 \approx 23.47 \, \text{Btu/lb}W \cdot (1061 + 0.444 \cdot 92) = 0.0213 \cdot (1061 + 40.848) \approx 0.0213 \cdot 1101.848 \approx 23.47 \, \text{Btu/lb}
  .
• Total enthalpy:
  h=22.08+23.47=45.55 Btu/lbh = 22.08 + 23.47 = 45.55 \, \text{Btu/lb}h = 22.08 + 23.47 = 45.55 \, \text{Btu/lb}
  .

Condition 2: 104°F, Dewpoint 50°F

• T=104°FT = 104°FT = 104°F
  ,
  W=0.0130W = 0.0130W = 0.0130
  .
• Sensible heat:
  0.24⋅104=24.96 Btu/lb0.24 \cdot 104 = 24.96 \, \text{Btu/lb}0.24 \cdot 104 = 24.96 \, \text{Btu/lb}
  .
• Latent heat term:
  W⋅(1061+0.444⋅104)=0.0130⋅(1061+46.176)≈0.0130⋅1107.176≈14.39 Btu/lbW \cdot (1061 + 0.444 \cdot 104) = 0.0130 \cdot (1061 + 46.176) \approx 0.0130 \cdot 1107.176 \approx 14.39 \, \text{Btu/lb}W \cdot (1061 + 0.444 \cdot 104) = 0.0130 \cdot (1061 + 46.176) \approx 0.0130 \cdot 1107.176 \approx 14.39 \, \text{Btu/lb}
  .
• Total enthalpy:
  h=24.96+14.39=39.35 Btu/lbh = 24.96 + 14.39 = 39.35 \, \text{Btu/lb}h = 24.96 + 14.39 = 39.35 \, \text{Btu/lb}
  .

Step 3: Compare Total Heat

• Condition 1: 92°F, dewpoint 75°F → Enthalpy ≈ 45.55 Btu/lb.
• Condition 2: 104°F, dewpoint 50°F → Enthalpy ≈ 39.35 Btu/lb.

ConclusionThe air at 92°F with a dewpoint of 75°F carries more total heat (enthalpy = 45.55 Btu/lb) than the air at 104°F with a dewpoint of 50°F (enthalpy = 39.35 Btu/lb). The higher moisture content (higher dewpoint) in Condition 1 contributes significantly to its latent heat, outweighing the higher sensible heat from the higher temperature in Condition 2.Thus, 92°F with a dewpoint of 75°F has more total heat.

[bluewave]

Numerous papers on this new summer warming pattern of cooler in the middle and record warmth in the East and West. 
 

 

[chubbs]

Solar is accelerating rapidly in Africa. This is mainly due to economics, lower cost of solar panels and batteries.

[donsutherland1]

New AMOC update:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/adfa3b

The latest update using the most up-to-date climate models does not present good news. The study used advanced climate models to look beyond the 21st century. Under high-pollution scenarios, the models showed the AMOC weakening throughout the 21st century before eventually shutting down in the 22nd century. Even under more moderate scenarios, the circulation sometimes collapsed, suggesting the risk is greater than scientists previously believed.

The paper's chart depicting the scenarios is below:

[A-L-E-K]

On 8/26/2025 at 6:27 AM, chubbs said:

Solar is accelerating rapidly in Africa. This is mainly due to economics, lower cost of solar panels and batteries.

china ftw

 

[donsutherland1]

If one ever needed additional demonstration that some of the loudest social media influencers who deny climate change lack critical reasoning skills, below is one example:

Look closely at the Time story's date: August 18, 2025. Now look closely at the influencer's counterargument: "Banana production reached an all-time record high in 2023." Yes, he's arguing that because banana production hit a record some two years earlier, there could not possibly be a shortage today. In other words, the situation could not have changed. There is nothing to support the assumption at the heart of his flawed conclusion.

Let's take a look at how flawed this reasoning actually is using a weather example. In spring 1985, New York City was in the midst of a drought emergency. Applying the same logic, the social media influencer would have declared, 'I cannot spot a drought. Can you? Precipitation reached an all-time record high in 1983."

1983 Rainfall: 80.56"

1985: Drought Emergency

As noted previously, social media influencers are bad sources of weather or climate information. In fact, in many cases, they are bad sources of information (no attributive nouns required).

In this particular example, one can see how a lack of critical reasoning capacity impairs the social media influencer's ability to reach a sound judgment regarding bananas. The social media influencer is blind to the reality that dramatic changes can occur over even short periods of time rendering past data irrelevant to a current situation.

Indeed, I suspect that it is often that inability to reason critically coupled with cognitive biases (with or without motivated reasoning) that plays a crucial role in making it impossible for social media influencers and many others who deny climate change to reach sound conclusions based on the evidence. Hence, there is no level of sufficient evidence that can alter their positions. They will reject the evidence that diverges from their preferred position regardless of how overwhelming it is. On the other hand, they will eagerly embrace conspiracy theories e.g., claims of data manipulation, that support their positions. One saw an example of this in furious efforts among climate change denial circles to discredit Phoenix's 118° August monthly record high that was set earlier this month.

Back to the Time article, it does not say that there is an immediate shortage. It is forward looking, which makes 2023 data irrelevant to the future scenario covered in the article. Past or present abundance does not guarantee future resilience, a concept that the social media influencer could not grasp. Critical reasoning empowers individuals to distinguish essential data from distractions, filtering out irrelevant details and concentrating on the information that directly shapes and influences the issue at hand. The article states:

Affordable and nutritious, bananas have long been a supermarket staple for consumers around the globe. But that could soon change, as climate change is contributing to a global shortage of the world’s most consumed fruit...

Two known diseases, Black Sigatoka and Tropical Race 4, are already present in key growing regions around the world, including Colombia and Peru, and experts expect that further spread of disease will have a large impact on supply over time.

[Typhoon Tip]

Anyone alive that denies climate change in the face of more empirical objective data than can be counted in a single lifetime at this point… lacks critical thinking and in fact, their sense of awareness is ping-ponging between complete lack of moral intelligence and complete lack of reasoning intelligence, period

[SnoSki14]

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Anyone alive that denies climate change in the face of more empirical objective data than can be counted in a single lifetime at this point… lacks critical thinking and in fact, their sense of awareness is ping-ponging between complete lack of moral intelligence and complete lack of reasoning intelligence, period

That's a much nicer way of putting it than the terms I'd use. 

[tacoman25]

4 hours ago, SnoSki14 said:

That's a much nicer way of putting it than the terms I'd use. 

What he said actually doesn't make much sense. Moral intelligence vs. reasoning intelligence what?

[donsutherland1]

Wildfires in Turkey, Greece, and Cyprus this summer scorched more than a million hectares, displaced tens of thousands, and claimed at least 20 lives. Researchers with the World Weather Attribution group determined that climate change made the blazes 13 times more likely and up to 22 percent more intense than they would have been in pre-industrial conditions. Prolonged heat, parched soils, and shifting winds created a tinderbox environment, pushing fire behavior well beyond historical norms.

Specifically, the attribution study found:

To determine the role of climate change in this observed trend we combine the observation-based estimates with climate models. For both indices the models on average show a stronger increase in likelihood and intensity than observed. This leads to an overall increase in VPD7x of a factor of about 13 and an increase in intensity of about 18% attributable to human-induced climate change. For DSR the overarching increase in likelihood due to climate change is a factor 10 and an increase in intensity of about 22%. 
 

[A-L-E-K]

11 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Anyone alive that denies climate change in the face of more empirical objective data than can be counted in a single lifetime at this point… lacks critical thinking and in fact, their sense of awareness is ping-ponging between complete lack of moral intelligence and complete lack of reasoning intelligence, period

fortunes are being made

[chubbs]

On 8/28/2025 at 1:03 PM, A-L-E-K said:

china ftw

 

 

[donsutherland1]

Phoenix concluded its fourth hottest summer on record. All four have occurred since 2020 and all but 2021 since 2020 have ranked among the 10 hottest summers. Climate change is producing hotter summers.

[bluewave]

Flagstaff also had their 4th warmest summer following their warmest summer in 2024 with all 6 of the 2020s summers finishing in the top 10.

 

Time Series Summary for Flagstaff Area, AZ (ThreadEx) Top 10 warmest summers dense rank sorting by temperature
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.

1	2024	68.4	0
2	1981	66.6	0
3	2002	66.3	0
4	2025	66.1	1
-	2021	66.1	0
5	2020	65.8	0
-	2007	65.8	0
-	1974	65.8	0
-	1940	65.8	0
6	2018	65.6	0
7	2022	65.4	0
-	2008	65.4	0
-	1980	65.4	0
8	2012	65.3	0
-	1946	65.3	0
9	2023	65.2	0
-	2017	65.2	0
-	1996	65.2	0
-	1977	65.2	0
10	2013	65.1	0
-	1936	65.1	0

[tacoman25]

After last year's 4th hottest summer on record nationally, I'm guessing 2025 ended up somewhere in the 15th to 20th range.

[donsutherland1]

Britain has recorded its hottest summer since records began in 1884, with average temperatures reaching 16.10 °C, the Met Office said today. The figure surpasses the previous 2018 record and runs more than 1.5 °C above the seasonal norm, highlighting the accelerating impact of climate change. Moreover, all of the five hottest summers have occurred since 2000, including three since 2018.

The record heat follows searing European summers marked by deadly wildfires in Spain, Greece, Turkey, and Cyprus. Scientists say the blazes were more than 20 percent more intense due to global warming, leaving at least 20 dead, displacing tens of thousands, and burning over one million hectares.

Globally, June 1-August 31, 2025 will rank as the third warmest on record on the ERA-5 dataset. It will wind up about 0.1°C warmer than fourth ranked 2019. Globally, every year in the 2020s has ranked among the 8 warmest such periods on record: 2020 (7th), 2021 (8th), 2022 (6th), 2023 (2nd), 2024 (1st), and 2025 (3rd). The most recent June-August not to rank among the 10 warmest such periods was 2015 (11th).

[TheClimateChanger]

2 hours ago, tacoman25 said:

After last year's 4th hottest summer on record nationally, I'm guessing 2025 ended up somewhere in the 15th to 20th range.

Should finish around 12th place IMO. The last PRISM update had us at +.22F for the month of August compared to 1991-2020 mean. Even if NCEI comes it at -0.3F below the 1991-2020 mean, we'd still have a summer mean of 73.12 (13th place). To drop to 15th place, August would need to come in around -0.5F below the 1991-2020 mean, which would give a summer mean of 73.06F. I don't think PRISM would be off that significantly, especially with the sign of the departure.

[TheClimateChanger]

Just now, TheClimateChanger said:

Should finish around 12th place IMO. The last PRISM update had us at +.22F for the month of August compared to 1991-2020 mean. Even if NCEI comes it at -0.3F below the 1991-2020 mean, we'd still have a summer mean of 73.12 (13th place). To drop to 15th place, August would need to come in around -0.5F below the 1991-2020 mean, which would give a summer mean of 73.06F. I don't think PRISM would be off that significantly, especially with the sign of the departure.

If August comes in exactly at the 1991-2020 mean, summer would finish up around 73.22F. If August comes in at +0.2F, then the final summer tally would be 73.29F. If August comes in at +0.5F, the final summer value would be 73.39F. All of these are 12th warmest between 2018 (73.48F) and 2002 (73.16F). So I doubt it will finish in the top 11. Likely range 12th-15th, with 12th being most probable IMO.

To put it another way, August can finish anywhere between 0.2F below and 0.7F above the 1991-2020 mean, and we'd still probably wind up in 12th place.

[GaWx]

 Again, I’m not posting this because I’m trying to push it. Rather, I just want others to be aware of what WxBell, which has a large # of subs and thus a lot of visibility, is pushing via JB and to try to generate discussion:

Looks Like Dr Viterito and I are Getting under someones skin

This is an example of the kind of propaganda that was once reserved for other matters, but since a group of people now considers climate to be that kind of matter, they will do the same thing.

 

 The strategy, of course, is to say something that does have truth, but then do not fill in the entire picture. Naturally, the graphic attacks volcanoes and solar, both known for natural variability in the climate.

But consider this. The cumulative buildup of heat in the ocean from increased solar and ( humor me here) some of the ideas on geothermal

 

explain pretty nicely the buildup over the years of ocean heat. The sudden increase that Tonga and the el nino represented certainly added to it. You can't explain the jump from man-made causes, nor the significant drop that has started, so natural causes certainly explain much of the buildup

But here is how the propaganda works. The pusher of the missive does not show the drop in 2025. 

( Another favorite idea is to scream about Greenland falling into the sea when there happens to be a season where there is more than normal melt, but ignoring all the other years that have been occurring that have more than average snow and ice)

Nor does the pusher fail to mention the drop off in MOSZA, and the drop in temperature seems to have some link.

 

Nor can the pusher explain the record warmth in the north Pacific, the cooling in the NW Atlantic that is leading to the greatest difference at 40 north between the Pacific warmth and the NW Atlantic cooling on record.

Gee, I wonder what could be causing the warmth where it is in the Pacific basin.

 

must be a coincidence

Or is there a magic CO2 fairy that bestows warmth where it so desires?

BTW, the drop off in input in the Atlantic, though still warm, means it's quite a bit cooler

Last year at this time

 

current

 

that is a pretty impressive drop off

 

One may say, Joe, all you talk about is the opposite ideas of man-made warming. Well, that's because you have to be deaf or blind not to know their idea. It's all we are bombarded with, so I assume the reader knows the other side, because you can't help but know it. It's all you hear. Look at this "study" as an example of how this works. It's put out with loud fanfare and has none of the competing ideas that call it into question, even though the headline itself takes potshots at the very counters to it. 

And for good reason. Putting in competing ideas would lead to rational doubt. And that is not what propaganda is supposed to do. The only solution is to at least put other ideas out there, and give YOU the freedom to make the choice.

In the end, the equation I put out 20 years ago when I started to get involved in this, still applies:

The Sun, the oceans, stochastic events, and the very design of the system far overwhelm anything man can do to the climate and weather

This has to really get people mad who think they can control the weather and climate and the fate of humanity.

[FPizz]

3 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 Again, I’m not posting this because I’m trying to push it. Rather, I just want others to be aware of what WxBell, which has a large # of subs and thus a lot of visibility, is pushing via JB and to try to generate discussion:

Looks Like Dr Viterito and I are Getting under someones skin

This is an example of the kind of propaganda that was once reserved for other matters, but since a group of people now considers climate to be that kind of matter, they will do the same thing.

 

 The strategy, of course, is to say something that does have truth, but then do not fill in the entire picture. Naturally, the graphic attacks volcanoes and solar, both known for natural variability in the climate.

But consider this. The cumulative buildup of heat in the ocean from increased solar and ( humor me here) some of the ideas on geothermal

 

explain pretty nicely the buildup over the years of ocean heat. The sudden increase that Tonga and the el nino represented certainly added to it. You can't explain the jump from man-made causes, nor the significant drop that has started, so natural causes certainly explain much of the buildup

But here is how the propaganda works. The pusher of the missive does not show the drop in 2025. 

( Another favorite idea is to scream about Greenland falling into the sea when there happens to be a season where there is more than normal melt, but ignoring all the other years that have been occurring that have more than average snow and ice)

Nor does the pusher fail to mention the drop off in MOSZA, and the drop in temperature seems to have some link.

 

Nor can the pusher explain the record warmth in the north Pacific, the cooling in the NW Atlantic that is leading to the greatest difference at 40 north between the Pacific warmth and the NW Atlantic cooling on record.

Gee, I wonder what could be causing the warmth where it is in the Pacific basin.

 

must be a coincidence

Or is there a magic CO2 fairy that bestows warmth where it so desires?

BTW, the drop off in input in the Atlantic, though still warm, means it's quite a bit cooler

Last year at this time

 

current

 

that is a pretty impressive drop off

 

One may say, Joe, all you talk about is the opposite ideas of man-made warming. Well, that's because you have to be deaf or blind not to know their idea. It's all we are bombarded with, so I assume the reader knows the other side, because you can't help but know it. It's all you hear. Look at this "study" as an example of how this works. It's put out with loud fanfare and has none of the competing ideas that call it into question, even though the headline itself takes potshots at the very counters to it. 

And for good reason. Putting in competing ideas would lead to rational doubt. And that is not what propaganda is supposed to do. The only solution is to at least put other ideas out there, and give YOU the freedom to make the choice.

In the end, the equation I put out 20 years ago when I started to get involved in this, still applies:

The Sun, the oceans, stochastic events, and the very design of the system far overwhelm anything man can do to the climate and weather

This has to really get people mad who think they can control the weather and climate and the fate of humanity.

The people who subscribe are getting what they want and want to hear, so they probably don't really care about what others say.  Similar to the people who want to hear that the world is going to end in 10 years and glue themselves to priceless paintings.  

[donsutherland1]

20 hours ago, GaWx said:

 Again, I’m not posting this because I’m trying to push it. Rather, I just want others to be aware of what WxBell, which has a large # of subs and thus a lot of visibility, is pushing via JB and to try to generate discussion:

Looks Like Dr Viterito and I are Getting under someones skin

This is an example of the kind of propaganda that was once reserved for other matters, but since a group of people now considers climate to be that kind of matter, they will do the same thing.

 

 The strategy, of course, is to say something that does have truth, but then do not fill in the entire picture. Naturally, the graphic attacks volcanoes and solar, both known for natural variability in the climate.

But consider this. The cumulative buildup of heat in the ocean from increased solar and ( humor me here) some of the ideas on geothermal

 

explain pretty nicely the buildup over the years of ocean heat. The sudden increase that Tonga and the el nino represented certainly added to it. You can't explain the jump from man-made causes, nor the significant drop that has started, so natural causes certainly explain much of the buildup

But here is how the propaganda works. The pusher of the missive does not show the drop in 2025. 

( Another favorite idea is to scream about Greenland falling into the sea when there happens to be a season where there is more than normal melt, but ignoring all the other years that have been occurring that have more than average snow and ice)

Nor does the pusher fail to mention the drop off in MOSZA, and the drop in temperature seems to have some link.

 

Nor can the pusher explain the record warmth in the north Pacific, the cooling in the NW Atlantic that is leading to the greatest difference at 40 north between the Pacific warmth and the NW Atlantic cooling on record.

Gee, I wonder what could be causing the warmth where it is in the Pacific basin.

 

must be a coincidence

Or is there a magic CO2 fairy that bestows warmth where it so desires?

BTW, the drop off in input in the Atlantic, though still warm, means it's quite a bit cooler

Last year at this time

 

current

 

that is a pretty impressive drop off

 

One may say, Joe, all you talk about is the opposite ideas of man-made warming. Well, that's because you have to be deaf or blind not to know their idea. It's all we are bombarded with, so I assume the reader knows the other side, because you can't help but know it. It's all you hear. Look at this "study" as an example of how this works. It's put out with loud fanfare and has none of the competing ideas that call it into question, even though the headline itself takes potshots at the very counters to it. 

And for good reason. Putting in competing ideas would lead to rational doubt. And that is not what propaganda is supposed to do. The only solution is to at least put other ideas out there, and give YOU the freedom to make the choice.

In the end, the equation I put out 20 years ago when I started to get involved in this, still applies:

The Sun, the oceans, stochastic events, and the very design of the system far overwhelm anything man can do to the climate and weather

This has to really get people mad who think they can control the weather and climate and the fate of humanity.

Several quick things:

1. Neither explains the amount of energy that would be required for volcanic activity to have been driving the heating of the oceans

2. Neither can explain why the warming is top-down not bottom up 

3. When it comes to SSTs, 2025 has been running either 2nd or 3rd warmest. Day-to-day fluctuations are less important than the overall trajectory. Indeed, their SST chart contains a material omission that shows that the steep drop was, in fact, a fluctuation. 

4. No credible or compelling evidence is used to support the following statement: "The Sun, the oceans, stochastic events, and the very design of the system far overwhelm anything man can do to the climate and weather..."

Bottom line: The scientific evidence related to the warming oceans is consistent with what would be expected from enhanced greenhouse gas forcing. Some cooling of the oceans would be expected from ENSO. Oceanic heat content continues to increase. CO2's properties are independent of whether CO2 is released from volcanic activity or human activities. Those properties are the same regardless of how it is released into the atmosphere.

[GaWx]

3 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Several quick things:

1. Neither explains the amount of energy that would be required for volcanic activity to have been driving the heating of the oceans

2. Neither can explain why the warming is top-down not bottom up 

3. When it comes to SSTs, 2025 has been running either 2nd or 3rd warmest. Day-to-day fluctuations are less important than the overall trajectory. Indeed, their SST chart contains a material omission that shows that the steep drop was, in fact, a fluctuation. 

4. No credible or compelling evidence is used to support the following statement: "The Sun, the oceans, stochastic events, and the very design of the system far overwhelm anything man can do to the climate and weather..."

Bottom line: The scientific evidence related to the warming oceans is consistent with what would be expected from enhanced greenhouse gas forcing. Some cooling of the oceans would be expected from ENSO. Oceanic heat content continues to increase. CO2's properties are independent of whether CO2 is released from volcanic activity or human activities. Those properties are the same regardless of how it is released into the atmosphere.

 Thank you, Don!

 One thing worthy of continued discussion I think is why it’s so persistently blazing hot in places like the NW Pacific. Why there and why so strong there? That seems strange to me. Any thoughts about that?

[donsutherland1]

54 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 Thank you, Don!

 One thing worthy of continued discussion I think is why it’s so persistently blazing hot in places like the NW Pacific. Why there and why so strong there? That seems strange to me. Any thoughts about that?

Recent research shows that the Pacific–Japan (PJ) pattern, a Rossby wave–driven circulation mode, triggers anticyclonic systems that expand the subtropical high, reducing latent heat loss and boosting solar heating across regions such as the Kuroshio Extension, thereby fueling extreme sea surface warming in the Northwest Pacific. The ridging driving these marine heatwaves often produces atmospheric heatwaves. Both Japan and South Korea recorded their hottest summer on record this year. Shanghai recorded a record 26 consecutive 95° or above days. Climate models project that under continued greenhouse gas emissions, marine heatwaves in the Northwest Pacific are projected to become more frequent, longer-lasting, and more intense.

A research summary described a sort of self-reinforcing warming process driving the marine heatwaves as follows:

Rising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere... are driving more heat into the ocean's surface layer. This creates a greater temperature differential with deeper water and less turbulent mixing with colder water at depth, which causes the surface mixed layer to become thinner. Heat entering the ocean becomes trapped in this shallower layer, which further accelerates surface warming.

The references to "more heat" at the ocean's surface layer and "colder water at depth" essentially shoot down any volcanic hypothesis. The opposite would need to be true if the volcanic idea had merit.

[donsutherland1]

Ashcroft, BC, shattered Canada’s all-time September temperature record yesterday, with a high of 40.8 °C (105°F). This milestone caps off an extreme heat spell across B.C., following Lytton’s record-breaking run of four consecutive highs of 40°C (104°F) from August 24-27. The extreme heat in Ashcroft underscores the region's intensifying heat trends. 

Western Canada is expected to experience more frequent and intense heat waves in a warming climate. Warmer summers, extended wildfire seasons, and record-breaking highs in early autumn signal a continuing shift in the climate baseline. Extreme heat is becoming less of an anomaly and more of a recurring event.

[Typhoon Tip]

Curious what the previous record was

[donsutherland1]

40 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Curious what the previous record was

The old record was 40.0C, which was most recently tied at Lytton on September 2 (third such occurrence on record in Canada).

[bluewave]

Too bad we don’t currently have the technology to determine the exact timing for the break up of the WAIS. Since it could lead to an unexpected faster sea level rise. More rapid melting at some point in the coming decades could become one of the big stories even for people that don’t pay much attention to the warming climate. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09349-5

Human-caused climate change worsens with every increment of additional warming, although some impacts can develop abruptly. The potential for abrupt changes is far less understood in the Antarctic compared with the Arctic, but evidence is emerging for rapid, interacting and sometimes self-perpetuating changes in the Antarctic environment. A regime shift has reduced Antarctic sea-ice extent far below its natural variability of past centuries, and in some respects is more abrupt, non-linear and potentially irreversible than Arctic sea-ice loss. A marked slowdown in Antarctic Overturning Circulation is expected to intensify this century and may be faster than the anticipated Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation slowdown. The tipping point for unstoppable ice loss from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could be exceeded even under best-case CO₂ emission reduction pathways, potentially initiating global tipping cascades. Regime shifts are occurring in Antarctic and Southern Ocean biological systems through habitat transformation or exceedance of physiological thresholds, and compounding breeding failures are increasing extinction risk. Amplifying feedbacks are common between these abrupt changes in the Antarctic environment, and stabilizing Earth’s climate with minimal overshoot of 1.5 °C will be imperative alongside global adaptation measures to minimise and prepare for the far-reaching impacts of Antarctic and Southern Ocean abrupt changes.

[donsutherland1]

42 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Too bad we don’t currently have the technology to determine the exact timing for the break up of the WAIS. Since it could lead to an unexpected faster sea level rise. More rapid melting at some point in the coming decades could become one of the big stories even for people that don’t pay much attention to the warming climate. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09349-5

Human-caused climate change worsens with every increment of additional warming, although some impacts can develop abruptly. The potential for abrupt changes is far less understood in the Antarctic compared with the Arctic, but evidence is emerging for rapid, interacting and sometimes self-perpetuating changes in the Antarctic environment. A regime shift has reduced Antarctic sea-ice extent far below its natural variability of past centuries, and in some respects is more abrupt, non-linear and potentially irreversible than Arctic sea-ice loss. A marked slowdown in Antarctic Overturning Circulation is expected to intensify this century and may be faster than the anticipated Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation slowdown. The tipping point for unstoppable ice loss from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could be exceeded even under best-case CO₂ emission reduction pathways, potentially initiating global tipping cascades. Regime shifts are occurring in Antarctic and Southern Ocean biological systems through habitat transformation or exceedance of physiological thresholds, and compounding breeding failures are increasing extinction risk. Amplifying feedbacks are common between these abrupt changes in the Antarctic environment, and stabilizing Earth’s climate with minimal overshoot of 1.5 °C will be imperative alongside global adaptation measures to minimise and prepare for the far-reaching impacts of Antarctic and Southern Ocean abrupt changes.

From a scientific standpoint, such insight would be valuable. However, IMO, from a policy standpoint, it would be unlikely to matter much. Society has effectively chosen to stay the course. It has chosen to continue to rapaciously burn fossil fuels unleashing gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere and kicking off a range of feedbacks. Neither the promise of cheaper, cleaner alternatives nor the staggering $7 trillion in annual fossil fuel subsidies has shifted policymakers’ calculus. Instead, emboldened by the applause of a loud minority of bad actors, they have doubled down on their intransigence. In the U.S., there is even a neo-Luddite effort underway to roll back progress on cleaner alternatives, amidst what appears to be a broad and accelerating split with science far beyond climate science.

Although these policymakers seem to believe that their unyielding defense of fossil fuels will grant them immunity from the laws of physics, it won't. The laws of physics are not negotiable. Those laws will prevail regardless of human arrogance or ignorance. For scientists, there may be some comfort in knowing that their warnings were grounded in well-tested and well-proven principles. After all, well-understood laws played out exactly as they were understood. From a knowledge standpoint, that's a very good thing. In short, generations of scientists did their job. They did it well and they did it courageously.

Full responsibility for the consequences will fall squarely on those who knowingly chose to maintain their unsustainable path in the face of clear warnings and insurmountable evidence. They will be the authors of a sea-level rise that could swallow tens of trillions of dollars of coastal land. They will be the ones who made that wholly avoidable outcome possible.

Unlike the rapid sea-level rise around 8,000 BCE when prehistoric humans had no understanding of the forces at work, the ongoing rise during the 21st century and beyond will not be the result of uncontrollable or unknown circumstances. It will be the outcome of deliberate choice with complete knowledge of the consequences of that choice.