Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[donsutherland1]

9 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

The question is why the Northern Pacific specifically and not the Northern Atlantic too?

 

The North Atlantic has a deep overturning circulation (AMOC) that pushes surface heat below resulting in a much deeper mixed layer than the North Pacific. The melting of the Greenland ice sheet has also been dumping lighter freshwater into the North Atlantic weakening the AMOC but creating a persistent area of cool SSTAs, often referred to as a 'warming hole." 

So, even as positive cloud feedbacks and reduction in aerosols have increased incoming solar radiation, these differences mitigate the extent of North Atlantic warming relative to the North Pacific.

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

The North Atlantic has a deep overturning circulation (AMOC) that pushes surface heat below resulting in a much deeper mixed layer than the North Pacific. The melting of the Greenland ice sheet has also been dumping lighter freshwater into the North Atlantic weakening the AMOC but creating a persistent area of cool SSTAs, often referred to as a 'warming hole." 

So, even as positive cloud feedbacks and reduction in aerosols have increased incoming solar radiation, these differences mitigate the extent of North Atlantic warming relative to the North Pacific.

and the Atlantic is also smaller than the Pacific so melting polar ice would have more of an effect on the Atlantic I would guess.

[Typhoon Tip]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

and the Atlantic is also smaller than the Pacific so melting polar ice would have more of an effect on the Atlantic I would guess.

You have to consider the total geology of Earth in the model/differences comparing the two oceanic basins.

The NE Pacific arc is blocked off from the arctic by Alaska and the continental rise - identified by Aleutian archipelago of islands. The arctic waters are prevented from intermingling. Additionally, the NW Pacific blocks the arctic due to NE Siberia. There is a gap between, but it is very shallow - the Bering Straight. In fact, ...over the last ice advance cycle of the greater Pleistocene epoch, it is theorized that the ocean levels, having fallen crucial distance, exposed a 'land bridge' that assisted animal migrations between Asia and North America.  Many ancient native America human populations are believed to have arrived via the land bridge route during these lower oceanic level time spans.. 

Anyway, that sub-surface geology blocks the Pacific from establishing an "AMOC" of its own.  Compared to the N Atlantic Basin, where deep oceanic floor abruptly abuts the Greenland landmass.  Very cold water due to intermingling with the Arctic happens there, where it really can't happen in the far N Pacific Basin.  The cold water is heavy ... it falls to the bottom of the ocean - organized in 'chimneys', these tubes of very cold water plummet to the ocean floor.  The falling motion pulls the surface water into replace, due to conservation of mass; and since their is less obstacle to fluid flow, S, that encourages a surface motion that is preferential from the Equator toward the N.  The ongoing pattern of wind stress and Coriolis then organizes the large scaled anti-cyclonic motion of the Basin.  The Gulf Stream and the Japan currents of either Basin are artifacts of the same wind stressing and Coriolis balancing, but the Atlantic has this AMOC machinery that the Pacific does not.   

Because of all this... the Pacific distribution of upper oceanic heat content is shallower, thus .. can be thermally modulated faster.  Might be a little counter-intuitive when knowing that the Pacific is larger than the Atlantic by a several factors of total mass and surface area, but AMOC has a vastly deeper Z-coordinate in the total integral.  

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[TheClimateChanger]

With this incredible global warming increase, I think we could see average mean temperatures climbing near or above existing annual records by mid-century here in the mid latitudes. As I would expect 1-1.5F/decade of warming most likely, if the global rate is near +.7F/decade.

[LibertyBell]

3 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

You have to consider the total geology of Earth in the model/differences comparing the two oceanic basins.

The NE Pacific arc is blocked off from the arctic by Alaska and the continental rise - identified by Aleutian archipelago of islands. The arctic waters are prevented from intermingling. Additionally, the NW Pacific blocks the arctic due to NE Siberia. There is a gap between, but it is very shallow - the Bering Straight. In fact, ...over the last ice advance cycle of the greater Pleistocene epoch, it is theorized that the ocean levels, having fallen crucial distance, exposed a 'land bridge' that assisted animal migrations between Asia and North America.  Many ancient native America human populations are believed to have arrived via the land bridge route during these lower oceanic level time spans.. 

Anyway, that sub-surface geology blocks the Pacific from establishing an "AMOC" of its own.  Compared to the N Atlantic Basin, where deep oceanic floor abruptly abuts the Greenland landmass.  Very cold water due to intermingling with the Arctic happens there, where it really can't happen in the far N Pacific Basin.  The cold water is heavy ... it falls to the bottom of the ocean - organized in 'chimneys', these tubes of very cold water plummet to the ocean floor.  The falling motion pulls the surface water into replace, due to conservation of mass; and since their is less obstacle to fluid flow, S, that encourages a surface motion that is preferential from the Equator toward the N.  The ongoing pattern of wind stress and Coriolis then organizes the large scaled anti-cyclonic motion of the Basin.  The Gulf Stream and the Japan currents of either Basin are artifacts of the same wind stressing and Coriolis balancing, but the Atlantic has this AMOC machinery that the Pacific does not.   

Because of all this... the Pacific distribution of upper oceanic heat content is shallower, thus .. can be thermally modulated faster.  Might be a little counter-intuitive when knowing that the Pacific is larger than the Atlantic by a several factors of total mass and surface area, but AMOC has a vastly deeper Z-coordinate in the total integral.  

Yes, the people we call *Native Americans* and who used to be called *Indians* actually came from SE Asia, likely Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia).

The interesting thing about the Pacific and this colder denser water, it can hold more oxygen and nutrients and must be vital to fish and other sea life.  So warming of the oceans disrupts the entire marine life cycle and eventually us also.  We're disrupting the entire planetary life cycle which will lead to a global mass extinction.  Humans won't go extinct but there will certainly be more famine, starvation, etc.

 

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[ChescoWx]

Excited to share that for the first time since The https://chescowx.com/ launch way back in 1999 we have engaged professional support to upgrade the site and content. The site is still being modified to bring you all of that great content on the unique climate and changing climate specific to Chester County PA. Drop by and let us know if any suggestions for content or layout.

Thanks!

Paul

[donsutherland1]

September 2025 in Phoenix marked the fourth consecutive year with a monthly mean temperature at or above 90°, a milestone never before observed in Phoenix's historical climate record which goes back to 1895. This persistent late-summer heat is consistent with the broader impacts of climate change, which is driving rising temperatures, more frequent and intense heatwaves, and shifts in seasonal patterns across the Southwest. Although internal variability influences any single month's weather, the sustained nature of recent September heat underscores a long-term warming trend fueled by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. 

September also saw an hourly rainfall record set on September 26th. During a severe thunderstorm with large hail and gusts of 56 mph, Phoenix received an hourly rainfall amount of 1.09". Even as the Southwest is undergoing aridification, an increasingly intense hydrological cycle driven by ongoing warming can produce intense rainfall amounts.

[bdgwx]

On 9/30/2025 at 1:09 PM, TheClimateChanger said:

 

That is a hell of find. I have a large stash of historical articles related to climate change. Anyway somehow Gorrell's contribution above from 1911 was missing from my archive. 

Gorrell references LeConte 1903 work here which was also missing from my archive. Anyway, here are other LeConte quotes.

"But a sufficient cause of secular changes of temperature, affecting the whole earth alike, is found in the variation in amount of the carbon dioxide of the atmosphere."

"On account of its heat-absorbing properties the CO₂ is vastly the most important element affecting climate. It now forms only about 1/3000 part of the atmosphere. With its thermal potency it will be seen that comparatively slight variation in amount would produce great climatic effects. Physicists have long recognized the fact. It is believed that doubling the present small amount of CO₂ would produce mild climate to the poles, and that halving the present amount would bring on another glacial period."

"The several factors in our present climate-atmospheric, astronomic, geographic, and geologic-are so delicately balanced that any slight change might produce great effects. Of these factors, the amount of carbon dioxide (and depending on it the amount of water vapor) is doubtless the most influential."

The point...this isn't some fringe or politically motivated scientific theory. It was mainstream in the early 1900's and even late 1800's and builds upon scientific discovery's that date back to at least to the 1600s.

BTW...my archive of historical articles related to climate change is fairly extensive. If anyone is interested private message me and I'll see what I can do to get you these publications. I've even included the works of Marriott from 1681 who, to the best of my knowledge, was the first to hypothesize the heat trapping effect. I also have de Saussure who demonstrated how the Sun's heat could be trapped in 1796 with his heliothermometer.

 

[Hazey]

So what's the new climate change strategy? Let er rip? Good grief... we deserve every adverse scenario we get going forward.  We sold our souls and mailed in a nice planet for likes, shares, followers, and subscribers. 

[tacoman25]

3 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

September 2025 in Phoenix marked the fourth consecutive year with a monthly mean temperature at or above 90°, a milestone never before observed in Phoenix's historical climate record which goes back to 1895. This persistent late-summer heat is consistent with the broader impacts of climate change, which is driving rising temperatures, more frequent and intense heatwaves, and shifts in seasonal patterns across the Southwest. Although internal variability influences any single month's weather, the sustained nature of recent September heat underscores a long-term warming trend fueled by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. 

September also saw an hourly rainfall record set on September 26th. During a severe thunderstorm with large hail and gusts of 56 mph, Phoenix received an hourly rainfall amount of 1.09". Even as the Southwest is undergoing aridification, an increasingly intense hydrological cycle driven by ongoing warming can produce intense rainfall amounts.

Looks like it was a pretty wet month overall for much of AZ, CA, and NV. Second wettest September for Phoenix since 1984, and I'm sure even more impressive some other places.

[bluewave]

This observation from the Phoenix NWS matches the recent study as to how quickly people normalize extreme weather. It’s one of the reasons that climate change is pretty far down on the list of priorities for many.  Phoenix is still one of the fastest growing metro areas in the country. 

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/how-quickly-we-normalize-extreme-weather

The study, published Feb. 25 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, indicates that people have short memories when it comes to what they consider “normal” weather. On average, people base their idea of normal weather on what has happened in just the past two to eight years. This disconnect with the historical climate record may obscure the public’s perception of climate change.

“There’s a risk that we’ll quickly normalize conditions we don’t want to normalize,” said lead author Frances C. Moore, an assistant professor in the UC Davis Department of Environmental Science and Policy. “We are experiencing conditions that are historically extreme, but they might not feel particularly unusual if we tend to forget what happened more than about five years ago.

[tacoman25]

41 minutes ago, bluewave said:

This observation from the Phoenix NWS matches the recent study as to how quickly people normalize extreme weather. It’s one of the reasons that climate change is pretty far down on the list of priorities for many.  Phoenix is still one of the fastest growing metro areas in the country. 

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/how-quickly-we-normalize-extreme-weather

The study, published Feb. 25 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, indicates that people have short memories when it comes to what they consider “normal” weather. On average, people base their idea of normal weather on what has happened in just the past two to eight years. This disconnect with the historical climate record may obscure the public’s perception of climate change.

“There’s a risk that we’ll quickly normalize conditions we don’t want to normalize,” said lead author Frances C. Moore, an assistant professor in the UC Davis Department of Environmental Science and Policy. “We are experiencing conditions that are historically extreme, but they might not feel particularly unusual if we tend to forget what happened more than about five years ago.

Also can vary quite a bit locally. According to that, CO just had our 11th warmest summer on record, but here on the Front Range, it was only slightly warmer than the 30 year average.

Including September and May, it was one of the coolest warm seasons of the past 15 years, so it really did feel mild...even if it would have qualified as a very warm summer 40 years ago.

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, tacoman25 said:

Looks like it was a pretty wet month overall for much of AZ, CA, and NV. Second wettest September for Phoenix since 1984, and I'm sure even more impressive some other places.

It was the wettest monsoon season in Phoenix since 2021 and biggest one- and two-day rainfalls since October 2018. 

[bluewave]

30 minutes ago, tacoman25 said:

Also can vary quite a bit locally. According to that, CO just had our 11th warmest summer on record, but here on the Front Range, it was only slightly warmer than the 30 year average.

Including September and May, it was one of the coolest warm seasons of the past 15 years, so it really did feel mild...even if it would have qualified as a very warm summer 40 years ago.

The Plains was the coolest part of the CONUS this summer relative to the long term averages.

 

[donsutherland1]

3 hours ago, Hazey said:

So what's the new climate change strategy? Let er rip? Good grief... we deserve every adverse scenario we get going forward.  We sold our souls and mailed in a nice planet for likes, shares, followers, and subscribers. 

Unfortunately, that appears to be the de facto strategy. The issue isn't one of technology (the technology already exists and is improving), costs (renewable energy is less expensive than fossil fuels), resources for investment (society has proved capable of mobilizing enormous sums of money at rapid speed), or lack of time (the problem has been known for decades allowing for a very gradual transition), but one of a decided and purposeful lack of urgency.

A book published last year (Wiegandt 2024) that sketches out, in part, a world that is 3°C warmer than the pre-industrial world (likely scenario by 2100 on the current path), highlights how human societies mobilize when they perceive that there are real, grave, and urgent problems and when they don't. Unfortunately, the issue of climate change falls into the latter example as far as human society is concerned, even noting the dramatic backward developments in the United States.

The book's editor wrote: 

In such a future world, we will have to deal with a radicalization of weather patterns and with temperatures that will be as much as 6 degrees higher on average over land areas. Such a transformation will have grave effects on global agriculture, massively damage global infrastructure, and significantly impair or even destroy large ecosystems...

I would like to recall that governments mobilized trillions of U.S. dollars, overnight, as it were, both in 2008 to deal with the world financial crisis and in 2020 in the wake of the rampant Corona pandemic! We must realize that global warming poses an incomparably greater challenge.

Given the editor's observation and lack of action today, once irreversible outcomes are realized e.g., from rising sea level, the greatest tragedy won't be the loss of valuable real estate that is reclaimed by a rising ocean and the social and economic dislocations it causes, bad as they might be. The greatest tragedy will be that the problem was fully avoidable had today's generation of political leaders possessed the courage and foresight to act. They could have prevented the outcome. Instead, they chose to subject future generations, including today's youth, to the growing consequences of a warmer world. A return to the mid-Pliocene almost certainly won't bring about a tropical Paradise on Earth.

[tacoman25]

7 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Unfortunately, that appears to be the de facto strategy. The issue isn't one of technology (the technology already exists and is improving), costs (renewable energy is less expensive than fossil fuels), resources for investment (society has proved capable of mobilizing enormous sums of money at rapid speed), or lack of time (the problem has been known for decades allowing for a very gradual transition), but one of a decided and purposeful lack of urgency.

A book published last year (Wiegandt 2024) that sketches out, in part, a world that is 3°C warmer than the pre-industrial world (likely scenario by 2100 on the current path), highlights how human societies mobilize when they perceive that there are real, grave, and urgent problems and when they don't. Unfortunately, the issue of climate change falls into the latter example as far as human society is concerned (even noting the dramatic backward developments in the United States).

The book's editor wrote: 

In such a future world, we will have to deal with a radicalization of weather patterns and with temperatures that will be as much as 6 degrees higher on average over land areas. Such a transformation will have grave effects on global agriculture, massively damage global infrastructure, and significantly impair or even destroy large ecosystems...

I would like to recall that governments mobilized trillions of U.S. dollars, overnight, as it were, both in 2008 to deal with the world financial crisis and in 2020 in the wake of the rampant Corona pandemic! We must realize that global warming poses an incomparably greater challenge.

Given the editor's observation and lack of action today, once irreversible outcomes are realized e.g., from rising sea level, the greatest tragedy won't be the loss of valuable real estate that is reclaimed by a rising ocean and the social and economic dislocations it causes, bad as they might be. The greatest tragedy will be that the problem was fully avoidable had today's generation of political leaders possessed the courage and foresight to act. They could have prevented the outcome. Instead, chose to subject future generations, including today's youth, to the growing consequences of a warmer world. A return to the mid-Pliocene almost certainly won't be a tropical Paradise on Earth.

I think if large numbers of people actually start losing their homes by the ocean, or if we start seeing major negative impacts to agriculture, that will spark action.

So far with the warming we've seen that hasn't been the case, and it's one of those things where most people have to see it to believe it.