Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[TheClimateChanger]

15 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

 

Update for late reporting cooperative observation sites. Falcon Dam recorded a high of 106F yesterday!

 

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[TheClimateChanger]

Some more information on that one... 

 

[WolfStock1]

Not an expert in UHI effects, but Lander isn't exactly the middle of nowhere - it is a town of 7k+ people.

What's needed is data like this from actual remote sites, that aren't at cities / towns at all - e.g. sensors at national parks / forests, etc.    Remove all question w/regards to UHI.

 

 

[TheClimateChanger]

1 hour ago, WolfStock1 said:

Not an expert in UHI effects, but Lander isn't exactly the middle of nowhere - it is a town of 7k+ people.

What's needed is data like this from actual remote sites, that aren't at cities / towns at all - e.g. sensors at national parks / forests, etc.    Remove all question w/regards to UHI.

 

 

We've had that for 21, going on 22, years - it's called the United States Climate Reference Network and it shows more, not less, warming than the official numbers over the period of overlap. 

 

[WolfStock1]

59 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

We've had that for 21, going on 22, years - it's called the United States Climate Reference Network and it shows more, not less, warming than the official numbers over the period of overlap. 

 

 

Hmmm - well - looking at their locations https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/crn/  - that's not really what I'm talking about.   It looks like just about all of those sites are actually suburban sites, or at least "close to city" rural sites.     For example the one in central NC is in Duke Forest - but that's practically surrounded by Durham, which is a fast-growing urban area.   The one in southern LA is at Cade Farm which is rural-ish, but is only 3 miles from the edge of Lafayette.   The one in western VA is only 1 mile from I-64 and Charlottesville, Etc.

What I'm talking about would be truly rural sites - ones where there isn't a significant city within about 50-100 miles or so.    I see very few if any sites of those that fit that bill.

 

 

[GaWx]

55 minutes ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

Hmmm - well - looking at their locations https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/crn/  - that's not really what I'm talking about.   It looks like just about all of those sites are actually suburban sites, or at least "close to city" rural sites.     For example the one in central NC is in Duke Forest - but that's practically surrounded by Durham, which is a fast-growing urban area.   The one in southern LA is at Cade Farm which is rural-ish, but is only 3 miles from the edge of Lafayette.   The one in western VA is only 1 mile from I-64 and Charlottesville, Etc.

What I'm talking about would be truly rural sites - ones where there isn't a significant city within about 50-100 miles or so.    I see very few if any sites of those that fit that bill.

 

 

Blairsville, GA

[WolfStock1]

2 hours ago, GaWx said:

Blairsville, GA

Here are the Georgia sites:

 

 

[GaWx]

21 minutes ago, WolfStock1 said:

Here are the Georgia sites:

 

 

 

1) Cumberland is certainly rural: https://www.nps.gov/cuis/planyourvisit/staffordbeach.htm

2)-3) Ichauway appears quite rural, too:

https://www.jonesctr.org/about-us/

4) Colham Ferry appears to be a burb of Watkinsville, a town with only ~3K:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watkinsville,_Georgia#:~:text=Watkinsville is the largest city,County%2C Georgia Metropolitan Statistical Area.

 ————

 What do you think of these 4 as far as not having UHI to worry about?

[WolfStock1]

11 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 

1) Cumberland is certainly rural: https://www.nps.gov/cuis/planyourvisit/staffordbeach.htm

2)-3) Ichauway appears quite rural, too:

https://www.jonesctr.org/about-us/

4) Colham Ferry appears to be a burb of Watkinsville, a town with only ~3K:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watkinsville,_Georgia#:~:text=Watkinsville is the largest city,County%2C Georgia Metropolitan Statistical Area.

 ————

 What do you think of these 4 as far as not having UHI to worry about?

 

Yes unlike many of the others Georgia appears to have done a good job picking truly remote sites.  Ideally you'd like to see all the sites be like that, since it's usually an average of all sites that's shown (e.g. in the X post).

I haven't looked for it, but was just noticing that a lot of the references in this thread to records / high trends are in areas that may be subject to UHI effect.   Would be nice to see some for remote sites instead, since IMO that's much more meaningful.

[GaWx]

15 minutes ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

Yes unlike many of the others Georgia appears to have done a good job picking truly remote sites.  Ideally you'd like to see all the sites be like that, since it's usually an average of all sites that's shown (e.g. in the X post).

I haven't looked for it, but was just noticing that a lot of the references in this thread to records / high trends are in areas that may be subject to UHI effect.   Would be nice to see some for remote sites instead, since IMO that's much more meaningful.

Do you or does anyone else know how much these 4 GA locations warmed? I’d really like to know due to their supposed lack of UHI effect.

@TheClimateChanger

@donsutherland1

@chubbs

[donsutherland1]

34 minutes ago, GaWx said:

Do you or does anyone else know how much these 4 GA locations warmed? I’d really like to know due to their supposed lack of UHI effect.

@TheClimateChanger

@donsutherland1

@chubbs

Brunswick 23S (2005-2025), Newton 11 SW (2003-2025), Newton 8W (2003-2025) are warming about 0.9°/decade. That matches Georgia's statewide warming during 2003-2025/2005-2025. Watkinsville 5 SSE (2005-2025) is warming 0.6°/decade, which is somewhat slower than the statewide average. 

[chubbs]

17 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

Not an expert in UHI effects, but Lander isn't exactly the middle of nowhere - it is a town of 7k+ people.

What's needed is data like this from actual remote sites, that aren't at cities / towns at all - e.g. sensors at national parks / forests, etc.    Remove all question w/regards to UHI.

 

 

In my experience UHI is a red herring. Often raised; but, never documented with hard evidence. UHI is a local effect while climate change is global. There are thousands of stations in the US. Easy to determine if most of the warming is from UHI or not.There is UHI of course, but it doesn't have much impact at most stations. The urbanization occurred a long time ago or doesn't occur near the station.  Lander appears to be one of those cases.

The Lander airport weather station is well outside of the town's footprint. In a dry area like Lander irrigation or grass watering could have an effect. The photo shows greening from watering outside the built-up area. There could easily be a negative or small UHI impact there. Lander's population rose rapidly before 1970 but hasn't changed much since 1970; with ups and downs, and a small decline since 2010. Lander Airport temperatures have risen slightly since 1940, with most of the rise after population stabilized in 1970. There doesn't appear to be much correlation between temperature at the airport and local population, with flat or declining temperatures during the most rapid population rise in the 1950s and 60s.  Note that the coolest year 2017 is impacted by missing data. Other regional stations weren't cool that year.  Removing 2017 would increase recent warming somewhat.

Bottom-line there isn't much evidence for a UHI warming impact in recent decades. Its possible that grass watering is counteracting other population effects; but, there isn't enough information to make a strong case.

 

 

[GaWx]

2 hours ago, chubbs said:

In my experience UHI is a red herring. Often raised; but, never documented with hard evidence. UHI is a local effect while climate change is global. There are thousands of stations in the US. Easy to determine if most of the warming is from UHI or not.There is UHI of course, but it doesn't have much impact at most stations. The urbanization occurred a long time ago or doesn't occur near the station.  Lander appears to be one of those cases.

The Lander airport weather station is well outside of the town's footprint. In a dry area like Lander irrigation or grass watering could have an effect. The photo shows greening from watering outside the built-up area. There could easily be a negative or small UHI impact there. Lander's population rose rapidly before 1970 but hasn't changed much since 1970; with ups and downs, and a small decline since 2010. Lander Airport temperatures have risen slightly since 1940, with most of the rise after population stabilized in 1970. There doesn't appear to be much correlation between temperature at the airport and local population, with flat or declining temperatures during the most rapid population rise in the 1950s and 60s.  Note that the coolest year 2017 is impacted by missing data. Other regional stations weren't cool that year.  Removing 2017 would increase recent warming somewhat.

Bottom-line there isn't much evidence for a UHI warming impact in recent decades. Its possible that grass watering is counteracting other population effects; but, there isn't enough information to make a strong case.

 

 

 Yeah, Charlie, it looks like also no UHI at those 4 GA locations that were just noted. OTOH, Phoenix (as a great example) has had a significant UHI as we’ve discussed to pile on top of CC’s effects there. So, it’s not always a red herring and it shouldn’t be ignored where it has had a lot of impact. Otherwise, it looks to others like it is purposely being hidden to exaggerate the effects of GW even if that’s not the case. I’m a disclose everything kind of person so that it doesn’t look like there’s something being hidden. That’s why I suggested Blairsville, GA, as a great choice for no UHI to cloud up the analysis. It’s also why I’m glad to see those 4 GA locations being rural.

[TheClimateChanger]

14 hours ago, chubbs said:

In my experience UHI is a red herring. Often raised; but, never documented with hard evidence. UHI is a local effect while climate change is global. There are thousands of stations in the US. Easy to determine if most of the warming is from UHI or not.There is UHI of course, but it doesn't have much impact at most stations. The urbanization occurred a long time ago or doesn't occur near the station.  Lander appears to be one of those cases.

The Lander airport weather station is well outside of the town's footprint. In a dry area like Lander irrigation or grass watering could have an effect. The photo shows greening from watering outside the built-up area. There could easily be a negative or small UHI impact there. Lander's population rose rapidly before 1970 but hasn't changed much since 1970; with ups and downs, and a small decline since 2010. Lander Airport temperatures have risen slightly since 1940, with most of the rise after population stabilized in 1970. There doesn't appear to be much correlation between temperature at the airport and local population, with flat or declining temperatures during the most rapid population rise in the 1950s and 60s.  Note that the coolest year 2017 is impacted by missing data. Other regional stations weren't cool that year.  Removing 2017 would increase recent warming somewhat.

Bottom-line there isn't much evidence for a UHI warming impact in recent decades. Its possible that grass watering is counteracting other population effects; but, there isn't enough information to make a strong case.

 

 

Yeah, I've always thought it was a red herring. The Lake Erie at Buffalo average annual temperature is rising at pretty much the exact same rate as the air temperature at Buffalo. So unless UHI is pouring into Lake Erie, it would seem the temperature represents a real trend. Lake is slightly warmer because it doesn't drop below 32F in the winter due to ice.

[chubbs]

20 hours ago, GaWx said:

 Yeah, Charlie, it looks like also no UHI at those 4 GA locations that were just noted. OTOH, Phoenix (as a great example) has had a significant UHI as we’ve discussed to pile on top of CC’s effects there. So, it’s not always a red herring and it shouldn’t be ignored where it has had a lot of impact. Otherwise, it looks to others like it is purposely being hidden to exaggerate the effects of GW even if that’s not the case. I’m a disclose everything kind of person so that it doesn’t look like there’s something being hidden. That’s why I suggested Blairsville, GA, as a great choice for no UHI to cloud up the analysis. It’s also why I’m glad to see those 4 GA locations being rural.

Let me clarify. I have no problem if someone makes a sound case using data. But often UHI is thrown out without looking at any data. That's when it is usually a red herring.

[WolfStock1]

I believe UHI effect, while a thing, is overblown as well.   My point though is - deniers like to point to UHI as tainting the data and general claims of trends, so in order to remove all doubt it would be good to have a data set (more than a single station, but rather hundreds of stations) that are truly remote.   It appears the USCRN is a mix of some remote and some not-so-remote sites.    Doing a filter of the USCRN data and weeding out the not-so-remote sites and presenting an average would seem like the thing to do.

The Lake Erie thing actually brings something else to mind.  Has anyone done studies on how much water warming (mainly rivers and lakes) is due to general industrialization vs greenhouse effect?    It seems like it could be quite significant actually.    I mention this because I was looking into water usage recently (context was discussion on data centers) and found that actually one of the biggest water consumers in the US is power plants - used for cooling.   There's more water used for cooling power plants than there is for irrigation, believe it or not.  Much of this is evaporative but much ends up back in rivers and lakes, raising their temperature.   Much is used for other industrial things as well, which certainly raises the temperature some.   

 

[Typhoon Tip]

Here's a fresh itch for deniers to scratch

https://phys.org/news/2026-03-reveal-significant-global.html

"Over the past 10 years, the estimated warming rate has been around 0.35°C per decade, depending on the dataset, compared with just under 0.2°C per decade on average from 1970 to 2015. This recent rate is higher than in any previous decade since the beginning of instrumental records in 1880."

Almost doubling the previous 4.5 decades of d(warm)/dt rate during the last 10, leaping from .2 to .35/d

Probably 2023 has big arithmetic weight in that, considering it was unilateral whole degree C among all systems on Earth, air, sea and coupling air/sea.  It does make me wonder if ... suppose over this next 8 years there is no sudden wholesale planetary leap by another whole deg C, doing so all at terrifying once, where the "density" of the species ignores the eye popping significance again:  Would the next delta settle back below .35C?   I suspect there is a rather larger chance in the total probability spectrum for that being the case, because looking back at climate change of the past/geological inference, the climate does not move up or down in smooth graphical trajectories.  There'll probably be simmering increases that "leap" every once in a while.  If you catch one of those years in your decadal data set, you're deltas will boast ( or perhaps "roast" heh ) a bigger change. 

The climate graphs are "serrated" with intra-time span periods that dips shits use to lout the planet's cooling off, or twist that to prove the warm data was faked... or whatever they need, while hailing from a position of really no much formal education and/or proven higher reasoning ability in the matter whatsoever ... so we should really allow them to guide destiny of humanity. Yeah!

 

[GaWx]

27 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Here's a fresh itch for deniers to scratch

https://phys.org/news/2026-03-reveal-significant-global.html

"Over the past 10 years, the estimated warming rate has been around 0.35°C per decade, depending on the dataset, compared with just under 0.2°C per decade on average from 1970 to 2015. This recent rate is higher than in any previous decade since the beginning of instrumental records in 1880."

Almost doubling the previous 4.5 decades of d(warm)/dt rate during the last 10, leaping from .2 to .35/d

Probably 2023 has big arithmetic weight in that, considering it was unilateral whole degree C among all systems on Earth, air, sea and coupling air/sea.  It does make me wonder if ... suppose over this next 8 years there is no sudden wholesale planetary leap by another whole deg C, doing so all at terrifying once, where the "density" of the species ignores the eye popping significance again:  Would the next delta settle back below .35C?   I suspect there is a rather larger chance in the total probability spectrum for that being the case, because looking back at climate change of the past/geological inference, the climate does not move up or down in smooth graphical trajectories.  There'll probably be simmering increases that "leap" every once in a while.  If you catch one of those years in your decadal data set, you're deltas will boast ( or perhaps "roast" heh ) a bigger change. 

The climate graphs are "serrated" with intra-time span periods that dips shits use to lout the planet's cooling off, or twist that to prove the warm data was faked... or whatever they need, while hailing from a position of really no much formal education and/or proven higher reasoning ability in the matter whatsoever ... so we should really allow them to guide destiny of humanity. Yeah!

 

 TT said: "Over the past 10 years, the estimated warming ratehas been around 0.35°C per decade, depending on the dataset, compared with just under 0.2°C per decade on average from 1970 to 2015.”

 TT, 

  A problem I see is that you’re using just one decade for the 0.35/decade calculation vs using 4.5 decades to determine the ~0.2/decade.

[Typhoon Tip]

7 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 TT said: "Over the past 10 years, the estimated warming ratehas been around 0.35°C per decade, depending on the dataset, compared with just under 0.2°C per decade on average from 1970 to 2015.”

 TT, 

  A problem I see is that you’re using just one decade for the 0.35/decade calculation vs using 4.5 decades to determine the ~0.2/decade.

Firstly,

"I" not comparing anything.  That's a cite from the article.  That's what the quotation marks mean.

Secondly, it is what it is... The numbers show that the rate of increase rose from .2, to .35.

  you have a problem with fact of the numbers? 

 

[GaWx]

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Firstly,

"I" not comparing anything.  That's a cite from the article.  That's what the quotation marks mean.

Secondly, it is what it is... The numbers show that the rate of increase rose from .2, to .35.

  you have a problem with fact of the numbers? 

 

 

TT,

 My apologies for wording that as if those were your own words. That was my bad.

  I have no reason to refute the 0.35C rise of the last decade. 2023 had that sharp rise and that hasn’t come off with a new record likely on the way this year. But that’s just one decade and thus on its own it’s statistical credibility is much lower than that of the 0.2C of the prior 45 years. I assume you agree.

 I’d think that a “correction” of sorts could very well occur later this decade after the upcoming El Niño and would be surprised if the next decade were to warm close to another 0.35C. Reversion to the recent mean decadal increase unless for some unknown reason the true underlying mean increase has suddenly risen.

 

[WolfStock1]

IMO trying to use/apply a single decade's worth of data is a fool's errand.   There's too much background noise there in the ENSO and solar cycles.   IMO anything meaningful with regards to changes in the rate of increase would need to be over at least a 20-year period, or even 30.

That said "meaningful" here I equate with "strong evidence".   10-year data isn't totally meaningless - it's worth at least eyebrow-furrowing when it indicates something unusual.  I just wouldn't use it to make a statement to the effect of "this shows that the rate of warming is increasing".

 

[chubbs]

4 hours ago, GaWx said:

 

TT,

 My apologies for wording that as if those were your own words. That was my bad.

  I have no reason to refute the 0.35C rise of the last decade. 2023 had that sharp rise and that hasn’t come off with a new record likely on the way this year. But that’s just one decade and thus on its own it’s statistical credibility is much lower than that of the 0.2C of the prior 45 years. I assume you agree.

 I’d think that a “correction” of sorts could very well occur later this decade after the upcoming El Niño and would be surprised if the next decade were to warm close to another 0.35C. Reversion to the recent mean decadal increase unless for some unknown reason the true underlying mean increase has suddenly risen.

 

 

3 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

IMO trying to use/apply a single decade's worth of data is a fool's errand.   There's too much background noise there in the ENSO and solar cycles.   IMO anything meaningful with regards to changes in the rate of increase would need to be over at least a 20-year period, or even 30.

That said "meaningful" here I equate with "strong evidence".   10-year data isn't totally meaningless - it's worth at least eyebrow-furrowing when it indicates something unusual.  I just wouldn't use it to make a statement to the effect of "this shows that the rate of warming is increasing".

 

Yes, If you just regressed the past 10 years there would be a problem due to the short time period and natural variability; but, that's not what was done. Here's the underlying  journal article and a blog which describes the procedure in layman terms. To summarize they are using:  1) data since 1880, 2) accounting for the predominant sources of natural variation (enso, volcanoes and solar), 3) Applying statistical models that allow the warming rate to change if justified by the data.  Per chart below the acceleration is apparent after enso has been accounted for. 

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2025/06/08/picking-up-speed/

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025GL118804

 

[Typhoon Tip]

3 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

IMO trying to use/apply a single decade's worth of data is a fool's errand.   There's too much background noise there in the ENSO and solar cycles.   IMO anything meaningful with regards to changes in the rate of increase would need to be over at least a 20-year period, or even 30.

That said "meaningful" here I equate with "strong evidence".   10-year data isn't totally meaningless - it's worth at least eyebrow-furrowing when it indicates something unusual.  I just wouldn't use it to make a statement to the effect of "this shows that the rate of warming is increasing".

 

I think the point of the article is to convey the data, not to assess causality - just for clarity. 

They are pretty explicit in saying so.  This last decade's d(warm) was .15 deg C > than the previous fairly stable .2 C increase spanning 45 years. 

I then went on to offer that the climate curve in pure temperature is a 'serrated' course...  2023/2024 may merely have been a particularly sloped year.   The previous delta could certainly return. But ... new accelerations may also take place.  Acceleration  was proven unpredictable leading 2023.  What if this happens over the next year... ?  Keep in mind, the acceleration actually took off prior to that warm ENSO event. 

I don't disagree that 10 years in a vacuum isn't very useful to describe the complexities of an entire planetary system- that's quite intuitive.  However, technically the study was 55 years:  10 years vs the previous 45.   It doesn't refute the fact of the numbers.   As to it's significance, that remains to be seen.