Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[bluewave]

I would say that the cold this winter in parts of North America was uneventful compared to what we used to get in the past. Sure some localized areas did see intervals of record cold.

But the areas of record warmth overpowered the colder ones so North America still finished with a significantly warmer winter than the old days at +1.522 C during DJF 2025-2026.  This winter was the 5th warmest on record for North America.The record highs were of a greater ranking and number than the areas of record cold. 

The last colder winter for North America occurred back in 1994. This is why numerous cold and snow records set that winter still stand to this day.

The warmest winter on record was 2023-2024 with 2024-2025 experiencing the 2nd warmest winter. So our warmest winters are becoming warmer with a shrinking winter cold pool. 

Each jump in global temperatures like we saw in 2015-2016 and 2023-2024 raises the bar for record warmth even higher. This is why the warming acceleration over the last decade is so significant. 

https://climatereanalyzer.org/research_tools/monthly_tseries/

 

 

[GaWx]

11 hours ago, chubbs said:

A couple of comments: 1) Yes, Roy is a long time climate dismissive 2) His dataset misses much of the warming in the early 2000s, 3) Best to look at the globe as a whole to judge warming, 4) Global UAH is more sensitive to ENSO than surface temperatures.5) Global UAH was very warm for a  La Nina in March, the first La Nina well above the linear trend.

We've reached the La Nina bottom in UAH. A typical nino spike in UAH from these levels would be hard to dismiss.

 

Charlie,

 I assume you realize that Roy’s been dismissive of alarmism related to AGW rather than the science of AGW, itself. He agrees that the globe has warmed due to AGW but doesn’t accept anything close to the worst case scenarios as being realistic because he feels that the warming from it is/will be less than the amount needed to result in the worst case due partially to negative rather than positive feedback. He feels that the alarmism is being largely fueled for political reasons.

 Due to extreme difficulty in predicting how much more the globe will warm, his being on the lower side is imho not contradicting science. We’re dealing with variables rather than exact answers.

 I personally feel that politics has a nontrivial affect on both sides of this issue as it affects so many things unfortunately. However, I do realize that outright AGW deniers do mainly reside on the conservative side of the aisle. These two statements aren’t conflicting.

[Typhoon Tip]

28 minutes ago, GaWx said:

Charlie,

 I assume you realize that Roy’s been dismissive of alarmism related to AGW rather than the science of AGW, itself. He agrees that the globe has warmed due to AGW but doesn’t accept anything close to the worst case scenarios as being realistic because he feels that the warming from it is/will be less than the amount needed to result in the worst case due partially to negative rather than positive feedback. He feels that the alarmism is being largely fueled for political reasons.

 I personally feel that politics has a nontrivial affect on both sides of this issue as it affects so many things unfortunately.

No confidence ... .

How in the fuck could anyone take that position when the entire planetary system, all metrics, air to sea and back, UNpredictably rose a whole degree C in the spring of 2023, 0 forewarning ?! And it was not predicted by any agency, man or machine 

If what you are saying of his, or any other's attitudes akin to it, is true, they're all full of shit frankly.  Sorry.  I'm not directing this at you  ...I've grown tired of hearing these idiots with a veritable podium making declarations that are so clearly arithmetically wrong, if they are frustrating they are embarrassing. 

NO, until something or some one comes forward as not only having predicted the 2023, "instantaneous Earth detonation degree event" would occur, but precisely and incontrovertibly how and why, logic calls their bluff. They are highly suspect if not unequivocally false.    

 

[GaWx]

 

32 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

No confidence ... .

How in the fuck could anyone take that position when the entire planetary system, all metrics, air to sea and back, UNpredictably rose a whole degree C in the spring of 2023, 0 forewarning ?! And it was not predicted by any agency, man or machine 

If what you are saying of his, or any other's attitudes akin to it, is true, they're all full of shit frankly.  Sorry.  I'm not directing this at you  ...I've grown tired of hearing these idiots with a veritable podium making declarations that are so clearly arithmetically wrong, if they are frustrating they are embarrassing. 

NO, until something or some one comes forward as not only having predicted the 2023, "instantaneous Earth detonation degree event" would occur, but precisely and incontrovertibly how and why, logic calls their bluff. They are highly suspect if not unequivocally false.    

 

Tip,

 I’m trying to figure out why you said this (is there a typo?):

“the entire planetary system, all metrics, air to sea and back, UNpredictably rose a whole degree C in the spring of 2023”

From what I saw, 2023 was a shocking 0.29C warmer than 2022 as per what’s below. But where are you getting that spring rose 1C?

1.54 °C / 2.77 °F	± 0.04 °C	± 0.06 °C
2022	6	1.25 °C / 2.25 °F

 

 Do you mean that all metrics first hit +1C above 1850-1900?

[Typhoon Tip]

Yeah, I kind of typed ahead of my thoughts there

There was a “surge” between the end of February and sometime in May … most of which occurred in March, but in total it was between .3 to .4°C  this is may vary by source. I’ve seen the range.

But yeah, that took us right to the doorway we do not know we do not want to go thru, apparently   The 1.5 critical threshold. At least we’re not respecting it as a species.  And that was not supposed to happen so soon. The surge of that spring close the gap at an alarming rate…outpacing predictions by global modeling and scientists by decades;  at the time, it was believed it was temporary. 

So what’s troubling further, or should be… it has yet to go back really. We are as of right now still just about right there - but it’s obviously varies by tenths of a single degree weekly. There was conjecture in the ambit back in 2923 that it probably would settle back after a while. that has not happened.  I don’t recall exactly who said it and where it came from but I do recall.  

Anyway, the details aren’t really that important… my objection is directed atpeople like that guy making declarative particularly ones that are preposterous like that because they don’t fit the mathematics of what’s actually happening in objective reality.  

[chubbs]

13 hours ago, GaWx said:

Charlie,

 I assume you realize that Roy’s been dismissive of alarmism related to AGW rather than the science of AGW, itself. He agrees that the globe has warmed due to AGW but doesn’t accept anything close to the worst case scenarios as being realistic because he feels that the warming from it is/will be less than the amount needed to result in the worst case due partially to negative rather than positive feedback. He feels that the alarmism is being largely fueled for political reasons.

 Due to extreme difficulty in predicting how much more the globe will warm, his being on the lower side is imho not contradicting science. We’re dealing with variables rather than exact answers.

 I personally feel that politics has a nontrivial affect on both sides of this issue as it affects so many things unfortunately. However, I do realize that outright AGW deniers do mainly reside on the conservative side of the aisle. These two statements aren’t conflicting.

Spencer is a long time critic of the scientific consensus on climate change.  Its not that hard to predict the impact of adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. We have warmed pretty much as expected, much faster than Spencer acknowledged or expected. The scientific consensus does not describe the warming we have experienced as slow or beneficial. 

Agree politics is important as is the action of powerful interest groups. Its the reason why most people don't have an accurate picture of what climate science is saying. Don't think Spencer has been helpful in that regard.

[GaWx]

5 hours ago, chubbs said:

Spencer is a long time critic of the scientific consensus on climate change.  Its not that hard to predict the impact of adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. We have warmed pretty much as expected, much faster than Spencer acknowledged or expected. The scientific consensus does not describe the warming we have experienced as slow or beneficial. 

Agree politics is important as is the action of powerful interest groups. It’s the reason why most people don't have an accurate picture of what climate science is saying. Don't think Spencer has been helpful in that regard.

Thanks, Charlie.

1. Isn’t the range of science based predictions of the amount of GW in the very longterm in a pretty wide range as opposed to a narrow range? My understanding is that he’s near the lower end of that range.

2. In addition to the warming effect of increased CO2, there are other factors that could come into play. Spencer believes that there are negative feedback factors that will ultimately limit the amount of GW compared to most model projections. That’s supposedly why he’s near the lower end of the range.

3. He said it MAY even be beneficial not that it would definitely be beneficial. There’s the potential benefit of larger global crop sizes due to a greener planet resulting from a combo of longer growing seasons where they’re currently grown, an increase in the amount of crops grown in higher latitudes, and the increased CO2 photosynthesis effect. Also, cold has killed a good bit more than heat from what I’ve read. However, I do realize that eventually deaths from heat will rise enough to potentially start killing more than cold though that would likely still be a long ways off if that were to happen.
 
Could these good things outweigh the bad things and make it net beneficial? I’m not saying that but it could be debated. Personally, I’m worried about rising sea levels.

4. A greener Earth could be one of the negative feedbacks that Spencer has cited since greener means cooler highs such as has occurred in the Midwest. In addition, drought frequency in the Midwest has dropped since the 1990s.

[chubbs]

2 hours ago, GaWx said:

Thanks, Charlie.

1. Isn’t the range of science based predictions of the amount of GW in the very longterm in a pretty wide range as opposed to a narrow range? My understanding is that he’s near the lower end of that range.

2. In addition to the warming effect of increased CO2, there are other factors that could come into play. Spencer believes that there are negative feedback factors that will ultimately limit the amount of GW compared to most model projections. That’s supposedly why he’s near the lower end of the range.

3. He said it MAY even be beneficial not that it would definitely be beneficial. There’s the potential benefit of larger global crop sizes due to a greener planet resulting from a combo of longer growing seasons where they’re currently grown, an increase in the amount of crops grown in higher latitudes, and the increased CO2 photosynthesis effect. Also, cold has killed a good bit more than heat from what I’ve read. However, I do realize that eventually deaths from heat will rise enough to potentially start killing more than cold though that would likely still be a long ways off if that were to happen.
 
Could these good things outweigh the bad things and make it net beneficial? I’m not saying that but it could be debated. Personally, I’m worried about rising sea levels.

4. A greener Earth could be one of the negative feedbacks that Spencer has cited since greener means cooler highs such as has occurred in the Midwest. In addition, drought frequency in the Midwest has dropped since the 1990s.

The entire climate sensitivity range is the scientific consensus. By excluding most of the likely range, Spencer severely underestimates climate risk.

There is low and diminishing technical support for low climate sensitivity.  Spencer's views are inconsistent with the temperature rise we have already experienced.  Other arguments against low sensitivity include: large and increasing earth energy imbalance and the growing consensus on positive cloud feedback. 

The scientific consensus is that the long list of CO2/warming debits far outweigh a couple of benefits.