Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[donsutherland1]

Here are the temperature anomalies for the Nepal/Tibet area. If Copernicus confirms this data for August, that will raise questions about JB's maps. Perhaps, just as with the CFSv2, they have a cold bias?

August 1-25, 2026:

Summer (June 1-August 25):

[GaWx]

38 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Here are the temperature anomalies for the Nepal/Tibet area. If Copernicus confirms this data for August, that will raise questions about JB's maps. Perhaps, just as with the CFSv2, they have a cold bias?

August 1-25, 2026:

Summer (June 1-August 25):

Thanks, Don. Wow, this isn’t even close to the cold JB showed though it was unlabeled. Is he by chance using normals from the Eocene epoch?

[Chinook]

I have never seen this type of real-time analysis map be +1.0 degrees C

[GaWx]

2 hours ago, Chinook said:

I have never seen this type of real-time analysis map be +1.0 degrees C

Even when it is using the cooler 1981-2010 instead of the warmer 1991-2020 for climo?

[chubbs]

9 hours ago, Chinook said:

I have never seen this type of real-time analysis map be +1.0 degrees C

I've been tracking since 2023. Over 1C daily is very warm but it has happened before mainly in the 23/24 nino. 1.04C in Nov 2023 is the highest monthly value. August was 0.942 the 5'th highest monthly value , the higher values were the last 4 months of 2023. Note that changes to the gfs model may change the metric.  

[Chinook]

7 hours ago, chubbs said:

I've been tracking since 2023. Over 1C daily is very warm but it has happened before mainly in the 23/24 nino. 1.04C in Nov 2023 is the highest monthly value. August was 0.942 the 5'th highest monthly value , the higher values were the last 4 months of 2023. Note that changes to the gfs model may change the metric.  

Honestly I will say that I have not checked that specific map very often. It's not of particular interest, day to day, for me.

It seemed like some individual days in the 2016 El Nino were very high like +0.8C or something. For example, Feb 2016 is listed as +0.817C on that web site. The recently monthly anomaly values, like July and August 2026, are high (on that web site), +0.764C and +0.942C. So that's pretty insane.

[A-L-E-K]

Didn't even try, what's a few billion dead as long as the worst people on the planet keep getting richer

The level of cognitive dissonance on display from the snow lovers here still trying to wishcast a future as the planet burns is lol

 

[donsutherland1]

Following the warmest August and warmest month on record in the ERA-5 dataset, September 1 started with a global mean temperature of 16.739C. That destroyed the monthly record of 16.607C from September 1, 2024. The preliminary 0.132C difference between the new mark and the old record is the largest difference between any first and second highest monthly values.

[GaWx]

 Yes, the cocky Chris Martz was wrong with his initial thought that this disaster was earthquake induced. But I think most of this from him yesterday is at least worthy of discussion/debate. Opinions?

Climate alarmists refuse to let go of their narrative about Nepal despite the load of evidence against their claims.

 The avalanche (and by extension, flood) in Nepal last week was triggered by the collapse of bedrock beneath the Yala Glacier, not the glacier partially collapsing itself.

 Global warming doesn’t cause bedrock to buckle. It was likely geological in origin caused by seismic activity in recent years and months causing fractures in the rock. The Himalaya are highly active due to plate tectonics moving India into the Asian continent. And the “melting permafrost” argument doesn’t hold much water either because temperatures have generally been below freezing, even during summer, where the glacier sits ~17,000 feet (5,200 meters) up. You aren’t going to see a lot of days get above 0°C (32°F). Not every environmental disaster that happens needs to be blamed on humans. Nature itself is more than capable of causing these types of events. It’s time to get rid of the mentality that mankind is the cause of every bad thing that happens.

@donsutherland1

[Typhoon Tip]

Slowly turnin' the fire up under the toads

[Typhoon Tip]

32 minutes ago, GaWx said:

  I think most of this from Chris Martz yesterday is at least worthy of discussion/debate. Opinions?

 

 The avalanche (and by extension, flood) in Nepal last week was triggered by the collapse of bedrock beneath the Yala Glacier, not the glacier partially collapsing itself.

 Global warming doesn’t cause bedrock to buckle. It was likely geological in origin caused by seismic activity in recent years and months causing fractures in the rock. The Himalaya are highly active due to plate tectonics moving India into the Asian continent. And the “melting permafrost” argument doesn’t hold much water either because temperatures have generally been below freezing, even during summer, where the glacier sits ~17,000 feet (5,200 meters) up. You aren’t going to see a lot of days get above 0°C (32°F). Not every environmental disaster that happens needs to be blamed on humans. Nature itself is more than capable of causing these types of events. It’s time to get rid of the mentality that mankind is the cause of every bad thing that happens.

@donsutherland1

"Global warming doesn’t cause bedrock to buckle...."

whaaaat,  um, no. 

I mean I realize you're asking Don but I could help my self.    

Just in brief and off the top of the head, there are three easy aspects in how CC may both directly and indirectly factor. 

1,  glacial rebound.  

2,  liquid water fluxing

3,  bedrock?

With rebound, that happens because if land spends multiple multiple Millennia in a stable/colder climate regime, the ice accumulation weighs down. This gravitational anomaly supplies a constant pressure downward into the undergirding and surrounding bedrock. Over time ...succumbs by sinking.  Remove the ice, the land may rebound... upward.   And it doesn't do so according to any necessary ease. It tends to do so in jolts felt as tremors.  

With increasing melt ( liquid flux) the basal water may enter ground; in CC, the warming summer means this quantity is rising. Over decades, repetitious freezing and thawing literally cracks the Earth due to phase change expansion(contraction). How much so notwithstanding. But this is a weakening implication in the integrity of the supporting geology beneath the overriding ice - failure ( land slide) results. 

These two also work together.   In fact, #2 actually happens first, then... #1 tremor triggers the landslide. 

Whether these factors were in play in the higher terrain/alpine region of Nepal, I am not claiming so.. But Mr Martz makes a blanket all preclusive statement that is epistemically false. 

Beyond these two, the third relates to, what officiating/reviewed source said or analyzed and proved that "bedrock" indeed failed?   It is possible that the undergirding was actually a strata of compressed glacial deposits mixed with icy compressed rubble. An avalanche was inevitable - probably so, anyway, but if this was the type of supporting foundation beneath the overcasting of ice weight ( which itself was calving the leading segments), then the whole structure probably would not need to wait for the geological time for #1 and #2 to work together. 

[GaWx]

53 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

"Global warming doesn’t cause bedrock to buckle...."

whaaaat,  um, no. 

I mean I realize you're asking Don but I could help my self.    

Just in brief and off the top of the head, there are three easy aspects in how CC may both directly and indirectly factor. 

1,  glacial rebound.  

2,  liquid water fluxing

3,  bedrock?

With rebound, that happens because if land spends multiple multiple Millennia in a stable/colder climate regime, the ice accumulation weighs down. This gravitational anomaly supplies a constant pressure downward into the undergirding and surrounding bedrock. Over time ...succumbs by sinking.  Remove the ice, the land may rebound... upward.   And it doesn't do so according to any necessary ease. It tends to do so in jolts felt as tremors.  

With increasing melt ( liquid flux) the basal water may enter ground; in CC, the warming summer means this quantity is rising. Over decades, repetitious freezing and thawing literally cracks the Earth due to phase change expansion(contraction). How much so notwithstanding. But this is a weakening implication in the integrity of the supporting geology beneath the overriding ice - failure ( land slide) results. 

These two also work together.   In fact, #2 actually happens first, then... #1 tremor triggers the landslide. 

Whether these factors were in play in the higher terrain/alpine region of Nepal, I am not claiming so.. But Mr Martz makes a blanket all preclusive statement that is epistemically false. 

Beyond these two, the third relates to, what officiating/reviewed source said or analyzed and proved that "bedrock" indeed failed?   It is possible that the undergirding was actually a strata of compressed glacial deposits mixed with icy compressed rubble. An avalanche was inevitable - probably so, anyway, but if this was the type of supporting foundation beneath the overcasting of ice weight ( which itself was calving the leading segments), then the whole structure probably would not need to wait for the geological time for #1 and #2 to work together. 

 
 Thanks for your reply, John. I’m asking anyone but tagged Don only because he’s been about the most involved with me in the discussion about the Nepal disaster and thus wanted to make sure he sees this.

 Martz appears to be correct in saying that there aren’t going to be many days that go >0C based on my just now seeing what’s down below that I’m quoting from the link below. If ~+1C really is the warmest at 5,364 m or 17.6K feet, is there going to be significant melting way up that high?

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-highest-and-lowest-temperatures-ever-recorded-at-Mt-Everest-base-camp

“Highest and lowest recorded temperatures at Everest Base Camp (EBC) depend on which camp and which dataset, but reliable observations come from automatic weather stations (AWS) installed at the South Base Camp (Nepal side, ~5,364 m) and other nearby high-altitude stations.

Summary of best-available values (observations and published AWS records, through May 2024):

• Highest recorded air temperature
  • South (Nepal) Base Camp AWS: about −1.0 °C to +1.0 °C on the warmest days in late spring/early summer (typically May). Many published station summaries and expedition logs report peak values near 0 °C; a commonly cited peak is ~+0.5 °C. Slightly warmer spot measurements in sunlight or lower-elevation tent sites can exceed +1 °C briefly, but sustained, instrumented air-temperature peaks at the official South Base Camp are around 0 °C to +1 °C.”

[chubbs]

1 hour ago, GaWx said:

 
 Thanks for your reply, John. I’m asking anyone but tagged Don only because he’s been about the most involved with me in the discussion about the Nepal disaster and thus wanted to make sure he sees this.

 Martz appears to be correct in saying that there aren’t going to be many days that go >0C based on my just now seeing what’s down below that I’m quoting from the link below. If ~+1C really is the warmest at 5,364 m or 17.6K feet, is there going to be significant melting way up that high?

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-highest-and-lowest-temperatures-ever-recorded-at-Mt-Everest-base-camp

“Highest and lowest recorded temperatures at Everest Base Camp (EBC) depend on which camp and which dataset, but reliable observations come from automatic weather stations (AWS) installed at the South Base Camp (Nepal side, ~5,364 m) and other nearby high-altitude stations.

Summary of best-available values (observations and published AWS records, through May 2024):

• Highest recorded air temperature
  • South (Nepal) Base Camp AWS: about −1.0 °C to +1.0 °C on the warmest days in late spring/early summer (typically May). Many published station summaries and expedition logs report peak values near 0 °C; a commonly cited peak is ~+0.5 °C. Slightly warmer spot measurements in sunlight or lower-elevation tent sites can exceed +1 °C briefly, but sustained, instrumented air-temperature peaks at the official South Base Camp are around 0 °C to +1 °C.”

Martz isn't an expert on glaciers, geology or Nepal. Pictures of the area in question from the blog I linked above show evidence of melting: 1) The glacier has shrunk quite a bit since 2017 and 2) the glacier isn't the pristine white of unmelted snow. 

The storymap that I also linked contains the following paragraph about local temperatures: 

Temperature data from nearby climate stations installed by University of Potsdam show the region has been very warm in the past weeks and months. In addition to the high temperatures across the network, station NPA6 (located approximately 20km from the source area, at 85.28567°N, 28.23455°E) shows rapid temperature increases in the morning in the three days prior to the event, which aligns with the timing of failure (8.37AM Nepal time). These quick temperature swings are a key driver for frost cracking and glacial instability. Bodo Bookhagen (Professor at Uni-Potsdam, Germany) notes that these rapid temperature swings are not evident in the other network sites, indicating this was likely a local event. 

Let me be clear though, its too early to say whether this event was climate related. That's an expert call. 

 

[GaWx]

50 minutes ago, chubbs said:

Martz isn't an expert on glaciers, geology or Nepal. Pictures of the area in question from the blog I linked above show evidence of melting: 1) The glacier has shrunk quite a bit since 2017 and 2) the glacier isn't the pristine white of unmelted snow. 

The storymap that I also linked contains the following paragraph about local temperatures: 

Temperature data from nearby climate stations installed by University of Potsdam show the region has been very warm in the past weeks and months. In addition to the high temperatures across the network, station NPA6 (located approximately 20km from the source area, at 85.28567°N, 28.23455°E) shows rapid temperature increases in the morning in the three days prior to the event, which aligns with the timing of failure (8.37AM Nepal time). These quick temperature swings are a key driver for frost cracking and glacial instability. Bodo Bookhagen (Professor at Uni-Potsdam, Germany) notes that these rapid temperature swings are not evident in the other network sites, indicating this was likely a local event. 

Let me be clear though, its too early to say whether this event was climate related. That's an expert call. 

 

 Thanks, Charlie. Interesting.

 The contradiction of viewpoints/supporting data and info as well as the complexities involved in this terrible disaster are why I said that most of what Martz put in that post is at least worthy of discussion/debate. I think that the odds of CC being at least a little involved are high. I feel that the main debate is whether CC was a major factor or just a minor factor. I agree that it’s too early to conclude anything and there likely will be continued disagreements in upcoming releases. We may never know the exact answer.

[Brewbeer]

3 hours ago, GaWx said:

Yes, the cocky Chris Martz was wrong with his initial thought that this disaster was earthquake induced. But I think most of this from him yesterday is at least worthy of discussion/debate. Opinions?

he's a blowhard not worth wasting time on

[GaWx]

33 minutes ago, Brewbeer said:

he's a blowhard not worth wasting time on

 I agree he’s a major blowhard and not a nice person, and he’s been dead wrong on several things (including claiming “Heat Dome” is a recent term used primarily by alarmists and first claiming this disaster was caused by an earthquake). However, I don’t think it’s a waste of time to post his stuff as especially Don and I have done the last few months. Because he’s been widely read/quoted in recent months, he often shows data to support his posts (whether misleading or not), and is smart/well spoken/pretty clear communicator, I think his posts should be addressed here whether in disagreement or not.
 

 A person like him who many here including myself have strongly disagreed with at least some of the time is the perfect person to bring into the forum to make for robust discussion and the debating of differing viewpoints. To avoid people with very different views tends to make forums like this and others closer to an echo chamber. The most interesting forums aren’t afraid to consider major differences of opinion and debate them. Also, it’s good to be open-minded as I feel I am on most topics. On this topic, I’m very open-minded.

[Brewbeer]

20 minutes ago, GaWx said:

I don’t think it’s a waste of time

i appreciate your perspective, and allow me to suggest this:  so much of this isn't really "debate" at all, it's just disagreement and arguing for that sake.  spectacle. 

Reasonable people can disagree on interpretation, but blowhards are rarely reasonable, and often are pushing an agenda, or are paid shills.  Our collective understanding of what we are doing to our environment needs to be led by curiosity and a desire to understand. Scientific debate founded in honest curiosity doesn't have an agenda and doesn't seek an audience, or sponsor.