Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, GaWx said:

 Thanks. But this graph has avg for entire summer well over 0C? This is far warmer than what Chris Martz was suggesting about the site of the collapse (i.e., only occasionally reaching to barely above freezing), isn’t it?

Here's where I think the issue lies. The graph is based on where the collapsing rock/glacier hit the valley (around 4,300 meters above sea level). The bedrock, glacier was about 5,200 meters. So, the graph is correct in that the region has been warming, but it is not the mean temperature of the actual glacier. Nevertheless, preceding the collapse, temperatures had reached 90° or above in Kathmandu. At standard lapse rates, that would suggest readings in the middle 40s at the altitude of the glacier. During the June 1-August 25 period, Kathmandu had 77 days with highs of 80° or above. At standard lapse rates, that would amount to highs of 35° or above at 5,200 meters. So, at least using the standard lapse rates and Kathmandu's data, most of the summer days saw at least some melting where the collapse took place.

[chubbs]

5 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Here's where I think the issue lies. The graph is based on where the collapsing rock/glacier hit the valley (around 4,300 meters above sea level). The bedrock, glacier was about 5,200 meters. So, the graph is correct in that the region has been warming, but it is not the mean temperature of the actual glacier. Nevertheless, preceding the collapse, temperatures had reached 90° or above in Kathmandu. At standard lapse rates, that would suggest readings in the middle 40s at the altitude of the glacier. During the June 1-August 25 period, Kathmandu had 77 days with highs of 80° or above. At standard lapse rates, that would amount to highs of 35° or above at 5,200 meters. So, at least using the standard lapse rates and Kathmandu's data, most of the summer days saw at least some melting where the collapse took place.

The graph says the temperatures were estimated with ERA re-analysis bias corrected to 5200 feet using regional high elevation weather stations.  

[donsutherland1]

6 minutes ago, chubbs said:

The graph says the temperatures were estimated with ERA re-analysis bias corrected to 5200 feet using regional high elevation weather stations.  

I may be referring to a different article. I was citing a ClimateBrink piece by Zeke Hausfather, which didn't mention bias correction.

https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/what-we-can-and-cannot-say-about

 

[chubbs]

10 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

I may be referring to a different article. I was citing a ClimateBrink piece by Zeke Hausfather, which didn't mention bias correction.

https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/what-we-can-and-cannot-say-about

 

That chart is roughly 5C higher than the one I posted, 8C vs 3C for 2026 for instance. The 5C difference makes sense given the 900m difference in the elevation basis of the estimates. 

[donsutherland1]

43 minutes ago, chubbs said:

That chart is roughly 5C higher than the one I posted, 8C vs 3C for 2026 for instance. The 5C difference makes sense given the 900m elevation difference in the elevation basis of the estimates. 

Thank you. Yes, that makes sense and it’s clear that there are many days where the mercury exceeds freezing.

[Chinook]

Warmest, or 2nd or 3rd warmest August for north Texas to Wyoming, to Los Angeles

 

[chubbs]

 

A post-collapse picture of the Nepal avalanche site shows multiple meltwater streams from the glacier remains. Including those clearly sourced from cooler elevations above the collapsed zone. Further supporting the above freezing temperature estimates for the site. 

 

[chubbs]

Here' the past 30 days temperature data for the Everest Base Camp. All days are above freezing, reaching as warm as 10C. Temperatures below freezing have been rare in the past month. Even Camp 2 at 6464m has been above freezing most days. It took me a few seconds to google up this data.  

https://scidata.appstate.edu/everest/

 

 

[bluewave]

 

Climatologist49 @climatologist49.bsky.social

· 1d

Nepal observed their warmest August nationwide, with the most anomalous region being the border with China/Tibet. It is hard to imagine that record warm temps did not hasten the bedrock/glacier collapse disaster.

[Typhoon Tip]

10 hours ago, bluewave said:

 

Climatologist49 @climatologist49.bsky.social

· 1d

Nepal observed their warmest August nationwide, with the most anomalous region being the border with China/Tibet. It is hard to imagine that record warm temps did not hasten the bedrock/glacier collapse disaster.

Of course it did

there was never any debate by anyone not either deluded or immoral - pick

[WolfStock1]

On 9/7/2026 at 7:20 AM, bluewave said:

 

Climatologist49 @climatologist49.bsky.social

· 1d

Nepal observed their warmest August nationwide, with the most anomalous region being the border with China/Tibet. It is hard to imagine that record warm temps did not hasten the bedrock/glacier collapse disaster.

 

Yes very true - it appears very evident that it did.

Question is - was it a case of "hastening" (as in - it would have collapsed at some point, warming just made it collapse sooner than otherwise), or was it a case of "causing" (as in - if this level of warming hadn't happened - it would not have ever collapsed)?

Probably will never know of course.

Plenty of glacier collapses of course happened in pre-warming times, e.g. several big ones in the early 1800's in Switzerland, France, and Caucasus mountains.

 

[FPizz]

14 minutes ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

Yes very true - it appears very evident that it did.

Question is - was it a case of "hastening" (as in - it would have collapsed at some point, warming just made it collapse sooner than otherwise), or was it a case of "causing" (as in - if this level of warming hadn't happened - it would not have ever collapsed)?

Probably will never know of course.

Plenty of glacier collapses of course happened in pre-warming times, e.g. several big ones in the early 1800's in Switzerland, France, and Caucasus mountains.

 

 It is hard to imagine that record warm temps did not hasten the bedrock/glacier collapse disaster. 

That part is just pure conjecture really.  Maybe years of earthquakes over somewhat young fragile mountains causing lots of micro-fractures in the bedrock in that region was the main driver.  Very large uptick in 2025 could have easily caused lots of fractures and crumbling, and this is only 4.0 or greater.  

[TheClimateChanger]

Not to change the subject, but one thing I find interesting is recent CONUS temperatures - while historically record-breaking - are not really far removed from the expected baseline. With the controversy over RCP8.5 / SSP5-8.5 in the NCA5 report, I took a look at it. Figure 1.15 was interesting... note that the caption in the text of the document states that the US average temperature is all 50 states, plus Puerto Rico. However, this appears to be erroneous. The reported 1991-2020 ("current") average is identical to the NCEI CONUS mean (53.3F). Obviously, including Alaska would lower that as it 17% of the total area of the CONUS with a mean more than 25F lower. Hawaii and PR are both warmer (not by as much as you might think due to terrain) but are negligible area. So I'm pretty confident that is actually the CONUS mean and the caption is incorrect.

Anyways, at 1.5C, we see the mean jumps to 55.3F. In 2024, with global temps around that 1.5C level, we had a mean of 55.4F - hottest on record. This year is certain to exceed that and possibly become the first year over 56F. So this year might be legitimately a bit above the new baseline for national temps, but not by much. I could see where next year - with the strong El Nino - could be 56.5F+. A cold year under today's baseline would likely be no colder than the existing climatological normal. It's pretty fascinating to consider, when you think of all of the crazy records we've seen this year (e.g., the March heat, record summer, etc...). This is really just the new norm, and not that spectacular at all. With 2 of the last 3 years (2026 almost certain) to be around/above the modeled value for a 1.5C world - and 2027 very likely to do so as well, with the added El Nino warming - the modeled projection looks quite accurate to me, as we now have some real-world data to compare to.

At 2C global warming, which is very likely by mid-century, the CONUS mean reaches 56.6F. Warm years could be from 57.5-58F+ or 2-2.5F+ warmer than the present record, with even a cold year being not much colder than 2024.

At 3C global warming, models suggest the CONUS mean temperature would reach 59.1F. At that level of warming, every year would be far warmer than 2024 - even a cold year, probably even a volcanically enhanced cold year. Such a degree of warming is possible, but far from guaranteed, by the latter portion of this century.

At 4C global warming, models suggest the CONUS mean temperature would reach about 60.8F. Such a degree of warming is very unlikely this century with the retirement of RCP8.5 / SSP5-8.5 but remains possible in the 22nd century.

[WolfStock1]

1 hour ago, FPizz said:

 It is hard to imagine that record warm temps did not hasten the bedrock/glacier collapse disaster. 

That part is just pure conjecture really.  Maybe years of earthquakes over somewhat young fragile mountains causing lots of micro-fractures in the bedrock in that region was the main driver.  Very large uptick in 2025 could have easily caused lots of fractures and crumbling, and this is only 4.0 or greater.  

 

Yeah good point / info about the earthquakes.

This kind of thing (glacier collapse) seems pretty similar to earthquakes in that there's just no way to know why or when a given one happened at a given time and place - the variables (essentially infinite number of land connection points / stresses) are just too numerous, and basically just not measurable.  With meteorology at least the inputs - while still numerous - are actually *measurable*.

[GaWx]

For anyone who happens to care, this is what I just posted elsewhere about my up to date general feelings about AGW/CC:

1) Anthropogenic Global Warming (human-caused CC) is real, has caused mean global temperature to warm ~2-3F, and is causing it to warm further.

2) Regarding CC reducing snowfall, that’s been true overall, which is intuitive. But for a specific location, the relationship between CC and change in avg snowfall is complex as it can actually cause heavier snowstorms in some cases since warmer air holds more moisture. This is especially the case where normals are well below 32F.

3) What’s debatable are four main things as I see it:

a) Projections of rate of future warming because of realistic possibility of negative feedback loops, on which climate models likely don’t have a good handle.

One example is “CO2 Fertilization Effect”: ^CO2 leads to ^photosynthesis, which leads to greener planet. Greener means ^CO2 absorption for globe. So, at some point increase in CO2 would likely decelerate and perhaps later completely stop.


b) I’m not at all saying AGW/CC’s good. The main concern I have is rising sea level caused by combo of melting land based ice and expansion of oceans due to warming waters. Also, it likely leads to increased flooding events since warmer air holds more H2O. That includes wetter TCs. But CC isn’t all bad. Why?

- It’s likely leading to larger crops overall due to a combo of CO2 Fert. Effect, longer growing seasons due to warming, and ability to grow crops at higher latitudes due to warming. That means larger food supply and at least in theory less hunger.

-Cold in the past has killed many more than heat globally. Thus so far, CC has actually lead to reduced deaths from extreme temps. But admittedly assuming globe continues to warm, increased heat related deaths will likely overtake reduced cold related deaths.

c) Storminess: CC may actually be reducing the avg storm strength. Why? It has caused much more rapid warming in Arctic than in tropics. That means reduced temp. difference from poles to tropics, which means slower jet stream, which means less energy available for storms to strengthen.

Possibly related to this: typhoon activity has come down in recent decades.

 

d) There’s a lot of controversy concerning the connection of CC to individual extreme events aka “CC attribution”. I feel it’s overdone at times or at least there’s often a rush to attribute extreme events to CC without enough time or evidence to soundly prove it. I’m not saying no extreme events have been made worse by it. Almost certainly extreme heatwaves have been made worse by it than would otherwise have been the case. Example: the March SW US heatwave.

But here are some examples of a rush to judgement about the CC connection that needs much more time to study it:

-Nepal disaster. Whereas CC probably was at least a minor cause since it has been leading to melting glaciers overall, was it actually a major cause as some have already claimed? If bedrock failure was indeed the major cause, was that in itself due to GW? This needs much more time to study as it is very complex.

-Wildfire disasters: Whereas a warmer globe has likely helped lead to increased fires in some cases, that likely hasn’t been the case for many fires. Also note that global burnt acreage year to date has actually been during the last 2 years the lowest it has been as of this date since 2012!

————————

Edit: I forgot to mention that the UHI effect needs to be taken into account when comparing temperatures in past decades to today. This is especially the case for comparing temps for large cities/metro pop. that had much smaller pop. in those past decades.

[Typhoon Tip]

This is an 'Andy Rooney':

Not sure what the preoccupation for defining the culpability pie slices is all about in baking the end of the world. 

It's also perfunctory that nature provides cataclysms - yeah.  okay.  'why are you telling us this' like it's novel?

It seems attempting to dole out blame as being less because of anthropomorphic forcing is like seeking permission to keep doing it.  

The role of humanity is actively problematic to the world.  That still exists, either way. 

- as an aside... there is an apparent lack of applied physical science backgrounds the aroma of the way voices are sounding off. It's coming across as regurgitate skepticism from other sources, those that push backs against human caused environmental urgency, if not sketchy motivated -   

Increasing melt water destabilizes land...  that's just perfunctory.   All this stuff about needing research isn't actually necessary because of that factored reality, that is already known. The amount of x-y-z should be less meaningful if you helped the killer aim the gun. Your contribution is not 0.  

At some point, the that which is known needs to be applied as a common sense approach - otherwise you're waiting around to reinvent the wheel every time you have to jump in the care to go for a ride.  You're not doing that - right?  No need to prove melt water, plied to a bedrock, when it was visibly doing so.  It's also a bad term,  bed'rock' - when they hear bedrock ... they hear rock. Like a solid igneous or granite-like substance.  it's more like compact sedimentary deposits covered over by other regolith-ice composites, that were tjhe destabilizing aspect. Also, cracking deeper is perfunctory in repeating thaw and freezes, an oscillation of phase change forces that have been incurring with greater frequency over recent decades.  And as that has occurred post antecedent and ongoing concurrent warmer than normal setting that is heavily correlated already to CC breaching the high country up there... I don't believe your going to get a really 'in depth' report anymore than you would over the fact that wheels are round.

stop this.  Again, what is the purpose...  this latter aspect is still happening, and since the variable cites fit it 100%, there's no use - humanity does not escape culpability.