Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[ChescoWx]

Yep this makes a lot of sense....

[Cobalt]

32 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Yep this makes a lot of sense....

It is quite the weather extreme, considering that Mt. Washington reached this mark shortly after scoring the 2nd warmest first two months of winter on record. 

Considering how this upcoming month is slated to be much AN following the extreme (but brief) 2 day cold snap, it is plausible that the site achieves both its warmest winter and coldest wind chill temperature in the exact same season. I'm not sure what your definition of "extreme" is, but that doesn't seem like something that happens every year. 

[csnavywx]

What happened to all of the Antarctic sea ice pumpers from a few years ago? Two year spike and all we heard was how this disproves global warming. Crickets now.....

[chubbs]

 

[LibertyBell]

8 hours ago, chubbs said:

 

based on these high SST, how come we're not already in an el nino?

 

[chubbs]

7 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

based on these high SST, how come we're not already in an el nino?

 

The warming is strongest in eastern enso regions 1+2, and 3. Per models will take a couple of months for 3.4 to reach 0.5C. There has also been warming of the tropical and sub-tropical Pacific outside the enso regions. Unusual to break SST records this early in a nino. 

[HailMan06]

On 3/17/2023 at 3:10 PM, chubbs said:

 

It’s going to be another hot year…likely close to record-breaking.

[GaWx]

 I'm posting some charts below showing the averaged Arctic mean temp anomalies by season and year for 80N to the pole.

 This first one has winter, summer, and annual. Note that whereas the 5 year winter mean anomaly has warmed considerably (~6C) over the last 30 years due to GW, the summer mean has remained steady:

  
 This next one has spring, autumn, and annual. Whereas the 5 year autumn has warmed ~5C over the last 30 years, spring has warmed only ~3C over the same period:

 So in summary due to GW over the last 30 years, here are the Arctic warmings based on 5 year averages:

 

winter 6C

autumn 5C

spring 3C

summer 0C

annual 3.5C

 I find this quite interesting! Can anyone here explain these discrepancies between seasons? I'm especially curious about the autumn's 5C vs the spring's 3C.
 

 So, with the Arctic winters having warmed 6C due to GW while the summers haven't warmed any, the mean difference from winter to summer there has shrunk 6C.

 Aside: The last 6 years excluding 2022 have had their coldest in March, with 2023 just having occurred on March 16th as per this. Can a later average coldest of winter in the Arctic be explained from a GW perspective? Anyone know?

 
 

https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

[chubbs]

9 hours ago, GaWx said:

 I'm posting some charts below showing the averaged Arctic mean temp anomalies by season and year for 80N to the pole.

 This first one has winter, summer, and annual. Note that whereas the 5 year winter mean anomaly has warmed considerably (~6C) over the last 30 years due to GW, the winter mean has remained steady:

  
 This next one has spring, autumn, and annual. Whereas the 5 year autumn has warmed ~5C over the last 30 years, spring has warmed only ~3C over the same period:

 So in summary due to GW over the last 30 years, here are the Arctic warmings based on 5 year averages:

 

winter 6C

autumn 5C

spring 3C

summer 0C

annual 3.5C

 I find this quite interesting! Can anyone here explain these discrepancies between seasons? I'm especially curious about the autumn's 5C vs the spring's 3C.
 

 So, with the Arctic winters having warmed 6C due to GW while the summers haven't warmed any, the mean difference from winter to summer there has shrunk 6C.

 Aside: The last 6 years excluding 2022 have had their coldest in March, with 2023 just having occurred on March 16th as per this. Can a later average coldest of winter in the Arctic be explained from a GW perspective? Anyone know?

 
 

https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

This reflects properties of ice and water. In winter ice is thick, not much heat escapes through the ice, and arctic ocean acts like land with large temperature swings (same for early Spring). Water with ice in it has a temperature near the freezing point of water. One ice cube is enough to maintain near 32F water in a glass of ice water. Adding heat in summer results in less Arctic sea ice; but, as long as some ice remains the ocean water temperature stays near the freezing point of water, so arctic ocean temperature swings are much smaller in summer than in winter. In fall there is more open water to freeze with warming and freezing releases heat;  and, ocean water has stored more solar energy due to darker surface in summer with less ice and/or wetter ice. So makes sense that fall warms faster than spring.

[bdgwx]

On 3/18/2023 at 5:25 PM, HailMan06 said:

It’s going to be another hot year…likely close to record-breaking.

There is a 4-5 month lag in the global average temperature response to ENSO cycles so I'm not expecting near record temperatures this year. 2024 would be the year to watch for a possible record.

[LibertyBell]

2 hours ago, bdgwx said:

There is a 4-5 month lag in the global average temperature response to ENSO cycles so I'm not expecting near record temperatures this year. 2024 would be the year to watch for a possible record.

thats correct, also doesn't el nino inject more water vapor into the atmosphere which would keep high temps in check?  higher mins and higher humidity though

 

[Typhoon Tip]

On 3/17/2023 at 3:10 PM, chubbs said:

 

Folks may find it interesting that 90% of the AGW quotient has been absorbed by the oceans ... this according to that despicable colluded bastion of liars known as scientists.  You prolly heard of 'em...  go by the name-a NASA ...

This bag woulda been a whole lot worse by now if it wasn't for that big friendly oceanic heat sink giving humanity second chance after second chance in this unwittingly fervent Fermian explanation -

And as the industrial gears of conveniences continue to enable humanity with the relative utopia it provides, it's simply a problem with enabling.  That's it. Nothing else really... when we're in this (compared to 100 years ago), "risk" becomes lesser knowable.  Who the f born since ... 1940 really is conditioned to understand real existential threat?  

No...there's no 'projected sense' of what bad decisions are in a realm like that. There's no consequences. There's no lessons learned.  No realizations ever made.  Not here inside the industrial bubble, where a buffet of alternatives offer salvation from responsibility.

People deny because they can.

Somewhere along the rants and diatribes of earlier chapters ... I spent time discussing how the consortium of those in higher academia that I socialize with ( PHDs and the like... those happy with their silent research and family) agree.  Curing AGW is not a tenable goal.  Being forced, however, by suffering and lot of population correction, is. The problem with adaptation in a post- AGW reality is far more so definable as a sociological one. Not technology limitation.  

 

[LibertyBell]

4 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Folks may find it interesting that 90% of the AGW quotient has been absorbed by the oceans ... this according to that despicable colluded bastion of liars known as scientists.  You prolly heard of 'em...  go by the name-a NASA ...

This bag woulda been a whole lot worse by now if it wasn't for that big friendly oceanic heat sink giving humanity second chance after second chance in this unwittingly fervent Fermian explanation -

And as the industrial gears of conveniences continue to enable humanity with the relative utopia it provides, it's simply a problem with enabling.  That's it. Nothing else really... when we're in this (compared to 100 years ago), "risk" becomes lesser knowable.  Who the f born since ... 1940 really is conditioned to understand real existential threat?  

No...there's no 'projected sense' of what bad decisions are in a realm like that. There's no consequences. There's no lessons learned.  No realizations ever made.  Not here inside the industrial bubble, where a buffet of alternatives offer salvation from responsibility.

People deny because they can.

Somewhere along the rants and diatribes of earlier chapters ... I spent time discussing how the consortium of those in higher academia that I socialize with ( PHDs and the like... those happy with their silent research and family) agree.  Curing AGW is not a tenable goal.  Being forced, however, by suffering and lot of population correction, is. The problem with adaptation in a post- AGW reality is far more so definable as a sociological one. Not technology limitation.  

 

That's correct, but what I find fascinating in a horribly ironic way is....do the people in charge not realize how dire the situation is and that we are at end stage with this or do they not take it seriously enough-- their lackadaisacal approach is quite perplexing.  Or are they convinced we'll find a new planet to populate (terraforming Mars perhaps?)  What do they expect the final outcome to be?  Also, and just as importantly, why don't scientists in this field, rather than just issuing reports, speak out more loudly, that human societies will collapse within our lifetimes if this is allowed to continue?  Why dont they go on strike and force everything to a halt until this is truly addressed?  I think at this point mass strikes by scientists are the only way we can stop this calamity now.  You'd think that the pandemic would have taught humanity a lesson....but humanity shows itself to not be deserving of its "sapiens" name all the time.