August 2025 Discussion-OBS - cooler than normal first week but a big comeback to warmer than normal for the last 2-3 weeks

[Sundog]

31 minutes ago, JustinRP37 said:

We do have plenty of options that WILL work. But the problem is the stakeholders that make massive amounts of money off fossil fuels don't want to change until the reserves they have purchased are fully depleted. 90% of the issues is NOT from outside the USA. The USA is still the second-biggest producer of greenhouse gasses with a relatively small population. Our per capita emission is around 14.2 tonnes per person, whereas China is 8.9, and India 1.9. Despite the fact that China is basically the manufacturer for the world (which does need to change). Yes, China has added more coal in the past decade, but it is also producing more and more renewables each year. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/26/china-breaks-more-records-with-massive-build-up-of-wind-and-solar-power). China is likely at its peak gasoline consumption now as it has massively electrified its vehicle fleet (https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-fuel-demand-may-have-passed-its-peak-iea-says-2025-02-13/). 

Unfortunately for us, we have a president that does not want to build any wind power or any renewables. (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c15l3knp4xyo) (https://ctmirror.org/2025/08/04/trump-administration-cancels-plans-to-develop-new-offshore-wind-projects/). And is also actively trying to destroy any research on greenhouse gasses (https://www.npr.org/2025/08/04/nx-s1-5453731/nasa-carbon-dioxide-satellite-mission-threatened). 

The technology exists for us to decarbonize rapidly, and it will not all be from one area. Many say to ban all oil-fired boilers in homes, but the fastest way to decarbonize heat in the Northeast is not getting rid of oil burners but switching them to primarily biofuels. We have the technology, but just like people were wary of electricity back when it was being brought into the house, we are facing a highly anti-science environment right now. Sadly, our present-day life is really reminding me of Idiocracy. People will put profits above all else. Only economists know that growth is infinite on a finite planet. 

Geoengineering is also highly risky. A miscalculation could be an extinction-level event, although the same can be said for the pathway we are on now. Once global CO2 levels hit 800 ppm, we are likely looking at a dead ocean. We could hit this by 2100 on our current track. 

The other thing I always tell my students is to look around... All this human development is in the last 200 years for the most part. Our lives have drastically improved, but now it is time to make sure we still have a future. Literally go back just two human generations, and most families in the USA did not have a car for every driving-age person. They may have had 1 for the whole family. We are incredibly lucky to be alive today when, all things being equal, life has never been easier to live (obviously, there are still struggles, but we aren't hunting every day, building fires, salting our meat to keep it longer, etc.). We have refrigerators, HVAC, cars, trains, etc. Now we just need to encourage engineers and scientists to help us build a better, more sustainable future. 

 

1. I see no evidence that we are trying to deplete all fossil fuel energy before switching over. And who are you referring to? Americans? The West? Asia? The whole world?

2. 90% of the problem IS from outside the USA. The United States produces about 10% of global emissions annually. 

3. The Earth doesn't CARE about per capita pollution. It doesn't care if 100 people or 10 billion people are producing the greenhouse gases. All it knows and feels is the total amount emitted. 

4. China installed about 100GW of energy from coal in only ten years, which going by the average sized coal plant translates to roughly 250 new coal plants. It doesn't matter if they also increased their renewable energy. Remember the Earth doesn't care about that, it only cares about total emissions, and China built a record amount of literally the worst type of energy. 

5. Since renewable technology took off and was working at scale, we have had a Democratic president for 12 of the last 16 years. 

6. People are putting profits ahead of the environment all over the world, and especially the third world. 

7. We are currently running a planetary scale geoengineering experiment RIGHT NOW. What else would you call altering the atmospheric composition of an entire planet? Letting this experiment run its course is simply not an option. 

8. I don't think we'll get to 800ppm, most of the world except Africa has fallen below replacement rate. 

9. I am glad that you acknowledge that fossil fuels brought about the modern technological age and vastly improved humanity's standard of living. 

10. In my ideal world there is no fossil fuel use anywhere in the world. But I'm not holding out hope. 

I think annual aerosol injections to bring temps down to 1C cooler than present will give humanity enough time to transition. I really think this is the only practical solution. 

[Dark Star]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

what caused this toxic chemical smog? factories?

I think most people were still heating and cooking with coal (and probably not the "good" Anthracite)?

[cleetussnow]

13 minutes ago, Dark Star said:

I think most people were still heating and cooking with coal (and probably not the "good" Anthracite)?

Brown coal in China.  Rural China reeks of coal.  I’d say 200 mm rural Chinese rely on coal to cook.  Still. 

[cleetussnow]

Both parties have issues will alternative energy.  The right doesn’t like renewables and the left doesn’t like nuclear.  So don’t make this about politics.  That forum got spiked for a reason.  

[Sundog]

Just now, weatherpruf said:

catching up? they've always been there....

All nations are corrupt. It's the extent to which they are that varies from country to country. 

 

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, Sundog said:

I think acid rain and ozone were a lot easier to collaborate on and solve. 

Those also caused direct visible damage as well as a clear threat. 

They also weren't issues that if solved would severely damage countries' economies and standards of living. There are 300 million people in India that defecate outdoors. Their poor standard of living is one reason their carbon footprint is half the global average.

I also don't like excusing or allowing other countries to continue to pollute with impunity as if modern forms of energy production aren't available to them. 

Why couldn't China just build more solar farms or wind mills instead of installing 100 GW of coal powered energy over the last ten years? That's roughly 250 coal powered power plants. Meanwhile the West has built none in 25 years and more are being decommissioned every year 

We can't solve this problem when 90% of it has nothing to do with us. 

I feel like people aren't seriously interested in solving this issue when focusing only on the US and speaking in uniliteral terms as if we are the ones that, if we just went carbon neutral, we'd stop climate change. 

There's no carrot to get other countries to stop greenhouse gas emissions. We need a stick. 

And if the stick doesn't work, we need geoengineering. And the easiest and most cost effective way to do it is with aerosols. 

I fear that we'll all be right here, a bunch of old men saying the exact same thing 30 years from now, with nothing being done because people are holding out hope that by some miracle we will get everyone around the world to become carbon neutral. Meanwhile we lost 30 years of aerosol injections to at least get temps back down to reasonable levels while we try to solve this thing.  

Even if we did go carbon neutral in 30 years let's say, the greenhouse gases are all still in the air. Aerosols are a way to stop the warming and even reverse it while the world transitions over to clean energy and solves the problem of carbon sequestering at scale.

 

Acid rain was a simpler issue to address. The ozone issue saw similar arguments made by fossil fuel proponents today, e.g., that there are no alternatives to CFCs for refrigeration. Then, the global leaders had the courage and foresight to agree to phase out the CFCs despite the objections. They understood the bigger picture of what enhanced solar radiation would mean to human society. 

No such courage or foresight is present among the current generation of global leaders when it comes to a far more gradual phaseout of the burning fossil fuels. Moreover, the problem with fossil fuels is arguably simpler to solve, as many cheaper alternatives currently exist, which had not been the case when the phaseout of CFCs was considered. That global subsidies of $7 trillion annually are provided for fossil fuels badly distorts energy prices. It also doesn't deter ongoing political commitment to the preservation of the status quo, even as many of those same political leaders targeted far smaller investments in research and clean energy to fund their tax and policy preferences. 

Even as China continues to construct coal plants, it has been the most aggressive nation in terms of scaling up renewables. It also has made rapid recharging stations widely available in its major cities (a logistical problem that seems beyond U.S. capability and/or will). It has also developed a battery that can fully charge in just 5 minutes, which will likely be commercialized in the next few years. It now manufactures EVs for the mass market, something that Tesla has been unable to do. 

Tragically, the U.S. choice to substantially diminish its scientific enterprise via disinvestment, increasingly stringent requirements on international students, and ideological intrusions into Higher Education will widen the competitive gap in energy, EVs, and potentially create qualitative disadvantages in a wider range of high-tech/science-driven fields (including military applications) over the next decade or so. That could make the U.S. even more reliant on yesterday's energy at a real cost to its consumers and the environment. 

I suspect that China will leverage its increasingly decisive competitive advantage in EVs and solar power in coming years and will make a major shift toward clean energy during the 2030s and its emissions will fall fairly dramatically during that time.

 

[weatherpruf]

Just now, cleetussnow said:

Both parties have issues will alternative energy.  The right doesn’t like renewables and the left doesn’t like nuclear.  So don’t make this about politics.  That forum got spiked for a reason.  

and both siding things is how we got to this horrible situation. its ok to say one side is better than the other when it comes to the environment. facts are stubborn things.

[LibertyBell]

9 minutes ago, cleetussnow said:

Both parties have issues will alternative energy.  The right doesn’t like renewables and the left doesn’t like nuclear.  So don’t make this about politics.  That forum got spiked for a reason.  

Even though the left (I wouldn't say it's most of the left, maybe a very small portion?) doesn't like nuclear fission, I find it understandable-- those people are stuck in the past of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and maybe even Fukushima.  Those concerns are reasonable even if they are wrong (just don't build a nuclear power plant near a fault line), I don't get the right's issue with renewables.  Are they aware that Texas has the highest renewable capacity of any state in the country?  It seems to me it's not the right that is opposed to renewables, it's the fossil fuel industry that feeds the right that is opposed to them.

 

[weatherpruf]

5 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Definitely.  The UN allowed the Saudis to get away with doing horrible things (like the Kashoggi killing) because the Saudis threatened to pull their funding of UNICEF if they got called out or punished.

the job of the united nations was and is to prevent nuclear war. it has done that. so far.

[LibertyBell]

4 minutes ago, weatherpruf said:

the job of the united nations was and is to prevent nuclear war. it has done that. so far.

not doing a good job on stopping famines, preventing wars or any of its other stated missions though

 

[weatherpruf]

1 minute ago, LibertyBell said:

Even though the left (I wouldn't say it's most of the left, maybe a very small portion?) doesn't like nuclear fission, I find it understandable-- those people are stuck in the past of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and maybe even Fukushima.  Those concerns are reasonable even if they are wrong (just don't build a nuclear power plant near a fault line), I don't get the right's issue with renewables.  Are they aware that Texas has the highest renewable capacity of any state in the country?  It seems to me it's not the right that is opposed to renewables, it's the fossil fuel industry that feeds the right that is opposed to them.

 

the tragedy of chernobyl is still ongoing and will continue after we are gone. it is hardly the past. 

[LibertyBell]

13 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Acid rain was a simpler issue to address. The ozone issue saw similar arguments made by fossil fuel proponents today, e.g.., that there are no alternatives to CFCs for refrigeration. Then, the global leaders had the courage and foresight to agree to phase out the CFCs despite the objections. They understood the bigger picture of what enhanced solar radiation would mean to human society. 

No such courage or foresight is present among the current generation of global leaders when it comes to a far more gradual phaseout of the burning fossil fuels. Moreover, the problem with fossil fuels is arguably simpler to solve, as many cheaper alternatives currently exist, which had not been the case when the phaseout of CFCs was considered. That global subsidies of $7 trillion annually are provided for fossil fuels badly distorts energy prices. It also doesn't deter ongoing political commitment to the preservation of the status quo, even as many of those same political leaders targeted far smaller investments in research and clean energy to fund their tax and policy preferences. 

Even as China continues to construct coal plants, it has been the most aggressive nation in terms of scaling up renewables. It also has made rapid recharging stations widely available in its major cities (a logistical problem that seems beyond U.S. capability and/or will). It has also developed a battery that can fully charge in just 5 minutes, which will likely be commercialized in the next few years. It now manufactures EVs for the mass market, something that Tesla has been unable to do. 

Tragically, the U.S. choice to substantially diminish its scientific enterprise via disinvestment, increasingly stringent requirements on international students, and ideological intrusions into Higher Education will widen the competitive gap in energy, EVs, and potentially create qualitative disadvantages in a wider range of high-tech/science-driven fields (including military applications) over the next decade or so. That could make the U.S. even more reliant on yesterday's energy at a real cost to its consumers and the environment. 

I suspect that China will leverage its increasingly decisive competitive advantage in EVs and solar power in coming years and will make a major shift toward clean energy during the 2030s and its emissions will fall fairly dramatically during that time.

 

If that's the case, China will be leading the world into the future, Don.

 

[LibertyBell]

Just now, weatherpruf said:

the tragedy of chernobyl is still ongoing and will continue after we are gone. it is hardly the past. 

But our safety standards are much higher than what Chernobyl had.

[lee59]

81 for a high today, now 74. Cooler than normal, felt good.

[donsutherland1]

Under mainly cloudy skies, the temperature topped out at 79° today in New York City.

The remainder of the week will see temperatures average somewhat below normal. Highs will mainly be in the upper 70s and lower 80s with lows falling into the upper 60s in New York City. 

A new round of heat could begin to develop on Sunday Parts of the region could see a return of 90° or above heat. The probability of extreme heat has increased in recent days.

The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was +0.4°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was -0.3°C for the week centered around July 30. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged +0.37°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged -0.08°C. Neutral ENSO conditions will likely continue through the summer.

The SOI was +0.79 today. 

The preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) was +0.312 today. 

 

[Sundog]

I'm starting to dread next week from now lol

[lee59]

I believe one of the issues with wind and solar energy is that it is about 30 to 40  percent efficient at converting their energy to electricity. Oil and gas have much higher efficiency ratings. I'm sure we will continue to make progress in efficiency improvement for renewables as time goes by. In the mean time oil and gas will be number one if folks want to keep their standard of living the way it is. There are plenty of alternatives that I believe will some day take over and oil and gas will go by the way of the dinosaur. I have a hybrid pick up, great gas mileage and no worries about how far I have to travel. I think a good choice as we gradually go from oil to alternatives.

[lee59]

22 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Under mainly cloudy skies, the temperature topped out at 79° today in New York City.

The remainder of the week will see temperatures average somewhat below normal. Highs will mainly be in the upper 70s and lower 80s with lows falling into the upper 60s in New York City. 

A new round of heat could begin to develop on Sunday Parts of the region could see a return of 90° or above heat. The probability of extreme heat has increased in recent days.

The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was +0.4°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was -0.3°C for the week centered around July 30. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged +0.37°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged -0.08°C. Neutral ENSO conditions will likely continue through the summer.

The SOI was +0.79 today. 

The preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) was +0.312 today. 

 

Felt good today, hopefully the heat is subdued.

[JustinRP37]

1 hour ago, FPizz said:

How many panels do you have and what is the size of your system?

For solar? Unfortunately our house doesn’t have good siting for solar being at the base of a hill. We do seek out energy suppliers that supply solar and wind to the grid. And we burn B20 for heat which I wish we could do more. 

[lee59]

Didn't expect a shower but getting one.

[nycwinter]

hopefully next week will be the last heat wave of the year..

[JustinRP37]

1 hour ago, Sundog said:

1. I see no evidence that we are trying to deplete all fossil fuel energy before switching over. And who are you referring to? Americans? The West? Asia? The whole world?

2. 90% of the problem IS from outside the USA. The United States produces about 10% of global emissions annually. 

3. The Earth doesn't CARE about per capita pollution. It doesn't care if 100 people or 10 billion people are producing the greenhouse gases. All it knows and feels is the total amount emitted. 

4. China installed about 100GW of energy from coal in only ten years, which going by the average sized coal plant translates to roughly 250 new coal plants. It doesn't matter if they also increased their renewable energy. Remember the Earth doesn't care about that, it only cares about total emissions, and China built a record amount of literally the worst type of energy. 

5. Since renewable technology took off and was working at scale, we have had a Democratic president for 12 of the last 16 years. 

6. People are putting profits ahead of the environment all over the world, and especially the third world. 

7. We are currently running a planetary scale geoengineering experiment RIGHT NOW. What else would you call altering the atmospheric composition of an entire planet? Letting this experiment run its course is simply not an option. 

8. I don't think we'll get to 800ppm, most of the world except Africa has fallen below replacement rate. 

9. I am glad that you acknowledge that fossil fuels brought about the modern technological age and vastly improved humanity's standard of living. 

10. In my ideal world there is no fossil fuel use anywhere in the world. But I'm not holding out hope. 

I think annual aerosol injections to bring temps down to 1C cooler than present will give humanity enough time to transition. I really think this is the only practical solution. 

I was referring to the whole world. I don’t see anyone not wanting to deplete. 

2) and 3) The USA is still responsible for 13-15% of global emissions, and per capita definitely does matter. It shows how efficient a society is or not. The USA alone is responsible for about 25% of global emissions since the start of the Industrial Revolution. It shows that we have made great strides in this area. 

4) Yes, I’m aware, but China also manufactures the vast majority of products around the world. Move that elsewhere, and those coal plants are as badly needed.

5) I don’t care much for politics or politicians. They are mostly the scum of the earth. Presidents typically don’t have much power, but Congress tends to set environmental policy and funding. 

6 and 7 absolutely agree. That’s why I said we could consider what we are doing geoengineering. 

8) I think we will get close. When I was born, we were under 350 ppm. Today, we are at 425. 

My background is in sustainability, and it is also my favorite course to teach at the university level. I have honestly never faced the level of hostility in my career as we are facing now in higher education. We can hope for a better future, but with cancer rates rising, forever chemicals everywhere, and microplastics linked to infertility and cancer, it is bleak. 

[JustinRP37]

28 minutes ago, lee59 said:

I believe one of the issues with wind and solar energy is that it is about 30 to 40  percent efficient at converting their energy to electricity. Oil and gas have much higher efficiency ratings. I'm sure we will continue to make progress in efficiency improvement for renewables as time goes by. In the mean time oil and gas will be number one if folks want to keep their standard of living the way it is. There are plenty of alternatives that I believe will some day take over and oil and gas will go by the way of the dinosaur. I have a hybrid pick up, great gas mileage and no worries about how far I have to travel. I think a good choice as we gradually go from oil to alternatives.

Oil and gas are also in the 35-60% efficiency rate. Oil is lower than gas and coal is the worst at about 33%

[JustinRP37]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

Even though the left (I wouldn't say it's most of the left, maybe a very small portion?) doesn't like nuclear fission, I find it understandable-- those people are stuck in the past of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and maybe even Fukushima.  Those concerns are reasonable even if they are wrong (just don't build a nuclear power plant near a fault line), I don't get the right's issue with renewables.  Are they aware that Texas has the highest renewable capacity of any state in the country?  It seems to me it's not the right that is opposed to renewables, it's the fossil fuel industry that feeds the right that is opposed to them.

 

Nuclear will have to play and more important role as a bridge fuel to a sustainable future. 

[Wannabehippie]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

Even though the left (I wouldn't say it's most of the left, maybe a very small portion?) doesn't like nuclear fission, I find it understandable-- those people are stuck in the past of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and maybe even Fukushima.  Those concerns are reasonable even if they are wrong (just don't build a nuclear power plant near a fault line), I don't get the right's issue with renewables.  Are they aware that Texas has the highest renewable capacity of any state in the country?  It seems to me it's not the right that is opposed to renewables, it's the fossil fuel industry that feeds the right that is opposed to them.

 

I like the modular nuclear plants that are being developed right now. Much lower costs that conventional nuclear power plants. Plus we have people working on nuclear fusion. It might not be cold fusion, but magnetic bottles, and "hot" fusion are in our grasp.

[lee59]

11 minutes ago, JustinRP37 said:

Oil and gas are also in the 35-60% efficiency rate. Oil is lower than gas and coal is the worst at about 33%

Gas and oil furnaces have an efficiency rating of about 80 to 90 per cent. Of course you have the pollutants that go along with it.

[doncat]

Observation thread.... 76° high with a pretty solid overcast today.

[Sundog]

26 minutes ago, JustinRP37 said:

I was referring to the whole world. I don’t see anyone not wanting to deplete. 

2) and 3) The USA is still responsible for 13-15% of global emissions, and per capita definitely does matter. It shows how efficient a society is or not. The USA alone is responsible for about 25% of global emissions since the start of the Industrial Revolution. It shows that we have made great strides in this area. 

4) Yes, I’m aware, but China also manufactures the vast majority of products around the world. Move that elsewhere, and those coal plants are as badly needed.

5) I don’t care much for politics or politicians. They are mostly the scum of the earth. Presidents typically don’t have much power, but Congress tends to set environmental policy and funding. 

6 and 7 absolutely agree. That’s why I said we could consider what we are doing geoengineering. 

8) I think we will get close. When I was born, we were under 350 ppm. Today, we are at 425. 

My background is in sustainability, and it is also my favorite course to teach at the university level. I have honestly never faced the level of hostility in my career as we are facing now in higher education. We can hope for a better future, but with cancer rates rising, forever chemicals everywhere, and microplastics linked to infertility and cancer, it is bleak. 

I do really care for the environment. My wife calls me a tree hugger lol

I have degrees in Geology and even focused on paleoclimate and fossil fuel location. I created some beautiful cross sectional maps haha. 

So I'm not one of those flat Earthers who think climate change isn't happening or is not people's fault. 

I just know that, even by your numbers, the USA is NOT in control of 85% to 87% of all annual emissions. 

Practically speaking, I don't see how we can get this problem under control QUICK in order to give humanity some breathing room to transition over without using aerosols. We also have to develop nuclear for baseload power, we can't have a fully solar or wind powered grid unless there is massive development in battery energy storage on a huge scale. 

China didn't NEED build coal plants for the factories. They CHOSE to. They could power those factories with solar or wind can they not? Or even natural gas. But they chose the worst energy available. 

And the reason why America has contributed 25% of emissions historically is because we industrialized at a time when if you weren't burning wood for energy then you were burning coal. 

For a country TODAY to build new coal plants is wildly irresponsible when there are so many alternatives. I would say the same if the USA was industrializing today instead of 150 years ago. 

Unfortunately I do see from some people on the left say it's ok for third world countries to get a several decades break to allow major pollution from them because "the West did too," or, "they need to catch up."  Incredibly stupid thought process. As if all the technological advancements that have been achieved over the last 100 years are not available to them!

If China built 250 coal plants in 1920 I would understand. In 2025? Ridiculous. People who excuse this are not actually interested in solving this issue. 

[Sundog]

2 minutes ago, FPizz said:

Wow, a weather post and not someone on their soapbox not practicing what they preach.  

Hi @FPizz

[Sundog]

I just fixed my gutters because they were pouring water out the top instead of draining to the pipes and of course now it's not going to rain for like 2 weeks