So last week was the annual release of the temperature records from NASA, NOAA and Berkeley Earth. The Copernicus ERA5 data was released a few days ago, and the HadCRUT data will follow soon. Unlike in years past, there is no longer any serious discrepancy between the records – which use multiple approaches for the ocean temperatures, the homogenization of the weather stations records, and interpolation.
Depending on the product, 2021 was either the 5th, 6th or 7th warmest year, but in all cases, it is part of the string of warm years (since 2015) that have all been more than 1ºC warmer than the late 19th C.
Controversy is so 2000 and late
Many of the issues that exercised the blogosphere a decade ago have been put to rest. Despite flailing attempts by a couple of diehards to resurrect talk of a ‘new pause’ (no warming since the last record warm year!), and the never-ending insistence of some solar enthusiasts that a dramatic cooling is right around the corner, these are not serious issues. Discussion too of the ‘irrelevance’ of the global mean changes to ‘normal people’ has also faded as the contribution of the overall warming has become more and more obvious in the incidences of extreme heat waves, intense precipitation, coastal flooding and wildfire intensity. Transparency of the data and methods has all increased (though note that for GISTEMP, the code and the publically available data has been available since 2007), but since that came at the same time that as a large increase in the digitized raw data available and the strength of the trends, the importance of the specifics of the coding has diminished. Additionally, we now have much better quantification of the uncertainties in these estimates (see below). The ‘polar hole’ issue is almost completely put to be bed, with HadCRUT5 and the NOAA (Interim) products coming around to interpolation of one sort or another.
So given this increased maturity of these analyses, are there any scientifically interesting issues left? Yes, but they are perhaps a little more subtle than before.
Southern Ocean trends
The least visited part of the ocean are the waters around Antarctica. They are not on many trade routes, scientific expeditions are infrequent, and the Argo buoys have trouble near the sea ice edge. Nonetheless, we have enough information to know that these waters are not warming at the surface as much as the rest of the planet, and indeed, at around 60ºS, some indications seem to suggest that they have cooled in the last few decades. The size of this cooling varies in the records, most of all in the satellite-derived AIRS v7 data, where the cooling is quite pronounced, and not at all in the ERA5 reanalysis.
As you can see the southern oceans are the area of greatest divergence between GISTEMP, ERA5 and the AIRS versions. Both ERA5 and GISTEMP are relying on SST data here (either ERSSTv5 or HadISST2 (I think)), so may suffer from observational data sparsity. But the AIRS data may have systematic issues as well, perhaps associated with changes in surface type from sea ice to open ocean and vice versa. In contrast, CMIP6 model hindcasts/forecasts for this time period don’t show any cooling at all at these latitudes.
Why does this matter? If the GISTEMP or AIRS data is qualitatively correct, then that would point to a systematic difference with the models, suggesting a missing process or forcing. There is a candidate for this, which is the impact of anomalous freshwater from Antarctica (see for instance, Rye et al., 2020). This in turn suggests that Antarctic melt could be an important negative feedback on southern hemisphere warming – which is one of the regions with the most important cloud feedbacks in the high sensitivity CMIP6 models (Zelinka et al., 2020).
We should probably try and sort this out at some point…
Ensembles of uncertainty
As mentioned above, the characterization of the total uncertainty in these products has improved a lot. Uncertainties arise in the raw data directly, in any homogenizations that are performed, in the data interpolation, in corrections for non-climatic effects etc. and getting a total uncertainty that includes almost all of these aspects is now available for HadCRUT, GISTEMP, Berkeley Earth and NOAA timeseries. The results across the products are comparable, though they differ, particularly in the earlier parts of the record.
Nonetheless, there are still improvements that can be made. Notably, standard approaches to the uncertainty are difficult to apply to errors that are correlated over time. For instance, data sparseness only changes slowly so differences between two adjacent years might be less uncertain than if the calculated uncertainty was treated as an independent variable each year. An approach that would do better would be one based on a Monte Carlo ensemble of possible estimates – each one including both systematic and stochastic uncertainties. Then these could be sampled to generate relevant statistics. HadCRUT, ERSST and GHCN have constructed ensembles for this purpose and there are efforts to do this for more products.
UAH vs the world
This is an older issue, but it remains the case that the UAH TLT trends are the outlier amongst all the related datasets. It isn’t as dramatic a difference as in the 1990s when the UAH record suggested that the world had been cooling since 1979, but as you can see below, it stands out. The MSU/AMSU records would also benefit from a Monte Carlo approach to sample the structural uncertainties in their construction. For now the growing difference between the RSS record and the UAH one acts a (unsatisfying) stand-in for the structural uncertainty, but differences this large make it difficult to conclude much from MSU data/model comparisons.
Volcanic wild cards
Too soon to tell (today at least), but volcanic impacts on temperature are well known from the record. Whether Hunga Tonga will affect temperatures depends a lot on how much SO2 is emitted (which you can track here – the 15 Jan image will be telling). A big eruption will potentially cool the planet for a year or a few and postpone further increases in temperature. More on this soon if indeed it looks to be important.
Updating the model-observation comparisons
This is not really an scientific issue, but we will try and get this done over the next week. We will also add a new comparison to the CMIP6 models… so stay tuned.
References
- C.D. Rye, J. Marshall, M. Kelley, G. Russell, L.S. Nazarenko, Y. Kostov, G.A. Schmidt, and J. Hansen, "Antarctic Glacial Melt as a Driver of Recent Southern Ocean Climate Trends", Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 47, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2019GL086892
- M.D. Zelinka, T.A. Myers, D.T. McCoy, S. Po‐Chedley, P.M. Caldwell, P. Ceppi, S.A. Klein, and K.E. Taylor, "Causes of Higher Climate Sensitivity in CMIP6 Models", Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 47, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085782
- N.J.L. Lenssen, G.A. Schmidt, J.E. Hansen, M.J. Menne, A. Persin, R. Ruedy, and D. Zyss, "Improvements in the GISTEMP Uncertainty Model", Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, vol. 124, pp. 6307-6326, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029522
While not a record warm year overall, 8.3% of the Earth’s surface did have a record warm annual average locally in 2021. By chance, these areas coincided with a number of major population centers. We estimate that ~1.8 billion people experienced a record high annual average in 2021, including most of the population of China.
http://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2021/
with video summary w Gavin S
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/2021-tied-for-6th-warmest-year-in-continued-trend-nasa-analysis-shows
“If you just look at the last the last 10 years, how many of them are way above the trend line from the previous 10 years? Almost all of them,” Schmidt said in an interview.
There’s a 99% chance that 2022 will be among the 10 warmest years on record and a 10% chance it will be the hottest on record, said NOAA climate analysis chief Russell Vose in a Thursday press conference.
https://apnews.com/article/climate-global-temperatures-heat-earth-d7b4eda880b1dafd255a93591cfe4759
Global surface temperature in 2021 (Fig. 1) was +1.12°C (~2°F) relative to the 1880-1920 average in the GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) analysis.
The warming rate over land is about 2.5 times faster than over the ocean (Fig. 2). Larger warming over land helps explain why climate impacts are becoming much more noticeable even though global warming is now “only” about 1.2°C (mean for past 7 years).
The irregular El Nino/La Nina cycle dominates interannual temperature variability, which suggests that 2022 will not be much warmer than 2021, but 2023 could set a new record.
Moreover, three factors: (1) accelerating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, (2) decreasing aerosols, (3) the solar irradiance cycle will add to an already record-high planetary energy imbalance and drive global temperature beyond the 1.5°C limit – likely during the 2020s.
Because of inertia and response lags in the climate and energy systems, the 2°C limit also will likely be exceeded by mid-century, barring intervention to reduce anthropogenic interference with the planet’s energy balance.
https://mailchi.mp/caa/global-temperature-in-2021
World ocean temperatures in 2021 were hottest ever recorded
“The oceans will continue to warm until net carbon emissions go to zero. Ocean warming is destabilizing Antarctic ice shelves and threatens massive (meters) of sea level rise if we don’t act,” said study co-author Michael Mann of Penn State University, in an email.
https://www.axios.com/global-ocean-temperatures-record-high-935b1b7e-2adf-4759-b8a6-d4747a94c809.html
11 January 2022
Another Record: Ocean Warming Continues through 2021 despite La Niña Conditions
The world ocean, in 2021, was the hottest ever recorded by humans, and the 2021 annual OHC value is even higher than last year’s record value
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-022-1461-3 – open access
If confirmed, today’s 50.7ºC at Onslow Airport in WA was the equal highest temperature on record in the Southern Hemisphere. – occurring in a La Nina year is potentially exceptional, surprising, unusual, odd, strange, abnormal, uncommon, or unexpected.
https://twitter.com/Ben_Domensino/status/1481580312077672448
XRRC – “occurring in a La Nina year is potentially exceptional, surprising, unusual, odd, strange, abnormal, uncommon, or unexpected.”
Why? How much influence do you imagine the PDO has on Onslow? Do you even know where Onslow is? Or Oodnadatta for that matter?
The last time we had a 50.7 it was a neutral year so from a statistical base of 2, 50.7 degree days in the southern hemisphere do not occur during El Nino
Gavin, how do you handle, if the sea ice coverage is different now compared to the baseline?
A large error may the result, in a combination of the following methods/issues:
Using temperature anomalies for SAT and SST separately.
Large absolute difference in SAT above sea ice and SST below the sea ice (so not so in the summer, but in the other seasons).
A different sea ice area between now and the baseline period.
Using the SST anomaly as an approximation for SAT in areas, where now is no sea ice but it was sea ice during the baseline period may result in a large underestimation of warming if the absolute difference of SST and SAT was large during the baseline period. This may result in missing a large warming of tens of degrees in this area where the sea ice is gone.
The opposite effect may happen if the sea ice area grows.
Takes the calculation of the temperature above the sea ice the different area of sea ice in the baseline period and the other years in to account?
A minor quibble, but the “Comparison of Uncertainty Estimates” should indicate the integration period (annual, I believe).
To some extent, I think the collapse of the Thwaites shelf over the next few years is likely to be the most interesting and telling indicator as to how well our plans to protect human civilization are going. It’s interesting that you say the Antarctic ocean is not warming as much as the rest of the planet. You note that is based on surface reading. My gut tells me that if we had good metrics across lots of depths of Antarctic we might notice more warming at depth than will be measured at surface. The “warmed” waters below make sense as we watch the glaciers and shelves melt from below. Maybe glacial melt and influx of fresher melt waters are floating on top of the slightly warmer and higher saline ocean waters below until they mix?
I bet someone will let me know if those ideas make no sense.
Cheers
Mike
When discussing the future of the Thwaites glacier the following new finding should be taken in account:
High geothermal heat flow beneath Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica inferred from aeromagnetic data
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-021-00242-3
“We show that the rapidly retreating Thwaites and Pope glaciers in particular are underlain by areas of largely elevated geothermal heat flow, which relates to the tectonic and magmatic history of the West Antarctic Rift System in this region. Our results imply that the behavior of this vulnerable sector of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is strongly coupled to the dynamics of the underlying lithosphere.”
The Tonga eruption appears to have injected a significant amount of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere so should have a significant transient cooling effect for the next 2 years or so. Given that the injection was roughly at 20 deg S, how do you believe that SAT will respond?
Mitch. Our New Zealand news media has today published an assessment by our climate agency. Its a little bit sketchy, but it may be of interest:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/300497725/tongan-volcanos-eruption-unlikely-to-slow-climate-change
The main points: “Tongan volcano’s eruption unlikely to slow climate change……. NIWA said that in 1991 Mt Pinatubo released 15 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide into Earth’s atmosphere. This resulted in the global temperature dropping by one degree Celsius for the following year and a half. Currently, there are no indications of extreme levels of sulphur dioxide in the stratosphere, meaning that the Tonga eruption most likely won’t impact the planet’s temperature…….”.
I’m not a scientist so cant offer more information on the climate aspect of this. However our air force is currently doing reconnaissance flights to assess the extent of damage to property.
Thanks for the link Nigelj. I looked further and the initial estimate is 0.4 Tg SO2 vs 20Tg for Mt. Pinatubo:
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/natural-disasters/will-tonga-volcanic-eruption-affect-global-climate–81149
Besides the sulfate aerosol effects, two interesting things remain to be discovered :
Will the sea surface albedo anomaly from floating pumice be significant ?
How extensive and far downwind will the ocean fertilization effects spread ?
Mike, in fact the data points to the Southern Ocean warming at depth: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20781-1
thanks for the confirmation
Thanks for this reference. And thanks for all of your previous comments on our pathetic global “climate” condition through the years. Agreed. (What’s five trillion dollars of annual government fossil (and fissile) handouts anyway?)
Well, there are one or two areas of interest scientifically that you neglected to mention, atmospheric sensitivity to a doubling of the concentrations of CO2 being tops among them.
Tommy, that is because this wasn’t a post about sensitivity, which you’d know if you’d bothered to read it.
This post refers to the quieting of controversies about the temperature record, not about the range of sensitivity estimates made by various methods. Gavin has talked about efforts to bring the latter into closer agreement in other posts. Within the CMIP6 model ensemble, for example:
#NotAllModels
Making predictions with the CMIP6 ensemble
Well, we’re already at +1.2 C and we haven’t yet doubled CO2, and we’re no where near even Transient Climate Sensitivity +1.2 C , much less Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity.
But we do know that ~3.2 million years ago when CO2 last stood at ~400 ppm earth was 2-3 degrees warmer than it is today, that there was no West Antarctic ice shelf, and that sea level was ~25 m higher than it is today.
So what does that tell you about ECS per doubling of CO2, Tom?
It tells any sane, rational person that ECS per doubling is at least somewhere between +2 and +3 C, if not a bit higher.
And we already know that even +1.2 C is getting dicey.
Discussion too of the ‘irrelevance’ of the global mean changes to ‘normal people’ has also faded as the contribution of the overall warming has become more and more obvious in the incidences of extreme heat waves, intense precipitation, coastal flooding and wildfire intensity.
This strikes me as an obvious and intentional Straw Man. I don’t recall any papers saying average temps were irrelevant. Were there any? I do not recall hearing of a single one, and it certainly hasn’t been trending issue at any time I can recall over the last 15 years.
There have been laypersons like myself saying the *messaging* about climate should focus on long-tail *effects*, but even I, one of the most strident persons I know of on that framing, and *the* most strident on these pages, has never said averages are irrelevant, only that the extremes in weather and long-tail outcomes are the most relevant for policy and for getting the attention of the populace.
Ah, I just checked the author of this post, though there was no need: Gavin. Is there a more reticent climate scientist? I sincerely doubt it. Yes, we do need input from across the spectrum, so the most reticent have a role in maintaining sober dialogue, but when you, Gavin, argue from Straw Men and engage in belittling both fellow scientists (Arctic CH4, e.g,) and laypersons with comments like this, it’s inappropriate. The issues are too large for this sort of thing. We’re all in danger, after all.
As an FYI: the argument that global averages are meaningless is a VERY common one in contrarian circles – just go over to WUWT for a bit and you’ll see it all over the place.
I may be wrong, but FWIW your response strikes me as a poster child for over-interpretation.
And “the contribution of the overall warming has become more and more obvious in the incidences of extreme heat waves, intense precipitation, coastal flooding and wildfire intensity” doesn’t strike me as especially “reticent.”
Gavins statement does not appear to be a strawman. Killians statement “I don’t recall any papers saying average temps were irrelevant. Were there any?” seems like the real strawman, because the article specifically referred to “discussion in the blogosphere” not scientific papers .
“A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”. (wikipedia)
How is all of this supposed melting of the Antarctica ice sheet going to happen when this record for cold was recently set.
South Pole posts most severe cold season on record, a surprise in a warming world
October 2, 2021 at 8:45 a.m. EDT
The chill was exceptional, even for the coldest location on the planet.
The average temperature at the Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station between April and September, a frigid minus-78 degrees (minus-61 Celsius), was the coldest on record, dating back to 1957. This was 4.5 degrees lower than the most recent 30-year average at this remote station, which is operated by United States Antarctic Program and administered by the National Science Foundation.
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-antarctica-cold-idUSL1N2RZ1X4
“The cold temperatures recorded in 2021 have been attributed to a “strong circumpolar vortex” Rick Aster, professor of geophysics and department head geosciences department at Colorado State University, told Reuters (here).
A circumpolar vortex, also known as the polar vortex, is a band of intense winds that bring a pool of extremely cold temperatures to the South and North Pole (here), (here).
The circumpolar vortex kept the region “unusually isolated from the rest of the atmosphere, and thus unusually cold”, Aster said (here).”
…
““The daily/week/yearly variations in the weather of Antarctic are really the ‘noise’ that is associated with a long-term trend of 30 years or more, and we call this longer trend climate change. So, some metric of the past 6 months does not matter. The concern is for the longer-term trend of average change over decades.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257035697_Fifty-year_Amundsen-Scott_South_Pole_station_surface_climatology
Ummm, the melting of the Antarctic ice sheets is occurring in the summer months not winter (this should be obvious to anyone with any sense at all) so severe cold during April to September (winter in the southern hemisphere) really has little to no effect on the long term melting. For melting look at the increasing summer temperatures and more importantly the increasing heat content of the summertime ocean water which is undercutting and melting Antarctic glaciers where they interface with the ocean.
But surely you don’t expect JDS to let reality dissuade him from asking how Antarctica is gong to melt during Austral Winter, do you?
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/trend
By chance I came across this article (literally !) just after having downloaded the latest sets of HadCRUT5 data, up to December 2021, from their website.
URL : https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut5/data/current/download.html
My understanding (which may well be wrong in the details !) is that the “HadCRUT.5.0.1.0 analysis” version (AKA the “Infilled” version, in the top half of the page) is destined to replace the old “Cowtan & Way / C&W” dataset (which was halted following release of data to June 2021) while the “HadCRUT.5.0.1.0 Non-infilled data” version (in the bottom half of the page) will replace HadCRUT4 (still only updated to November 2021, it is unclear whether an “up to 12/2021” version will be released “for historical / comparison purposes” or not ….).
NB : In my opinion providing both “Infilled / Interpolated” and “Non-infilled / Exclude ‘No Data Available’ areas like the Arctic” versions for comparison purposes is a good thing, while your “HadCRUT5 [is] coming around to interpolation” declaration can be interpreted as meaning that you have heard that the “Non-infilled” version is going to be retired rather than updated.
.
By my calculations the results are :
Dataset … 2021 ranking
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Copernicus (ERA5) … 5th
GISS … =6th
NCEI … 6th
HadCRUT4 (to November) … 6th
HadCRUT5 (Non-infilled) … 6th
HadCRUT5 (Infilled) … 7th
BEST (Air) … 6th
BEST (Water) … 6th
RSS (V4) … 6th
UAH (V6) … 8th
I get “HadCRUT5 (Infilled)” as the only surface dataset / reanalysis product ranked 7th (or lower).
Am I missing something ?
The quote “Depending on the product, 2021 was either the 5th, 6th or 7th warmest year” could also be given as 2021 being =5th with 2015 and 2018 in the SAT records.
In the TLT records, 2018 was a bit cooler than 2015 & 2021 and dropped down while the El Niño years 2010 and 1998 were both raised up a few places. So in RSS TLT 2015 & 2021 become =6th and now below 2010 while in the trend-defying UAH record they also drop below 1998 into =7th.
“How is all of this supposed melting of the Antarctica ice sheet going to happen when this record for cold was recently set.
South Pole posts most severe cold season on record, a surprise in a warming world. …”
Did some experimenting in my small kitchen. My stove still works if leave my subzero door open. Just curious, how far away from warm ocean currents, well below the ocean surface, from the South Pole?
Jim Eager says 19 JAN 2022 AT 1:53 PM
But surely you don’t expect JDS to let reality dissuade him from asking how Antarctica is gong to melt during Austral Winter, do you?
How much of the ice sheet is melting today at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station today, Jim Eager?
Weather in South Pole, Antarctica
Weather TodayWeather Hourly14 Day ForecastYesterday/Past WeatherClimate (Averages)
Now
-26 °C
Snow flurries. Broken clouds.
Feels Like: -40 °C
Forecast: N/A
Wind: 28 km/h ↑ from Northwest
Location: Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station
Current Time: 20 Jan 2022, 16:50:06
Latest Report: 20 Jan 2022, 12:50
Visibility: 5 km
Pressure: 978 mbar (666 mbar at 2771m altitude)
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/antarctica/south-pole
Fact: Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station sits at an elevation of 2387 m (9301 ft), 1234 km (771 miles) from the coast.
That climate change deniers like JDS keep citing the temperature, weather conditions and lack of melting at the pole, high atop the ice dome, over 1000 km from the coast, is an inescapable testament to their undeniable stupidity, and JDS never fails to deliver.
The chill was exceptional, even for the coldest location on the planet.
The average temperature at the Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station between April and September, a frigid minus-78 degrees (minus-61 Celsius), was the coldest on record, dating back to 1957. This was 4.5 degrees lower than the most recent 30-year average at this remote station, which is operated by United States Antarctic Program and administered by the National Science Foundation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/10/01/south-pole-coldest-winter-record/
How does Jim Eager respond to this information? I will never know since the powers that be on this phony site will never allow this to see day light where even weather reports are off limits, right Gavin.
“New Record for Coldest Place on Earth, in Antarctica
Scientists measure lowest temperature on Earth via satellites
[…]Using new satellite data, scientists have measured the most frigid temperature ever recorded on the continent’s eastern highlands: about -136°F (-93°C)—colder than dry ice.
The temperature breaks the 30-year-old record of about -128.6°F (-89.2°C), measured by the Vostok weather station in a nearby location. (Related: “South Pole Expeditions Then and Now: How Does Their Food and Gear Compare?”)
Although they announced the new record this week, the temperature record was set on August 10, 2010.” http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131210-coldest-place-on-earth-antarctica-science/
Congratulations. You were irrelevant (on temp record) and wrong (on putative censorship), both.
Tedious.
The comparison to UAH makes use of the re-analyses JRA-55 and ERA5, which incorporate radiosonde data and possibly GPS radio occultation (GPS-RO) data. Other re-analyses would also likely show a divergence with UAH, as would analyses of radiosonde data and GPS-RO data. Sources on this below, for those who want to examine the data:
page S36: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/102/8/2021BAMSStateoftheClimate.1.xml
https://psl.noaa.gov/data/atmoswrit/timeseries/
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/19/jcliD190998.xml
And some further context on the heterogeneities in Spencer + Christy’s UAH analysis that help explain why it’s such as outlier:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atot/34/1/jtech-d-16-0121.1.xml
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/28/6/jcli-d-13-00767.1.xml
[ https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atot/30/5/jtech-d-12-00131_1.xml ]
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/29/10/jcli-d-15-0744.1.xml
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/23/jcliD200023.xml
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/30/1/jcli-d-16-0333.1.xml
As the RealClimate article hints at, Spencer and Christy have a long history of under-estimating global warming via their spurious adjustments in their UAH analysis. So it’s no surprise to see them continuing to do so.
“Clearly, the lower troposphere does not warm at night and cool in the middle of the day. We question why Christy and Spencer adopted an obviously wrong diurnal correction in the first place.”
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.310.5750.972
“Although concerns have been expressed about the reliability of surface temperature data sets, findings of pronounced surface warming over the past 60 years have been independently reproduced by multiple groups. In contrast, an initial finding that the lower troposphere cooled since 1979 could not be reproduced. Attempts to confirm this apparent cooling trend led to the discovery of errors in the initial analyses of satellite-based tropospheric temperature measurements.”
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1216273
A post from R. Spencer from 2019 includes the following statements:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-rss-noaa-uw-which-satellite-dataset-should-we-believe/
“All satellite datasets now include adjustments for both [an early diurnal drift; the orbit decay ] of these effects.”
(which should deal with most of your comments as they seem outdated)
“we chose to cut off the NOAA-14 processing when it started disagreeing substantially with AMSU.”
“Clearly, the RSS, NOAA, and UW satellite datasets are the outliers when it comes to comparisons to radiosondes and reanalyses”
“RSS, NOAA, and UW continue to use all of the NOAA-14 data through its entire lifetime and treat it as just as accurate as NOAA-15 AMSU data”
He seems not only to provide a good explanation for the discrepancy with all other of those datasets, but also a better scientific approach to the data.
Yebo Kando,
You assert that Spencer provides “a good explanation for the discrepancy with all other of those datasets” as well as “a better scientific approach to the data.” The 2019 account you quote is based on Christy et al (2018) which I would suggest is a particularly deficient piece of work.
If you compare UAH TLT with RSS TLT, it is quite evident that the problem at a global level is one of calibrating the satellite data. That is the discrepancy between RSS & UAH 1979-to-date records is found solely in the decade mid-1990s to mid-2000s. And any explanation whatsoever that Spencer and his colleagues presents that does not address that fundamental discrepancy, directly or otherwise, can be dismissed as denialist nonsense. Christy et al (2018) fails in this regard, this dispite the paper expending a lot of words on satellite calibration.
Do remember this bunch have quite a record for incompetence (as Atomsk’s Sanakan’s comment describes) so take what they say with a big pinch of salt.
>> the discrepancy between RSS & UAH 1979-to-date records is found solely in the decade mid-1990s to mid-2000s
Spencer writes:
“From late 1998 through 2004, [..] the NOAA-14 satellite carrying that MSU had drifted much farther in local observation time than any of the previous satellites, we chose to cut off the NOAA-14 processing when it started disagreeing substantially with AMSU. ”
>>can be dismissed as denialist nonsense.
Unless of course he further justified their approach by comparing to independent data:
“Clearly, the RSS, NOAA, and UW satellite datasets are the outliers when it comes to comparisons to radiosondes and reanalyses”
which he did!
In that case of course it does not come done to his word against yours, but as I wrote :
“He seems [..]to provide [..] a better scientific approach to the data.”
I understand this is a blog, but for the sake of a scientific appearance you might consider to tune down your slur a bit and focus more on the topic, which you missed once already, as did the other two responders!
Yebo Kando,
The words you quote are indeed written by Spencer but do not amount to a hill of beans.
So Spencer boldly asserts that it is the use of NOAA-14 is the reason for the discrepancy. But, as you understand, Yebo Kando, “this is a blog” in which Spencer makes his bold assertion. Christy et al (2018) does mention UAH “truncation of NOAA-14 data in 2001” but this is not set out as a key difference for the discrepancy. Rather Christy et al insists “The key metric that shows the greatest divergence among the satellite datasets is the linear trend over the period examined here (1979–2016)” and then discusses the discrepancy with RSS as though it were pre-2000 not post-mid-2001.
Spencer also says in that blog “our UAH dataset is now considered the “outlier” among the satellite datasets” and then points to Christy et al (2018) as showing evidence which he says (in his blog) shows the opposite and it is “the RSS, NOAA, and UW satellite datasets are the outliers.” But this grand analysis of Christy et al (2018) appears not to be very convincing. Consider IPCC AR6 WG1 Chapter 2 Table 2.5 which shows Global TLT ‘observed change’ 1980-2019:-
So Christy et al (2018) has not convinced anybody compiling IPCC AR6. UAH TLT remains the “outlier,” and if you find such evidence a “slur” against the reputation of the muppets at UAH, get used to it.
Yebo,
“focus more on the topic”
I too try to help elevate the level of discourse here, often to the annoyance of some of your current responders. However, that requires that all participants practice sound scientific communication rather than engaging in rhetoric, including you.
At this point, all you have done is repeat quotations from… yes, a blog… and make the claim that that is a “better scientific approach”. Well, OK, why don’t you explain in your own words why that approach is “better” than the approach of all the scientists that have been cited above.
It isn’t at all constructive to repeat the same thing over and over, and it is usually an indication of a lack of actual understanding.
YK: He seems not only to provide a good explanation for the discrepancy with all other of those datasets, but also a better scientific approach to the data.
BPL: As his signature to the Cornwall Alliance statement attests, he has made up his mind on the subject and will not deviate from his views whatever further evidence turns up. That’s the furthest possible thing from the scientific mindset.
I do not know or care much what this might be, but is seems completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Uh, no. At least only if it is meant to represent something completely other than surface/near-surface warming.
This comment is strangely empty of any facts, why did you make it?
It doesn’t seem to you a little disingenuous to state “I’m not the outlier; all the other datasets are the outliers.” It demonstrates a rather poor comprehension of what an outlier is.
Re: “A post from R. Spencer from 2019 includes the following statements”
Why would I care what Roy Spencer says on his denialist blog when it isn’t backed by published evidence?
“Like the vast range of other non-peer-reviewed material produced by the denial community, book authors can make whatever claims they wish, no matter how scientifically unfounded.
[…]
The general lack of peer review for the denial books is a common feature of the vast body of literature produced by the climate change denial community, ranging from blogs to newspaper op-eds to policy briefs from CTTs.”
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0002764213477096
Re: “(which should deal with most of your comments as they seem outdated)”
Actually, the comments + cited evidence show Spencer + Christy’s long history of repeatedly distorting the UAH record in a way that conveniently under-estimates warming. Yet you go back to trust them anyway, despite their poor track-record.
And no, the mere fact the UAH now includes adjustments for “an early diurnal drift; the orbit decay” does not mean these issues are outdated. For example, there’s no good reason to think they’ve done those adjustments correctly. You would be aware of that if you read the links cited to you before:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/28/6/jcli-d-13-00767.1.xml
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/29/10/jcli-d-15-0744.1.xml
Re: “He seems not only to provide a good explanation for the discrepancy with all other of those datasets, but also a better scientific approach to the data.”
No, he doesn’t, as you would again have known if you read the published research cited to you, instead of believing the non-peer-reviewed claims a contrarian made on his blog. For instance, that wouldn’t account for UAH’s discrepancy with AIRS, since AIRS does not use NOAA-14 MSU. See Dr. Schmidt’s post above, backed by published research:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aafd4e
Parallel point for radiosonde analyses, IASI, MODIS Terra/Aqua, and GPS-RO, since those analyses don’t use NOAA-14 MSU. And you’d need to think the adjustments made on the re-analyses are wrong as well, since their trend also diverges from UAH:
page S36: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/102/8/2021BAMSStateoftheClimate.1.xml
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9301434
[update to: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/10780/1078005/Global-surface-skin-temperature-analysis-from-recent-decadal-IASI-observations/10.1117/12.2323190.short?casa_token=nYAv4SV82LwAAAAA%3avyUxkGKYk__Lg72bQ_pfynn7QjPb3K9_3AFEq_b4q6Esw4JAI_W0Aq0Bk1-cS_ZVw32g_ewpePM&SSO=1 ]
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/12/2/218/htm
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/19/jcliD190998.xml
https://psl.noaa.gov/data/atmoswrit/timeseries/
So, Yebo Kendo, you had a choice between:
1) the UAH team with a decades-long history of documented distortions that repeatedly under-estimated global warming in a way that failed replication by other research teams
2) multiple research teams with replicated warming trends from diverse data sources such as satellite MSU/AMSU, radiosondes, AIRS, IASI, MODIS Terra/Aqua, and GPS-RO, much of which is also aggregated in re-analyses.
You chose 1; i.e. you cherry-picked the debunked outlier.
I wonder why…
This is a revelation that Gavin A. Schmidt actually ‘thinks’ that this comment made by JCH adds to the quality of his bogus site’s credibility; “Did some experimenting in my small kitchen. My stove still works if leave my subzero door open. Just curious, how far away from warm ocean currents, well below the ocean surface, from the South Pole?”
Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53°F (0.85ºC) from 1880 to 2012, according to theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see page 3 of the IPCC’sClimate Change 2013:
https://www2.ucar.edu/news/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years
This is a record that still holds after 103 years.
“On 13 September 1922, a temperature of 58°C (136.4°F) was purportedly recorded at El Azizia (approximately 40 kilometers south-southwest of Tripoli) in what is now modern-day Libya…………. The WMO assessment is that the highest recorded surface temperature of 56.7°C (134°F) was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley) CA USA.”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00093.1?af=R&
News flash:. Allowing a comment to appear here does not constitute an endorsement by Gavin.
As witness the appearance of your latest incoherent effort.
You got that right! JDS posts more nonsense than a small child babbling to his puppy!
Most Americans don’t know how to read graphs.
Americans can’t read graphs.
Please don’t be silly.
I’m completely serious. If you think I’m being silly then you are out of touch with reality.
For the last half century, American Society has been losing it’s ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality.
They no longer have the intellectual tools to evaluate and integrate evidence.
The ability to perform simple math and interpret simple graphs has been lost.
This is why science fails in America.
last half century?
Been going on much longer than that. Since the very beginning. But it is getting worse and more extreme by the day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XirnEfkdQJM
My god, look around.
No, the ability to perform simple math and interpret simple graphs has not been “lost.” Nor has most of American society lost the ability to distinguish between reality and fantasy.
What *has* happened is that know-nothings, grifters and ideologues now have the ability, via social media, to be heard in a way that they never could before. Consequently, they are more influential in society generally. This is still bad enough, though, to create what I have called an epistemological crisis.
Or, #EpistemologicalCrisis
Circular (non)reasoning.
What you’re saying is essentially “They NEVER HAD the intellectual tools to evaluate and integrate evidence.” …. what’s changed is the arrival of Social Media to take advantage of that entrenched weakness and lack of ability.
So where VD is suggesting it’s something that has been lost over the last 50 years your argument is to say it’s always been lacking.
American collective society has never been able to effectively distinguish between fantasy and reality. And it’s ability to perform simple math and interpret simple graphs has never been there .. bar the elite better educated upper classes I suppose.
Who is more out of touch with reality would make a great debating topic!
Just 4 in 10 US adults perform above Level 3 -the ability to interpret graphs and solve simple mathematical problems.
Just six in 10 struggle to “recognize and work with mathematical relationships, patterns, and proportions expressed in verbal or numerical form; and can interpret and perform basic analyses of data and statistics in texts, tables and graphs.”
The people you are trying to convince with graphs are entirely incapable of comprehending what you are showing them.
This is why they have remained unconvinced for the last 40 years.
Repeating the same failure with expectations that anything is going to change is itself, a
denial of reality.
Xrrc, nope, not what I said, or am saying.
Vendicarian, why would you assume that my communication on RC is the only style I employ? The RC audience isn’t typical. I adjust accordingly.
I am now 62 years old, and when I left high school, it was obvious to me that my generation were inferior to the previous generation.
Over the years, each succeeding generation has been increasingly more feeble minded and incapable of rational thinking.
This decline started way before social media existed, and it accelerates sharply in the 1980’s with the election of the Alzheimer’s president, and the promotion of nonsense like trickle down economics, free trade and corporate self-regulation, by conservatives and Libertarians.
Lies were sold as reality, and propaganda was fed to the public. Capitalism’s destruction of the family was promoted and schools were left unequipped with the task of raising the nation’s children in the absence of parenting.
The result has been a spiral of ignorance, which along with social deviance in the form of “entertainment” has produced generations who aspire to be drug dealers, porn stars, or grifters looking to do anything to survive, and completely incapable of advancing society morally, ethically, or in terms of engineering or science.
The U.S. relies on imported talent for it’s intellectual workforce, so little of it is home grown.
Vendicar,
I suggest you take a look at this Krugman column:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/03/opinion/inflation-consumer-confidence.html
And my comment here:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/01/forced-responses-jan-2022/comment-page-2/#comment-801108
You are correct that there has been a conscious effort to change the political dynamic, but it has only worked because gradually, post-WWII, there have been real changes in the social dynamic.
My comment to Ray references the Obama election, but before that we had “the 60’s”, with the various “rights” movements, which threatened the dominance of the top 25%… White Men, (and the women who ‘stand by’ those men).
Even people with scientific education/leanings tend to avoid unpleasant realities. When you characterize racism, or rejection/ignoring of scientific reasoning and facts, as specific properties of individuals, you are missing the point. These people are exhibiting a “normal” aspect of human behavior, in response to their status situation.
Nasa Earth Observatory site notes “”From the start of satellite observations in 1979 to 2014, total Antarctic sea ice increased by about 1 percent per decade.” And ERAI doesn’t jibe with ERA5. Why has that been kept a secret so long? Here’s food for thought at https://www.abeqas.com/growing-recognition-of-growing-sea-ice/
That’s clearly polemical in nature, and frankly, not very intelligent.
For example:
Nope. For instance, winds play a huge role in sea ice formation & concentration, so it’s very possible that you could see extent trend up without cooling.
Later, the author goes on to say:
I’m not sure what “your own socializing of everything” is supposed to mean, but the fact that seasonal CO2 trends are driven largely by temperate vegetation cycles is merely conventional wisdom. That the author doesn’t know this–or, perhaps, affects not to know this–is a huge red flag.
Finally, this:
I for one have no difficulty whatever imagining Gavin saying that quite straightforwardly. But the reason that neither he, nor anyone else responsible, would say that now is that 2014 marked a peak in Antarctic SIE. Those interested can look at the record here:
https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index
Needless perhaps to say, the record now doesn’t look like there’s an increasing trend. But that that fact is ignored, 7+ years on, speaks volumes about the intellectual integrity and motivations of the author.
The site is clearly just another amateur (and amateurish) denialist propaganda effort.
MW: ”From the start of satellite observations in 1979 to 2014, total Antarctic sea ice increased by about 1 percent per decade.” And ERAI doesn’t jibe with ERA5. Why has that been kept a secret so long?
BPL: It hasn’t. But the increase in Antarctic sea ice is matched by the 4-5 times greater DECREASE in Arctic sea ice. In addition, the Antarctic figures are inflated by icebergs calving off glaciers at an increased rate as the glaciers speed up due to global warming. So it really doesn’t prove what you think it does.
Michael Wallace,
Your comment that the trend in Antractic SIE 1979-2014 has “been kept secret” is more puerile nonsense than it is science (RealClimate being a science website). I note you link to a MW&A webpage (where presumably MW=Michael Wallace) that shows a graphic of the time series of annual average Antarctic SIE with a linear trend 1979-2020 of 0.006M sq km/yr (so +0.55%/decade) which is about right. This trend would be a tiny bit lower 1979-2021 as the 2021 average (this NSIDC data) was 11.46 M sq km, a little lower than 2020’s 11.58 M sq km and thus below trend.. The trend 1979-2014 was over 3x higher suggesting your “about 1 percent per decade” for the period 1979-2014 is seriously underestimating the trend for that period.
I also note on your webpage you boldly assert that “if sea ice trends up, only cooling can explain.” I would suggest that this is not true. As this CarbonBrief post explains, the wobbly nature of Antarctic SIE record is far more a wind thing than a temperature thing.
And while it is correct to say that the trends in Zonal Temperature show the fastest rates of warming are in the high northern latitudes and a portion of high southern latitude is cooling (mainly due to the increase in melt water flooding off Antarctica), this is not entirely the same as saying (as you do elsewhere on that webpage) “for several decades, based on satellite reanalysis products, the Earth appears to have been cooling across its southern third, stable across its middle, and warming across the northern third.” Note that the graphic you present is certainly not showing trends over “several decades” while GISS is not a “satellite reanalysis product” and “geostrophic T” is a bit of a mystery. (Maybe that is the secret you talk of.)
Finally, you suggestion that you are a brave explorer valiantly presenting home truths which have “not been explored in public by any, except here (on you webpage)” is a little ludicrous given the same presentation appears in this RealClimate post of last week.
Another useless mind hack posting by a climate denier. More wasted time and space and verbiage. More wasted CO2 emissions generated by Real Climate scientists publishing disinformation and word salad nonsense!
Great job increasing global emissions just that little bit more for future generations with no benefit to anyone
Hey Gavin, you do know there are hundreds of other websites with this kind of bullshit denial and ignorance can be posted and discussed, right?
I note others have given a pretty rational explanation of what may be the cause of this apparent discrepancy, which I will leave to them. But I’d ask you this. We are talking about, worried about, the fate of the entire planet, which if you follow James Lovelock, which I do, means we’re talking about the health of one huge interconnected organism, Gaia, which has feedback loops in which geology and biology interact to preserve conditions for life on earth. So even if it were true that the Antarctic is cooling, there’s no rationality to using this fact to diminish the seriousness of global warming. For instance, as a holistic human organism, you could put one foot in a bucket of ice, and the other foot in a bucket of water at 50 degrees, and because the average is 25 degrees, that’s a very comfortable temperature, everything’s fine and fancy, and what is there to worry about? But 50 deg C will give you 3rd degree burns within 5 minutes. There’s literally no rationality in any argument that picks one reassuring statistic and ignores the totality of what is happening. No science needed for this realisation, just a modicum of common sense.
What is the latest regarding minimum temperatures going up faster than maximum ones?
And is there a breakout of two warming trends: one for average minimum temperatures and one for max?
Robert Bradley Jr. ,
There is a graphic of global land diurnal temperature at the bottom of BEST’s Regional Climate Change: Global Land but I reckon the analysis is perhaps a little too simplistic in its methods, The data graphed (see the bottom graph on that webpage) runs to December 2018 which is perhaps not as up-to-date as you were asking given this is under an OP discussing ‘Another Dot on the Graph’, that dot being for 2021. The BEST ‘Data Overview’ page does present the monthly global land TMAX & TMIN up to April 2021 (so a ”a breakout of two warming trends: one for average minimum temperatures and one for max “) and thus allows another 28 months extension to the diurnal data. (The numbers up to 2018 are not identical to the Max & Min numbers on the ‘graph’ page but appear to give similar diurnal numbers.)
But I would be cautious using this data. The problem is that boldly taking TMAX-TMIN = Diurnal Range is taking one big number from another big number which is a always recipe for plotting error rather than anything meaningful.
So (caution in mind) the BEST data shows a diurnal range falling (indeed accelerating) down -0.75ºC 1850-1984 before rebounding +0.07ºC 1984-2008 and running roughly flat 2008-2020.
The literature I am aware-of addressing global diurnal temperature is a little thin (and not giving anything like an up-to-the-present analyses with a ”dot” for 2021). These three papers are the ones cited by AR6 which kicks-off a short bit on duirnal saying “AR5 identified diurnal temperature range (DTR) as a substantial knowledge gap.”
<a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2015JD024584Thorne et al (2016a) shows seven different DTR series including the BEST series which appears a a bit of an outlier. The other six show little decrease in diurnal range prior to 1950 (some even suggesting an increase prior to 1950) with (five of the six) the post-1984 DTR showing no increase but holding constant.
There is a follow-on paper (I think) Thorne et al (2016b) which I haven’t ever read.
Sun et al (2018) perhaps adds the odd year to the data (but then perhaps not) with the same findings as the majority of data sets shown in Thorne et al (2016a).
Just a friendly reminder..keep in mind that this Bradley’s reputation is built on his experience at Enron where he first earned notoriety promoting the fraudulent company. His history shows he is a full fledged fossil fuel shill and climate denier. One should probably ponder the motive of any question he poses before responding.
https://www.desmog.com/robert-l-bradley-jr/
CCHolley,
As with all AGW deniers, Robert Bradley Jr. indeed presents ridiculous argument to back up his delusion.
Bradley’s interest in the diurnal temperature range (and the zonal temperature rises) appears to be to point to the maximum temperatures at any one location and brand them as the crux of AGW, the height of the problem. Thus if the cooler nights are warming faster than the hotter days under AGW, that means AGW isn’t so bad after all. Ditto if it is the colder latitudes that are experiencing the highest rate of warming under AGW. There is perhaps also the faster warming of the continents rather than the oceans which works the other way in terms of the rising of the high temperatures to all-time heights. But, of course, the really-hot places for maximum temperatures are desert regions where nobody lives, so that probably isn’t a problem either. This is termed by Bradley Junior as a “benign warming distribution” and described in his little 2003 book with the following bullshit:-
The warming is, of course, “concentrated” throughout the year although the rates of warming are (in GISS LOTI) marginally warmer in autumn (Oct & Nov +15%) and Spring (Mar +6%). The resulting ‘lack of concentration’ through the rest of the year is quite trivial at -7%. And if anyone enjoys reading bullshit, Bradley Junior’s little book is quite well written. And the explanation given for “the increase in surface warmth in the USA (being) one third below the global average” is another exemplar of the bullshit presented throughout Junior’s little book.
Wonderful! I live in Florida and according to Bradley since it is the higher latitudes that are warming the fastest I don’t need to worry about AGW! My daytime temperatures aren’t going up so fast and, by gosh, warmer nights and winters will be just great for me!
Ummm, yes maybe, except for one minor detail–the higher warming latitudes is where all that ice and snow is that is going to melt and put me and all my nice neighbors under water. In fact, it is already a given that at the current levels of CO2 most of Florida will be lost to rising seas. It’s just a matter of time. But, hey, low lying areas are just a small portion of the total land mass so why worry?
mar: – ” The literature I am aware-of addressing global diurnal temperature is a little thin ”
Not the literature is thin – but your climate knowledge and mind, which you loudly sell us at every corner of the forum as ” climate science “.
Anyone armed with some basic climatic instinct can tell you that the decreasing diurnal temperature range will also explain why the smaller the range, the more effective the greenhouse gases;
– and the larger the range the less effective the greenhouse gases.
So, in a world of rising GHG concentrations, smaller temperature ranges are no surprise at all.
Only about wondering idiots – one can wonder.
Yes, the change in diurnal range question is an interesting one. Not for the reasons RB Jr thinks but as the “fingerprint” of GHG warming. Clearly if there are to be positive feedbacks from increased water vapour then this range must be reducing measurably. The problem is that other factors also affect diurnal range.
1) UHI has a huge impact on reducing the range.
2) thermometer speed has a (smaller?) effect by increasing the range
3) Nothing else comes to mind, but I am sure there are further complications
I don’t believe I have the knowledge or data to quantify these impacts with any sort of accuracy but I will offer some anecdotal information.
Regarding UHI, I like to compare the temperature records for Sydney and Newcastle. Both reasonably sized coastal cities a mere 120km from each other on the east coast of God’s Country. They both have more than 70 years of quality records. The difference is that Newcastle weather station is out on the headland and has had no significant build up. Sydney is also only a few hundred meters from the water, but it has had a 13 lane freeway built 27m from the stevenson screen. It also has several > 30 storey buildings within 200m. If ever you wanted to see UHI in action, Sydney would be the place. Sydney has a clear trend to reduced diurnal range. Newcastle has a tiny trend of increased diurnal range.
Regarding thermometer speed, my understanding is that modern thermometers would detect maybe a 0.2 degree higher maximum, but virtually the same minimum (happy to be corrected) so that is the sort of change we might expect over the length of the record.
Also worth mentioning, the CET has daily min/max recorded since 1878. It shows a trend of increasing diurnal range of 0.0028 degrees/year, or 0.4 of a degree over the entire record
Global warming causing warmer summer nights has been known about for ages, and has serious consequences for human health:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/09/upshot/record-breaking-hot-weather-at-night-deaths.html
Gavin, it seems that Jordan Peterson did not read your post, no?
‘Word salad of nonsense’: scientists denounce Jordan Peterson’s comments on climate models
Speaking on Joe Rogan’s podcast, Peterson claimed the climate was too complex to be modelled accurately, which was quickly shot down by scientists
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/27/word-salad-of-nonsense-scientists-denounce-jordan-petersons-comments-on-climate-models?utm_campaign=Carbon%20Brief%20Daily%20Briefing&utm_content=20220127&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Revue%20Daily
I will first admit an intense dislike of the pseudo-intellectual, Jordan Peterson. It’s not just that his logic is unsound, but the intellectual arrogance with which self-promotes his dubious ideas really grates. Any true intellectual I’ve ever heard leaves room for debate and doubt – he leaves room for neither.. He is a global warming denier, or at least a global warming dismisser, i.e., someone who, if pressed, might reluctantly admit to some truth in global warming theory, but will deny its importance or will seek to contextualise it as just another episode in the variability of the Earth’s climate. I saw him on a recorded public interview when a young lady in the audience asked about his views about global warming. He suddenly bristled, raised his voice, stiffening in his chair, basically this intellectual got just noticeably angry – dismissed the concerns and said he much preferred Bjorn Lomberg’s views than the dubious modelling and catastrophising of other climate scientist (I paraphrase, it was several years ago) – unfortunately the interviewer didn’t follow up, nor was the lady allowed a reply to his dismissal. I suspect too that he was able to dismiss the question more easily because the questioner was a female. See also https://medium.com/the-future-is-electric/jordan-peterson-climate-change-denier-and-faux-science-lover-b9db7d58f05f
Has Jordan Peterson ever completed a thought? Has he ever made any concrete statement?
He speaks in half sentences, and paragraphs that have no content often because they are self-contradictory.
He was recently resigned from the U.of Toronto, and I can understand why.
He was a giant stain of pointless on that university.
Jordan Peterson is a classic example of stupidity sent to college. He is a bullshitter who simply parrots ignorant opinions of the reactionary great unwatched back to them in slightly more sophisticated language. I have never found the man to be right about a single thing in his life.
Yet another reason to dismiss Jordan Peterson as an arrogant, insufferable crank
As is being demanded of Spotify what Real Climate needs is “a clear and public policy to moderate misinformation on its platform”.
How much would the antarctic sea ice have to expand to cause global cooling? What’s the trend in fast ice?
@JCH I believe you’re reversing cause and effect.
There appears to be a historic (last 2000 years) correlation between the average June/July/August temperatures in the northern hemisphere and the recorded sea levels, especially for the UK.
https://saxonhistory.co.uk/FORMS-Page-Builder.php?Pg=SeaLevelRises
This project appears to use local relative sea level changes as if they were global, and outdated temperature reconstructions (Alley, 2000). Not convinced, sorry! Try https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change for something more up to date.