This month’s open thread. New commenting rules (as described last month) remain in effect. Basically, be substantive, one comment a day, remain polite.
UAH TLT has been posted for May with an anomaly of +0.17ºC, down on April’s +0.26ºC, but above March’s +0.15ºC, Feb’s -0.01ºC and Jan’s +0.03ºC.
May 2022 sits as the 7th warmest May on the UAH TLT record, behind 1998, 2016, 2020, 2017, 2010 & 2019 and warmer than May 2015, 2002 & 2014.
2022 is =82nd in the all-month UAH TLT rankings.
After the chilly early months of 2022, the year continues its climb up the start-of-year rankings with the more recent ‘warmer’ months, climbing from =9th for Jan-Apr to now =7th Jan-May.
Recently I have been having a bit of a read of Hansen’s important 1988 paper. I had read many times that his temperature projections were accurate and that the world was tracking closest to scenario B, so thought I would check the projected concentrations.
Here is how I interpret his text:- https://photos.app.goo.gl/bvj9SCLmEi9iBCjd8
I haven’t bothered with the CFCs as Hansen couldn’t really have predicted the success of the Montreal protocol. Two things stand out to me on these plots:-
1) He has done an amazingly good job with CO2. the concentration has matched the BAU scenario beautifully.
2) The CH4 on the other hand is a terrible match. I understand that even now there is no real consensus on what is driving the CH4 curve and where it will head, but my big worry is that even the initial conditions were significantly wrong. This applies to both absolute value and rate of change..
Does anyone have any thoughts on how he could have got CH4 so wrong?
Keith Woollard,
I don’t think it is correct to say “he” got CH4 wrong. Hansen et al (1988) was using the CH4 data available at the time. Back then direct measurements of atmospheric CH4 had only just begun so the rate of annual increase would still have been difficult to nail down. And the variation of CH4 levels round the world are quite large (presumably as it is a short-lived GHG) making a global average more difficult to derive. As this RC item from 2018 says in respect to the CH4 estimates used by Hansen et al “estimates of global CH4 have been revised down since the 1980s.”
Keith Woollard,
You ask if I bothered to look at the graphs you linked-to and insist “he” (meaning Hansen, Fung, Lacis, Rind, Lebedeff, Ruedy, Russell & Stone: a.k.a. Hansen et al) in the paper submitted Jan 1988 had “5 years of Manau Loa CH4 data to work with.”
So how would that be? Did these climatologists have access to a time machine? At best, any NOAA annual CH4 data available from Mauna Loa or anywhere else would have been for three years and that assuming the work reported in Hansen et al (1988) was started late enough in 1987 for the 1986 annual value to be available to them.
As it was, the data used by Hansen et al (1988) was sourced from elsewhere and apparently ran only to 1979 as the values used (as per this data file) show estimated values post-1979.
You may find this all rather strange but did you read the comment you were replying to? You may find it less strange if you did!!
Piotrsays
KW Jun1: The CH4 on the other hand is a terrible match.
Stop the presses! “35 years ago Hansen didn’t get everything right!”
He “terribly” missed the projection of future CH4 – a gas whose cycle was not well known at the time, a gas that has 200 times lower atmospheric concentration and order of magnitude shorter residence time in atm. than CO2 – both of which make its RELATIVE conc. intrinsically MORE prone to any natural or human imbalances, a gas whose anthropogenic emissions are much more non=point than those of CO2 (wetlands, rice fields, permafrost), and unlike Co2 have been coming disproportionally from developing countries that in mid-1980 didn’t have a great record of tracking their CH4 emissions. Given ALL THAT – I would have been suspicious, if Hansen got his CH4 predictions BETTER.
So the real question is: why would K. Woollard bring it up here in the first place?
It can’t be – to improve current climate models, since we are not using Hansen 1988 modelling of CH4 today.
If, on the other hand, he wanted to make a point that Hansen’s best guess about a gas vulnerable to changes, about which nobody knew much at the time, and without benefit of knowing future emissions – wasn’t very successful, then, duh, Mr Woollard you must be one successful Monday-morning quarterback.
Instead, my Occam razor suggests a more plausible answer – given Mr. Woollard’s past denialist posts – he is now employing a classical denialist logic -> if even one aspect of climate change was, at some point in the past, wrong, then the entire body of climate science must be wrong (“ weren’t you guys predicting global cooling“?). And this interpretation is supported by the Mr. Woollard’s line:
“ even now there is no real consensus on what is driving the CH4 curve and where it will head, but my big worry is that even the initial conditions were significantly wrong”
This would make sense ONLY if the science didn’t progress from 1988 modelling of CH4 by Hansen. But this is a circular argument – a failure of a 1988 model CANNOT prove the failure of the current models.
But, of course, I may be wrong and you have a more logical explanation. Shouldn’t be difficult – after all, you remember what you wanted to achieve with this post, right?
Keith woolland
I do not bother about that so much because I am a chemist and furter aquainted to make up my own mind on that fundament first.
CH4- moor- gas is the result of anaerobic decay of dead plant material, think in tems of cellulose, that is a major component of wood.. The practical general formula is (HCOH)n , Carbo- hydrates, from CO2 + H2O -> O2 + sugars, where the oxygen from the CO2 (and not from the taken up water , shown by isotopic methods) goes right back to the atmosphere where it came from..
Then by anaerbic decay, the very combustible gas <CH4 is set free and it ends up in peat, lignite, and coal. The oxygen content probably goes into water by that "carbonification" process. , All this goes by microbic activity, that slows down at low, and speeds up at high temperatures. Thus a cause of such humus decay into CH4 and coal and mineral salts is higher temperature. A fact that is also obvious in soil science.
Then the activity of Ruminants.
They eat a waste lot of grass and plant material that contains a waste lot of calories (=very combustible) but pure of ammonium and calsium magnesium phospate sulphur potassium iron and so on. So they simply lay down and rest and chew it again, the microbes of their stomack do the same as in the anaerobic wetlands, and they burp up allmost all those calories in the form of the very flameable gas CH4 in order to concentrate the more valuable remainings, . A moose cow can milk up 2 large calves in the season with very valuable highly concentrated flesh and bones and furs and blood and fat for the winter or for the further carnivores.
If they could not burp up and fart away all those very combustible calories they wold have to sport it away or lay there yellow hot and breathe very fast to radiate it away.
This is what I need for explaination, and what James Hansen has said or not said about this, I do not bother.
In addition to this you have the leaks in the worlds gas pipelines, that are known to be consciderable in our days.
And the arctic tundra will also burp up a lot more CH4 when thawing.
Animal life and microbial life is very old on earth, so one can say that it has got aquainted to improoving its own environment and life conditions in tempered and arctic zones, a positive feedback,…. by theese metabolic effects.
Good stuff. I learned a lot. Perhaps you can answer a question I’ve pondered:
How much raw petrol would have to escape to equal the GHG potential of burning the rest at short and long time scales?
prlsays
I think that where Carbomontanus mentions gas, he means gas (and specifically methane), not gasoline.
Carbomontanus: if you want to use archaic names for methane, it’s marsh gas or swamp gas (or firedamp, if you want to be even more obscure or are talking about coal mines), not moor gas.
The word gas is french, etymological of CHAOS.. It was possibly coined by Lavoisier at about 1780, who found out about “chaleur” and “æææææ caloriøøøø” in french.
They found that heat behaves rather similar to gases, that they knew from before, and checked up and found that it has absolutely no weitght or mass, thus it cannot be material.
But gases, different kinds of airs were earlyn on shown to have mass and weight. Thus material.
In old books I have about gases in Danish “luftarter” that means sorts of air. Gas & pluralo Gase is German.
Gas- oline means detillates of special oils It has also been called Petrol- Eter.
Your american “gas” for light petroleum -eter is confusing and inferiour., misconsceived.
We say “bensin” that is from Carl and Bertha Benz. In russian Bensjine.
French “Lessangsøøøø!”
for a carburetor, that is near non- sense, we say Forgasser, German Vergaser. You should say evaporizer.
I would never say “gass” about Bensin, that is a liquid.
Gas- Gass Myr-gass, Jord- gass is not archaic at all. It is very precise and well understood. The very Russia and EU is calling it Gas, and know what it is about. Russian Gaz and Gazprom. Ros- neft is from russian nafta. They rather sell diesel and gasoline,m and not Gas. that is metan etan propan butan.
A gas- bottle or tank does not contain gasoline.
LNG what is that? and LNG- tankers? Gas- pipelines? Gas-fields?
Rather try and be consequent.
I am to keep order in it and have to think chemically about it and thus cannot say “Gas” for light aliphatic liquid hydrocarbons. For instance know the difference between a bunsen burner and an eaporizing kerosene- burner. Not confuse the fuels there. So I cannot allow myself any kind of terms that are confused and have come astray.
prlsays
My handle is not not prt, and I think you’ve entirely missed the point I was trying to make.
Fox News’s lead global warming skeptic has launched a crusade to recast the Climate Wars as a titanic struggle between Captain Planet and Scrooge McDuck
“Chill. Killian, the climate policy Overton Window has been thrown open by the prospective interaction of galactic cosmic rays with dark matter dust bunnies”
Suggest some beer for them of course, then they wake up and react.
============000
We have plenty of good beers in Norway now. It is better than ever.
Once upon a time in old Plzen in Bohemia, their beers only got worse and worse. So the citizens in the Ratskeller or Bürgerstuben at the market square came together and voted against it with large mjaority. As the beer waggon arrived at the market square in Plzen then, they went out and emptied all the barres on the pavements and into the sewages.
The brewery master was quite despaired, he scratched his head and asked “What shall I do?”
So he wote a letter to his colleague in Bayern and asked for advice.
Who wrote back:
“First of all, you must have clean water. Then choisest malt, and choisest bohemian hops. But then you need this new yeast that just has come from South America. It sinks to the bottom and it rather goes at low cellar temperature, take andvantage of your quite cool, bohemian caves and rather brew it down there.
Thus we have the very successful Pilsner Urquell, that is actually rather a Bayer Lager, and further the Budveiser from Ceske budjejovice next by in Bohemia.
That yeast was identified by the Danes at the frameous Carlsberg laboratories and called Saccaromyces carlsbergiensis.
In fact, Beer or Bierro as such is the result of that certain and fameous saccaromyces.
Whereas ” ale” and “pale ale, brown ale” is the old norse Øl. That is rather top- yeast and wild yeast at higher and room- temperature.
It is really good as well and also under culture. I have tried Carlsbergiensis from Schous brewery in Oslo and it is exellent on malt- extract. But for ciders and wines I rather use wild yeast chateau origine, different from cave bottom lager and cellar- fermentation.
What rather matters is the substrate substance with low enough pH and proper mineral content also for the yeast. That can be bought as “yeast salt” but a spoonful of common NPK fertillizer plus a dash simply of common clay makes it as dirty as any “Chateau” and swetting feet for squashing it. Fruit- acids, pH and malt acids in a proper rural atmosphere or climate is what makes the difference.
Hops is new and snobbish, hardly more than 150 years old. The autenlic ale-øl is made with choisest plant and bush hot extracts from species like common spruce Picea exelsior, or Juniperus communis or Artemisia vulgaris (Vermuth) or the finest Klosterbrau from Myrica gale L.
Citrus is splendid but it must be original Mandarines Appel-Sins of the strong and bitter kinds.
nigeljsays
“Geo-engineering could be the answer to rising sea levels”
This seems possibly useful, low negative environmental footprint, and at least it has been quantified. However I wonder what the wider implications are of stopping established ocean currents like this.
Antarctica’s total contribution to sea level rise has been estimated to be 8 to 14 mm. (~20-40%)
Ocean currents are similar to winds in the atmosphere in that they transfer significant amounts of heat from Earth’s equatorial areas to the poles and thus play important roles in determining the climates of coastal regions. In addition, ocean currents and atmospheric circulation influence one another.
The gigantic amounts of heat are guided to the right, left, above the curtain and also via the atmosphere passing by the breathtaking dumb 50 billion grave and find other sections of the coast where they release their energy.
If you want to divert this heat exchange under water with 200km “water sails”, you can also try to buy and fill milk into a bird cage ($ 2,50) – or put up a prohibition sign ($ 5,-) on the glacier “!Melting forbidden!” —
The measurable result (SLR) of such foolishness will remain the same at a significantly reduced cost.
nigeljsays
MS
“The gigantic amounts of heat are guided to the right, left, above the curtain and also via the atmosphere passing by the breathtaking dumb 50 billion grave and find other sections of the coast where they release their energy.”
Yes and away from the base of the specific glaciers that are at risk of destabilising. That’s the whole idea. Sigh.
And you criticise the costs of the ocean currents barrier scheme. What is the cost of YOUR climate scheme of storing water on land to stop sea level rise? For example one metre of sea level rise? I’ve asked before twice. and I’m still waiting to hear an answer and see the detailed analysis.. I wonder why that could be? Is it that you don’t know how? Or are you afraid it could be embarrassingly high?
You still seem to think the idea of hanging curtains in the sea is sensible and intelligent.
One could almost believe that you traveled the seven seas as a blind stowaway for years.
Have you ever heard of tides (in the relevant Antarctic region ~ 2m), ebb and flow?
This alone will move and exchange trillions of cubic meters also under Thwaites Glacier THAT YOU CAN’T STOP WITH A HOLEY UNDERWATER CURTAIN !
So where is the equivalent of a $70 billion cost and what idiot is footing the bill???
Maybe I’m also a little more relaxed about the calving of glaciers and their drifting to warmer regions.
Similar to the net effect of clouds, which reflect solar light but also reduce the emission of thermal radiation into space – sea ice also creates an insulating cap across the ocean surface, which reduces evaporation and heat loss to the atmosphere.
As a result, the weather over ice-covered areas tends to be colder and drier than it would be without ice.
N.: ” I’ve asked before twice. ”
No, you have already asked 5 times about the profitability of my concept – and always received an answer. Holding back water over land is a good deal if only because 1m³ of water has a price (ask your local water company).
– Whether you invest in a rain barrel for your home,
– a rainwater retention basin in your community,
– or in pre-Columbian strategies ( https://hidraulicainca.com/acerca-de-hidraulica-inca/hidraulica-inca/ ),
you always get a great deal precisely calculable and guaranteed value in m³ of water.
In my region with average rainfall of ~850L/m² per year and water prices of $2.50/m³ the profit situation is as follows:
1. Rain Butt for my 175m² roof = $318.75/y of profit/saving on expensive drinking water for the homeowner / 148.75m³ stay in the groundwater of my region.
With larger rainwater retention basins (e.g. 10 million m³/y), which discharge the cleaned water into the groundwater, the procedure is simply identical: investment costs / annual yield of m³ of water.
You can estimate the global potential of rain retention on urban areas alone (> 1.5 million km²) if you generously allocate 25% roof area and a further 25% municipal retention area with an average annual rainfall (e.g. 750mm/y) to urban areas.
The global potential of this milkmaid calculation = 562.5 km³/y = ~ 42% SLR/y (1.6mm)
The strategy of the ancient Incas applied to areas of agriculture, forests and moors with a total of ~75 million .km² has the far greater potential.
The controllable distribution of water in the area not only offers good protection against heavy rain and flooding, but of course the same infrastructure ALSO helps against drought, dryness and extreme temperatures in summer.
In addition to the added value of more water, you can offset the investment costs against the consequential costs of crop failures, flooding and sea level rise.
If you have understood that the earth’s crust is often up to 30km thick over land areas and the annual SLR here is only +9mm/y, you don’t need to worry about 1m SLR (up to 2100 ?). Your ~ 150,000km³ of water I easily fit into the 2,000,000km³ of sand in the Sahara.
On 22.5 million km² of global karst rock, down to a depth of at least 3km, we have a holey Swiss cheese with millions of cavities into which the World Trade Center fits in.
nigeljsays
MS
“You still seem to think the idea of hanging curtains in the sea is sensible and intelligent”
I didn’t say the curtain scheme to stop warm ocean currents scheme looks ‘ intelligent’. I said it looks possibly useful. I was interested in feedback. Thank’s for yours. The advantage of the curtain idea is its very localised, so if it didn’t work or had unanticipated side effects it wouldn’t matter too much. The problem with other geoengineering schemes at a global scale is the possible negative side effects that could obviously be very concerning. I do think the curtain idea has potential if we MUST use high tech. based geoengineering.
“Have you ever heard of tides (in the relevant Antarctic region ~ 2m), ebb and flow? This alone “will move and exchange trillions of cubic meters also under Thwaites Glacier THAT YOU CAN’T STOP WITH A HOLEY UNDERWATER CURTAIN !”
Tides will wash over the top of the curtain but that is not of concern. The idea is to stop the warm ocean current deeper down getting at the base of the glacier. The tides would wash some of the warm warm water around the sides but only some. I suspect the authors would have considered all this.
“Maybe I’m also a little more relaxed about the calving of glaciers and their drifting to warmer regions.”
I’m not. The experts on sea level rise (as opposed to musicians with biology degrees and people like me with design degrees) say that the problem is the speeding up of glaciers moving towards the ocean and this is going to accelerate sea level rise and I see no reason to doubt their investigations. Again to convince me otherwise you have to point to something specific in the related peer reviewed research papers you believe is flawed.
“No, you have already asked 5 times about the profitability of my concept – and always received an answer. Holding back water over land is a good deal if only because 1m³ of water has a price (ask your local water company).”
I don’t recall mentioning profitability. I asked about 1)cost effectiveness compared to other options and 2) how much it would cost per metre of sea level rise or any other specific reduction you want to use.
“Holding back water over land is a good deal if only because 1m³ of water has a price (ask your local water company).”
Your suggestion appears to be using rain water tanks as opposed to our system of pumped water supply. The use of rain water tanks like that does appeal to me and may cost the homeowner less in the long run, although you have more limited supply of water and other problems to consider. And the resultant foul water has to go somewhere, so you either need septic tanks which are not the most wonderful of things or conventional foul water drains and treatment plants. Its far from clear just how much water would actually be stored “on land” and it intuitively wouldn’t store many years of sea level rise, and it still doesn’t give me an ultimate number to put on the costs of stopping a given quantity of sea level rise that way (per unit of sea level rise).
Personally I think your generally multi facetted and natural and holistic approach to agriculture and housing has merit, but it would only make a small difference to sea level rise, and your problem is you over sell what your ideas can do. If you were a bit more realistic you would get less push back.
“You can estimate the global potential of rain retention on urban areas alone (> 1.5 million km²) if you generously allocate 25% roof area and a further 25% municipal retention area with an average annual rainfall (e.g. 750mm/y) to urban areas.” The global potential of this milkmaid calculation = 562.5 km³/y = ~ 42% SLR/y (1.6mm)”
This appears to be one years worth of sea level rise. Slightly helpful but falls far short of a grand solution.
“and the annual SLR here is only +9mm/y, you don’t need to worry about 1m SLR (up to 2100 ?). Your ~ 150,000km³ of water I easily fit into the 2,000,000km³ of sand in the Sahara.”
Maybe so, but imagine the horrendous costs of getting all the water there from other regions / countries / continents You would probably need to turn half the worlds economy into a huge pumping project! It just doesn’t sound realistic or ‘sensible”..
“Holding back water over land is a good deal if only because 1m³ of water has a price (ask your local water company).”
Using water that has been ‘pumped’ by natural evaporation is a good idea because otherwise humans will use power to do the pumping. (And in theory, you could extract power from rainwater–well, more than ‘in theory’ because of course that’s precisely how conventional hydropower works in ‘the big picture.’)
However, over time it will have essentially zero effect on sea level rise because input to storage, and output from it, must equilibrate over longer terms. 42% of 1 year’s SLR sounds great–but considering you’ve got to increase storage by the stated amount EVERY YEAR to keep up with the current mean annual input, as a solution to SLR it’s just ‘Not On.’
One must think clearly about fluxes versus stocks here.
– ” I don’t recall mentioning profitability. I asked about 1)cost effectiveness compared to other options and 2) how much it would cost per metre of sea level rise
ms: —Profit is still = sales – costs!
nj: – ” although you have a more limited water supply and other issues to consider. And the resulting dirty water has to go somewhere, so you either need septic tanks, which aren’t the prettiest things, or traditional dirty water drains and treatment plants. It’s far from clear how much water would actually be stored ‘on land’
ms: — The fact that you don’t understand that a homeowner who uses rainwater from his roof for the garden, toilet and washing machine to ensure lower water bills and higher groundwater levels in the region – makes me a little helpless.
You also don’t need new sewage pipes, septic tanks, or any other shit you put in my sense or your nonsense of a rain barrel.
LMAO – stopping an ocean current with a curtain – big climate theater for just $ 70 Billions / 20y
GWYNNE DYER (author of the article) has worked as a freelance journalist,.. originally trained as an historian…, finishing with a Ph.D. in Military and Middle Eastern History .
… SO HE MUST BE A REAL CLIMATE EXPERT
Piotrsays
Gwynne Dyer does not need to be, and is not claiming to be, a climate scientist – he is not presenting his own climate ideas – he is a freelance journalist, and does what
good journalists do: talks to climate scientists and presents results of THEIR research and ideas to the wider public, in a language more accessible to them than the original research papers.
And uses his education (“Ph.D. in Military and Middle Eastern History”) to discuss social and political implications of the climate change in terms of human conflict – for instance, in his 2008 book “Climate wars” he identifies several areas of potential major military conflicts that can b brought on by climate change (e.g. the war between the nuclear Pakistan and India – over the water from the rivers coming from the Himalayas). He also talked how Pentagon considers climate change a threat to the security of the US – through the destabilization of entire regions and ensuing wars, through growing radicalism in the most affected area, and the flood of climate change refugees potentially destabilizing the US and its allies. And i doing so he might get to some of the American public that the climate scientists and activist couldn’t – Pentagon can hardly be accused of pushing a leftist agenda…
And if you consider scientific research in the effects of climate change a necessary prerequisite to discuss climate change the public what your scientific credentials in climate science, Mr. Macias “LMAO” Shurly?
You, Gwynne Dyer and the relevant climate scientists presented with their ideas have one thing in common: – you are incapable of distinguishing limp crap from tight, tangible physics.
A geoengineering concept requires a transparent, qualitative and quantitative analysis, from which the described idea of diverting ocean currents is far removed.
The ways in which stupidity reproduces itself are as unfathomable as the ways of the Lord. What would have happened if a D. Trump’s suggestion of drinking disinfectant to fight the Covid-19 virus had been considered and circulated as a serious option by alleged journalists and freelancers? — The same – first you become blind and then you even risk your life.
P.: – ” what your scientific credentials in climate science, Mr. Macias …? ”
– With a degree in biology, I specialize in photosynthesis, light spectra and general theories of evolution.
As an artist, I first transformed the (scientific) knowledge of evolution into painting, sculpture and dance theater – later into everything that moves. Also in concepts for climate protection.
As an entrepreneur and world champion in lamp efficiency, I am also the coolmaster of our solar system with water-cooled LED technology and PV-T modules.
While artists like you search for the causes for decades – I find and invent solutions with which I often kill 7 birds in one go. If that still doesn’t seem like enough qualification to you – my first professional training over 40 years ago, even before I graduated from high school, was a diploma as a fire brigade squad member.
And if you (also due to global warming) have the feeling that your house or forest is on fire or that your basement is often under water – I’m actually responsible for helping you.
“Keep calm” and “Danger recognized – danger averted” are the first principles you learn.
However, there is a danger to the climate and nature not only from increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, but also from the drying out of the land surface caused by humans.
Like many other “climate experts” here and elsewhere, you still don’t realize that too little evaporation over land impairs, among other things, the flow of energy from the surface into the atmosphere and cloud formation – (regardless of how much greenhouse gas is currently in the atmosphere) – and thus the global temperature increases due to a decreasing cloud albedo.
It is no coincidence that my holistic climate protection concept for lowering sea level rise and earth temperature has the character of a fire-fighting emergency measure.
Piotrsays
Macias Shurly: “ [Gwynne Dyer is] incapable of distinguishing limp crap from tight, tangible physics”
…. brave words from the mouth of somebody who cannot even understand, much less answer, science-based questions on his hare-brained schemes.
M.Shurly:” What would have happened if a D. Trump’s suggestion of drinking disinfectant to fight the Covid-19 virus had been considered and circulated as a serious option by alleged journalists and freelancers?”
“ alleged journalist and freelancer” Gwynne Dyer:
“Trump’s bizarre behaviour — the endless, shameless lies, the narcissism, the suggestions that people should inject bleach, etc.”
But don’t let it stop you, Mr. Shurly, from discrediting Dyer by tarring him with the very hubris he was opposing.
Macias Shurly: “ With a degree in biology, I specialize in photosynthesis, light spectra and general theories of evolution.”
“ MUST BE A REAL CLIMATE EXPERT” (c) M. Shurly
Steven Emmersonsays
Maybe.
I wish the geo-engineering “solutions” would add a disclaimer when they don’t address ocean acidification.
Killiansays
It’s not like there’s an ecosystem down there or anything…. Can it be done sustainably? No. What happens if it fails? How does changing those currents affect global currents?
Sad how the craziest crap will get billions in consideration while simpler, natural, faster options – that are long-term solutions – get little funding.
They believe that they can overwhelm and keep up with the sea serpent after first having denied and ridiculed him.
But that is not sustainable.
The Sea Serpent has been given as an argument and as the cause for disaster in Norway under Danish royal rule and regiment order and stood to court on landf with Royal Danish stamp. Case dismissed and the human prosecuted set free again, The sea serpent got the blame.
Beat that!
There is a lot of things that you have to learn over there in the states before you can behave.
The sea serpent is now on the FAO, WMO , WHO and UNESCO and IPCC red list of endangered species. The Pope has suggested and defended him in the form of Laudato si.
More promptly than in recent months, the RSS TLT numbers have been posted for May (although the Browser Tool still not updated) with an anomaly of +0.53ºC. As with UAH TLT, this is a sizable drop from April’s anomaly, April having been the highest of the 2022 year-to-date (+0.68ºC), May 2022 becoming the second lowest of the year-to-date.
May 2022 sits as the 8th warmest May on the RSS TLT record (7th in UAH TLT), May 2022 in RSS sitting below Mays 2020, 2016, 1998, 2017, 2010, 2019 & 2021 and above 2015, 2014 & 2018.
May 2022 is 106th in the all-month RSS TLT rankings (=82th in UAH).
After the chilly early months of 2022, its year-to-date RSS ranking continues to nudge higher (from 11th spot Jan-Mar, =7th Jan-Apr) to become the 7th warmest start to the year (=9th in the trend-defying UAH TLT). With strong La Niña conditions having persisted, it looks perhaps as though the wobbly TLT record will place the full 2022 just outside the top 5 while the SAT records may rank the full year 2022 a couple of places higher.
Maybe all that model-stuff is good for something after all, eh.
Birdsays
I don’t really understand the perspective here.
If global warming isn’t a problem, everything is fine and society will continue on as normal. However, if global warming is real and the scientific establishment of the world, using the most up-to-date and expensive measuring tools, is collectively correct, everyone will die horribly.
Why would someone not want to prevent everyone they know and love dying horribly? For a while I just thought all global warming deniers were very old people who would die of natural causes soon, but surely some of you must be on the youngish side, or even have children or grandchildren whose well-being is important to you. Why do you hold the beliefs that you do? Even the worst dictators in the planet’s history wanted to preserve the lives of their own people. It just doesn’t make sense.
Radge Haverssays
Hi Bird,
It’s not an either/or situation.
I think it’s fair to say that RealClimate is run by top tier climate scientists. An implicit operating assumption is that there should be a firewall between the science on one hand and policy/politics on the other, and that the science should flow out, but the politics should not flow in. There may be some wiggle room in the porosity of the wall, The idea, however, is to stick to issues of evidence and analysis in terms of climate science and go where the facts lead for better or worse without prejudice or partisanship.
The comment section is more free ranging and may respond to the implications of the science based on a range of scenarios (see the IPCC reports) ranging in severity from disturbing to terrifying (depending on your temperament). Where we’re headed depends on what we do and how fast we do it — globally. So although the prevailing viewpoint here mainly acknowledges anthropogenic global warming, there can be disagreement on the particulars and how best to respond, which is healthy. Then there are the trolls, cranks, and other assorted beasts…
Why these contrary characters hold the views that they do has been a topic of discussion here over the years. Elsewhere it has been the subject of books, studies, essays, and a whole lot of commentary.
Welcome to the thunderdome.
Mr. Know It Allsays
Bird,
Please list all of the things you are doing in your daily life to fight climate change. We need a good example to follow.
Thank you.
Ray Ladburysays
I’m responding to stupid statements like this on the Intertubes from imbeciles who think the problem can be solved by individual action alone.
J Doug Swallowsays
Ray Ladbury
Please list all of the things you are doing in your daily life to fight climate change. We need a good example to follow.
The ERA5 re-analysis has been posted for May showing a global SAT anomaly of +0.26ºC, not greatly different from April’s +0.28ºC with the 2022 highest anomaly being March’s +0.39ºC and lowest Feb’s +0.23ºC.
May 2022 becomes the =5th warmest May on the ERA5 record (below 2020, 2016, 2017 & 2019, equalling 2021 and above 2018. May 2022 becomes =66th highest all-month anomaly on record.
In terms of the start of 2022, after five months it continues at 5th warmest.
MA Rodger says; “May 2022 becomes the =5th warmest May on the ERA5 record (below 2020, 2016, 2017 & 2019, equalling 2021 and above 2018. May 2022 becomes =66th highest all-month anomaly on record.
In terms of the start of 2022, after five months it continues at 5th warmest”.
Those who say global temperature continues to increase cannot answer why these records still hold in the United States. 25 states have record highs temperatures from the period 1930-1937. I will even list them; Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia & Wisconsin adds up to 25 states whose record HIGH have all occurred between 1930 & 1936.
These 13 states listed below had their record highs occur BEFORE 1930 & 1936, such as; Alaska, California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia & Washington.
The above in formation came from this source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records
A total of fourteen states set record highs in 1936 that obviously still stand. They occurred from July 5th to August 10th although July 10th has four of the records for high temperature in include Maryland which tied the record set in July 3, 1898 of 109°F, the rest that set records that year are New Jersey, Penn. & Virginia.
Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin are the 26 states that set the record temperature for cold AFTER the record for high temperature was set. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records
John Pollacksays
Those who say global temperatures continue to increase can answer why the records hold, and have already done so the last time you brought this up. For those who may have missed it and are wondering, here are some of the reasons:
When you have a small sample, lots of statistical oddities appear that have little to do with any underlying trend. JDS is using a small sample, and then marveling at a statistical oddity. State record highs and lows are a small sample because the U.S. is only a small part of the globe, state records are only a very small part of daily temperatures, and the areas of states are extremely uneven.
If you want to get a good idea of a trend, it is best to use an average of a large amount of data, and then weight it by area. This is what the annual global temperature graphs represent.
That said, the 1930s were a period of extreme drought in the central U.S. This produced several exceptionally hot summers and set many records as the heat spread around. It so happens that we haven’t had a multi-year drought of similar intensity in that region since. Some of it is due to sheer luck, and some to improved agricultural practices with regard to soil erosion.
Now, why is JDS posting inaccurate summaries of his chosen data set? Putting aside ties, Colorado’s record high was in 2019, not in the 1930s. Of the states where he claimed that the record low came AFTER the record high, there were numerous states where the records were tied in multiple years, so which came first depended on what tie year you picked. (e.g. Connecticut, with record highs in 1916 tied in 1995, and lows in 1943 tied with 1961.) More curiously included are Georgia, with a record low in 1940, and highs in 1952 and 1983. Washington state had a record low in 1968, but the high was in 2021. The case of South Dakota was a real gem! Their record minimum came on Feb. 17, 1936 – FOLLOWED by a record high on July 5, 1936 (later equaled in 2006). JDS, do you realize that July comes AFTER February, or were you asleep the day they covered the calendar in primary school? Or perhaps you took somebody else’s tripe from another website, didn’t bother to check it, and then dumped it here?
J Doug Swallowsays
John Pollack says; “When you have a small sample, lots of statistical oddities appear that have little to do with any underlying trend. JDS is using a small sample, and then marveling at a statistical oddity. State record highs and lows are a small sample because the U.S. is only a small part of the globe, state records are only a very small part of daily temperatures, and the areas of states are extremely uneven.”
What will John Pollack have to say about the world record high temperatures?
What follows are world record high temperatures:
North America (U.S.), Death Valley, Calif.; July 10, 1913 (134F)
Asia; Tirat Tsvi, Israel, June 21, 1942, (129F):
Australia ,Cloncurry, Queensland; Jan. 16, 1889 (128F):
Europe, Seville, Spain,Aug. 4, 1881 (122F): (for what ever reason, this one has been changed to what is shown below)
Europe Athens, Greece (and Elefsina, Greece) July 10, 1977 118.4 48.0
South America, Rivadavia, Argentina; Dec. 11, 1905 (120F):
Canada,Midale and Yellow Grass, Saskatchewan, Canada; July 5, 1937 (113F):
Oceania;Tuguegarao, Philippines, April 29, 1912 (108F):
Persian Gulf (sea-surface): Aug. 5, 1924 (96F):
Antarctica; Vanda Station, Scott Coast, Jan. 5, 1974 (59F):
South Pole, Dec. 27, 1978, (7.5F).
Highest average annual mean temperature (world): Dallol, Ethiopia (Oct. 1960 Dec. 1966), 94° F.
Longest hot spell (world): Marble Bar, W. Australia, 100° F (or above) for 162 consecutive days, Oct. 30, 1923 to Apr. 7, 1924. Notice anything regarding the dates of these records? Anyone heard of the dust bowl & wasn’t that in the 30’s? http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001375.html
John Pollacksays
Concerning the supposed world record high temperatures you provided, I say:
1. It’s still a very tiny selected fraction of global temperatures. You can’t use a handful of extremes to show global warming or lack thereof, as several others have explained.
2. The world is over 70% ocean. You have only one temperature record pertaining to the ocean, and it’s outdated. FYI the modern record for the Persian Gulf is 37.6C (99.7F) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0025326X20308845
3. I notice that the dates on several of your other records are also old and inaccurate. For example, Australia and Antarctica. The Feb. 6, 2020 record for Antarctica was 64.9F at Esperanza Research Station, quite a bit above 59F. https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-meteorological-organization-global-weather-climate-extremes-archive
The June 2021 heat wave greatly exceeded a lot of old records in Canada. Lytton reached 49.6C (121.3F). https://www.rmets.org/metmatters/record-breaking-heat-canada
I’ve heard of the Dust Bowl. I haven’t heard why you listed Georgia, South Dakota, and Washington states as having record lows coming after their record highs – when they came BEFORE the highs even in the data set you chose!
J Doug Swallowsays
I would certainly hope that John Pollack is able to notice the year that these records were set.
South Dakota Maximum Temperature 120°F July 5, 1936 GANN VALLEY
South Dakota Minimum Temperature -58°F February 17, 1936 MC INTOSH
In Steele, North Dakota on July 6, 1936 the record HIGH Temperature for the state was 121⁰F.
In Parshall, N. Dakota on Feb. 15, 1936 the record LOW Temperature for the state was -60⁰ F. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records
I hope that John Pollack is with it enough to realize that 10 July 1913 was very close to 109 years ago and that both North and South Dakota Minimum & maximum temperatures were set in the same year, 1936, or 86 years ago
World Meteorological Organization Assessment of the Purported World Record 58°C Temperature Extreme at El Azizia, Libya (13 September 1922)
“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&
John Pollacksays
Yes, 1936 was a long time ago, but February arrived BEFORE July every year, even in the rural Dakotas. Why did you tell us that the record lows in North and South Dakota were set AFTER the record highs? You were also wrong about Georgia and Washington states, by decades rather than months.
J Doug Swallowsays
John Pollack, I hope, is aware of when this occurred last year.
The South Pole Just Experienced Its Coldest Winter On Record
Oct 7, 2021 9:17 PM
The record-breaking average temperature recorded at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station – where the geographic South Pole is located – between April and September was -61.1°C (-78°F), the lowest since records began in 1957. Italian journalist Stefano Di Battista first reported the figures, noting this was -2.5 °C (-4.5 °F) lower than the average for winter months in the preceding 30 years.
The numbers were confirmed by Dr Richard Cullather at NASA’s Global Modeling and Assimilation Office to The Washington Post. Dr Amy Butler, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA, told the Post the colder season was likely due to the stronger polar vortex, which appeared to have contributed to the unexpected cold around the South Pole. https://www.iflscience.com/the-south-pole-just-experienced-its-coldest-winter-on-record-61199
John Pollack says; 3. “I notice that the dates on several of your other records are also old and inaccurate. For example, Australia and Antarctica. The Feb. 6, 2020 record for Antarctica was 64.9F at Esperanza Research Station, quite a bit above 59F”.
The Question is, why didn’t John Pollack notice this below rega4rding Australia’s record high temperature?
“The Stevenson Screen became a national standard by 1910, but before then thermometers were sheltered in a variety of ways, sometimes resulting in the instrument being in direct sunlight.
For these reasons only those records taken since 1910 are included in the tables of extreme temperatures. There have been cases where Stevenson screens have been affected by bushfires and these measurements are not included. Only data that is contained in the Bureau’s digital database called the Australian Data Archive for Meteorology has been included in these documents”. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/extreme/records/about.shtml
That means that Australia does like NOAA and NASA does with US temperature, just change them to show what you want to make people believe that the planet is getting hotter. John Pollack doesn’t want to comment on this record, I notice.
Northern Hemisphere Highest Temperature 56.7°C (134°F) 10/7 (July)/1913 1911- present Furnace Creek (Greenland Ranch), CA, USA 36°27’N, 116°51’@ -54m (-179ft) )
prlsays
I don’t see anything unusual about statement from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM).
Here’s a quote from a BoM climatologist about the temperature measurement setup in Cloncurry at the time of the 1889 “record” temperature:
Among the more famous not to make the record books was the 53 degree temperature taken in Cloncurry, in north-west Queensland, in 1889.
“We found documentary evidence for that which showed the measurement was taken in – would you believe – a beer crate nailed to the side of a house,” he said. “That would certainly have affected the reading … which was probably somewhere around 47 degrees.” [Climatologist at the Bureau of Meteorology Blair Trewin]
In Australia, standard screens used to cover thermometers in the field came in progressively between 1890 and 1910.
JDS: Australia does like NOAA and NASA does with US temperature, just change them to show what you want to make people believe that the planet is getting hotter.
BPL: When you can’t think of any other argument, just accuse the other side of lying. It’s so much easier when you can just ignore any evidence you don’t like.
jgnfldsays
What is your point? 3, 4, 5, or greater sigma events are extremely rare. By definition. If you want to look at using only extremely rare values in a statistical way to make a sensible inference, you need a large number of them.
Is there any way we can solve this scientific puzzle? Yes. One way is to count the rate at which new records are being set at all discrete locations. Oddly, when such an analysis is done, new hot records are far more common than new cold records. So maybe something *is* happening with extreme record values.
What sort of inference would one make from this observation if one were an honest observer and an honest communicator?
JDS: Those who say global temperature continues to increase cannot answer why these records still hold in the United States.
BPL: Sure they can. There are tens of thousands of records all over the world and they won’t all be broken at once, because temperature and temperature variations are different all over the world. Global warming refers to the global average only.
JCHsays
My father’s ranch was just down the road from the temperature station at Gann Valley where the South Dakota record high was set in the dirty thirties. The Gann Valley giant used to eat Sunday dinners at our house. It’s very easy to explain: bad drought combined with the horrible agricultural practices of the day. The record has since been tied with modern agricultural practices.. South Dakota is considerably warmer now than when I was a kid. It has a noticeably different climate.
J Doug Swallow,
Given you have problems distinguishing ‘global’ temperature from ‘Greenland’ temperature (all very complicated as they do both start with the same letter of the alphabet) and then brand me as “so uninformed” for my trouble, an explanation of this apparent oddity of US temperature records may be entirely wasted on you.
Consider the first of your listed US States – Arkansas. The temperature record (1895-to-date) shows very little warming (a linear trend over the full record of +0.03°F/decade) but Arkansas is only one tiny little bit of a big big planet.
The May temperatures have been posted by NOAA for Arkasas showing an average monthly high temperature for 2022 May of 81.2°F, significantly up on April’s at 71.2°F which should come as no surprise given the annual temperature cycle in the northern hemisphere. May becomes the month with the highest ave max temp of the year so far and sits as the May with the 88th hottest AveMaxTemp on the full 128 year NOAA record for Arkansas, below 1962, 2018, 1896, 2012, 1987, ……
In the all-month ratings, the Arkansas AveMaxTemp for May 2022 sits in a lowly 922nd spot, behind top spot July1980 (99.3°F) and July1954, Aug1954, July1930, July1934, Aug1943, Aug1936, July1901, Aug1980 with Aug1947 (97.5°F) in 10th spot. These AveMaxTemp comprise averaged daily data across Arkansas and with AveMinTemp will become a tiny part of the grand global average for the period in question.
One point that may escape the foolishness of denialists like J Doug Swallow is that these record high temperatures for US states are usually accompanied by lists of their record low temperatures. The record low temperatures are generally older than the record high temperatures, with 33 of the states being so. This is suggestive of a significant warming trend buried within the noisy record high/low data.
J Doug Swallowsays
MA Rodger says; “Given you have problems distinguishing ‘global’ temperature from ‘Greenland’ temperature (all very complicated as they do both start with the same letter of the alphabet) and then brand me as “so uninformed” for my trouble, an explanation of this apparent oddity of US temperature records may be entirely wasted on you”.
I wonder why MA Rodger is unable to understand and factor into his reply to me what I said in my comment that seems to distress him so much; “Those who say global temperature continues to increase cannot answer why these records still hold in the United States”. Just cut the insults and answer the question, MA Rodger. Of course this will never be allowed by the moderators to be seen by MA Rodger and therefore it is one-sided conversation, by design.
JDS: “Those who say global temperature continues to increase cannot answer why these records still hold in the United States”. Just cut the insults and answer the question
J Doug Swallow,
Given your Global/Greenland nonsense from last March which I linked-to above, and all the other nonsense you spout endlessly here at RC (which does result in you being bore-holed), why would I even bother explaining “why these records still hold in the United States”? And you branded me back in March as “not educated enough” so why would you even ask me? And if I do explain further, will you put on your clever head and read what I write? Or will you ignore what is placed before you, as you have done countless times in the past?
…
Since 1980 the world has been warming with average global temperatures having climbed above the levels recorded back in the 1930s. Despite this warming, through those 42 years since pre-1980, only on 13 occasions was a post-1980 annual global average temperature higher than all previously recorded annual global averages, thus becoming in turn ‘record’ years; 1981, 88, 90, 95, 97, 98, 99, 2005, 10, 15 &16. (This using HadCRUT5.) So we could say that there is only a [11/42=] 26% chance of the temperatures averaged over the whole year and over the whole globe becoming one of those ‘record’ years for global temperature. This is due to the wobbles that effect global average temperatures.
If the warming trend was greater, there would be more frequent ‘record’ years and conversely, if the trend were less, the ‘record’ frequency would also reduce.
If the wobbles were greater (or at least the variation in wobble size were greater), there would be less chance of a ‘record’ year. If smaller, more chance.
And if the 1930s were relatively warmer or cooler, the run of post-1980 ‘record’ years in which a year could become a ‘record’ year will be respectively shorter or longer.
In a big wide world, there will of course be places that are above average in these matters, and those that are below average, at least in most of these matters. Thus the number of ‘record’ years for different parts of the world will vary. Some will have more ‘record’ years, some less. And likely some will have none at all post-1980.
.
The Arkansas warming trend post-1980 is similar in rate to the global trend but the wobbles are about 4x bigger. As well, Arkansas temperatures hardily get above the 1930s levels. There is but one ‘record’ year post-1980; 2012. The previous ‘record’ year was 1921 (those wobbles at work) with the ranked warmest Arkansas years running 2021, 1921, 1988, 2016 & 1954, 1938. This last one is the one when Arkansas’s state ‘record’ daily high temperature was recorded, the year-of-interest.
But if it is not temperature anomalies but absolute values that are being compared (which is what those state ‘records’ are doing), it is only the summer months which can feature as ‘hottest’. When July & August are considered rather than the whole Arkansas year, the wobbles are greater still, over 5x bigger than global ave wobbles, while the warming trend is now halved. The chances of post-1980 ‘records’ become a whole lot smaller yet there is still one post-1980 summer that gains the ‘record’, 2011. Note that the year-of-interest 1938 sits at a lowly 59th in these rankings. Even if August in Arkansas is examined (rather than Jul&Aug), 1938 only ranks 13th.
These however are average daily temperatures, so we are still not considering averaged daily-high temperatures. For July & August in Arkansas, the daily-high temperatures are even more wobbly, 9x the global annual average wobbles, and the post-1980 warming trend becomes negative for these two summer months. Thus there is little chance of any post-1980 Arkansas ‘record’ for summer high temperature, and indeed none occurs with 2011 being the ranked 4th behind 1954, 1934 & 1952.
1938 again appears at a rather lowely 51st. For August alone, 1938 manages 16th.
Of course, the ‘records’ featured on the Wkikthing page are the highest temperature ever recorded by any single weather station on a single day. Such multiplicity does allow the wobbles to do their work without being averaged out. And so do any recording errors (and biases). The station holding the Arkansas ‘record’ doesn’t show a GHCN value for August 1938 which suggests there are problems with the data for that month, perhaps involving that ‘record’ temperature for Arkansas, perhaps not.
And I’m sure there are many who will draw their own crazy conclusions from that GHCN data, just as they probably believe that Elvis shot JFK and that Prince Philip was a shape-shifting lizard so he isn’t dead but has just shed his skin. And as Prince Philip told me and Elvis last night “While one can never be sure of the prognosis of a collective madness, dear boys, there are steps that can be taken to help effectuate a cure.”
Ray Ladburysays
Actually, it’s been explained to you repeatedly. You just don’t understand enough about extreme value theory to realize that the answer is trivial.
An exercise for the reader:
Flip a coin 20 times and tally the number of heads.
Repeat this exercise and take the highest tally.
Repeat again and take the highest tally.
Keep doing this and look at the number of 20-flip trials between times where the record changes. Report on your results.
jgnfldsays
(teaching moment started by RL continued) … then slightly bias your coin to come up heads (e.g., warmer) by a percent or two. What happens? Do new low values continue to be set? [Hint: Yes. …well up to a run of 20 tails which happens every million times or so at which point you should reset.] Do new high values continue to be set? [Hint: Yes /same caveat.] Do you notice any change in the amount of new tails (cold) versus heads (warm) records? [Hint: Yes. We see the average interval till a new warm record drop slightly and the average interval till a new cold record rise.] Can the biased versus unbiased coins be ID’d (Hint: Yes, given a LOT of flips as extreme values are rare by definition which of course is why deniers so love this “approach”.)
This is the sort of approach one would take if extreme values were the only data points available. Some information can be extracted, but it is limited and lacks statistical power to see true differences. As stated above, this is why deniers so love going this route, of course and I’ve been seeing a lot of such “reasoning” going on lately as all other measures fail to produce enough FUD any more.
Summary: If one is actually interested in looking at reality on some dimension, the best way is generally to use all the data one can gather instead of throwing away every single bit of data on said dimension except for single extreme values. Only a self-deluded idiot/crank or a committed propagandist (take your pick) would do that when the full data are available.
It’s vaguely parallel to the tactic of pretending that we don’t actually understand the physical processes involved, and must rely on probabilistic analysis exclusively to determine whether ‘there’s anything in it.’
Silvia Leahu-Aluassays
Solutions: clean, renewable energy – mobility systems.
If I may, I will promote this particular business as an example of doers in above mentioned space and builders of an electric future, literally and figuratively.
Your family, like mine, can solve the climate emergency if we put our minds and hands to work on solutions.
Killiansays
Supporting and empowering a car-based economy is one of the worst things any human can do. There is nothing good about this in the long run. If you want to promote transportation, support light rail, trolleys, buses, bullet trains. And as little of those as is absolutely needed.
The planet doesn’t care how cute the tech is, it cares that you dig it out of her skin.
And the combustion engine. There is so much propaganda of Thermo- dynamics.. in the climate dispute, from people who hardly know what that is about.
It is PdV = E in a cylinder with tight mooving piston and a crankshaft. One of mankinds greatest inventions.
The crank was patented by the weavers for the rocking wheel spinning machine. So James Watt had to invent the planetary gear to make his doubble action steam engine work because he could not simply use the obvious piston rod to a crankshaft.
Human intelligence, you see, and permaculture, sustainability.
The horses had to sleep and to eat and to rest, else no permaculture horsepowers. But by Watts engine you only have to shuffle coal day and night and inject more water by a feed- pump driven by the same machine and it works, cyclic , sustainable!
.
Adam Leasays
I didn’t think HST or bullet trains were very good environmentally, because energy requirements for movement increase non-linearly with speed. The most energy efficient way to move about is slowly. Bicycles are the most energy efficient way to get about and are good for moving around in the limitied confines of a town or city.
Two problems with rail in the UK:
1. Periodic industrial action results in large parts of it shutting down.
2. It is very expensive. If I want to visit my family who live 240 miles away, the cost of fuel is around £60 even after the surge in energy prices. To go by train costs well over £100. As long as our current way of life (aka capitalism where externalised costs don’t exist on the balance sheet) financially punishes people for trying to make better choices, it is going to be very difficult to put a dent in CO2 emissions. The system has to change.
Killiansays
But god didn’t and it largely does not exist. You know this. 30% of what we produce is unrecyclable, another significant chunk is so difficult to recycle we don’t even really try and the rest is recycled at rates far below current production/consumption.
Again, you know this. Looks like the honeymoon has ended and old habits are re-asserting.
Killiansays
Adam, public transport has obvious advantages over car culture in far less resource consumption, far less ecological damage, greater efficiency, etc.
1. Sounds like a local political problem.
2. No reason it need be expensive – or have any cost. Remember: We are always, even when we don’t say so or even know so, talking about systemic change.
3. Regardless, by every measure, public transport is a better ecological option. (Not my personal first option, but, you know, gotta deal with the pervasive refusal to consider simplification.)
Adam Leasays
I agree public transportation has advantages over car culture. Private motor vehicles are very inefficient consumers of space and one issue with them is the motorist does not pay the full cost. Road accidents and environmental damage don not appear on the motorist’s balance sheet.
1. is a national problem in the UK, and is about the reduction of wages in real terms and unfavourable changes in working conditions. It has been brewing for a while and is at least partly fueled by the worst cost of living crisis in the UK for 60 years. There is now talk of teachers undergoing industrial action for similar reasons.
2. In the current system it must have costs. Public transport is a collection of machines which require fuel, maintenance, infrastructure, and people to operate. All that costs money. The whole system needs to change to something where money doesn’t exist and everyone undergoes voluntary work to get done what needs to be done for the benefit of society. How you get from here to there I have no idea.
Killiansays
Your last point: Yes. And: I do. Come to Clubhouse, Regenerative Governance club.
nigeljsays
Adam Lea
“The whole system needs to change to something where money doesn’t exist and everyone undergoes voluntary work to get done what needs to be done for the benefit of society. How you get from here to there I have no idea.”
With money you can decide what you want to buy. Without money how does it work? Do we seriously go back to the problems of bartering goods? Or does the community decide who gets what goods and services? Imagine the enormous complexity of this given the range of even just the basic commodities. Do we really want some committee deciding on what we can consume? The problems of all that are fairly obvious.
With voluntary work for the benefit of society, I agree it would be nice, but similar ideas were tried by Maos China and the Soviet Union and other very socialistic countries, and people largely do the bare miniumm of work and their work is very poor quality. There are exceptions where some sectors perform well like healthcare, but overall it doesnt seem to work terrirbly well. And yes I know those countries I mentioned are largely autocracies and / or totalitarian states , but their socio economic policies are not unlike what you proposed
.
You also need to get from A to B as you mention. So we need to persuade people. I don’t know how that works because most people seem very intent on working for their own benefit and to accumulate money and material wealth. They are aware of how the very socialistic experiments in China and the Soviet Union, or Venuzuela or Cuba havent worked so well and even their environments suffered badly in most cases, so suggesting something even slightly similar runs into trouble.
Policial parties that support your ideas or vaguely similar ones seem to get very low polling
these days. For example our Green Party in New Zealand. So the public largely seem unenthusiastic. Of course that COULD all change but its hard to see HOW.
I’m certainly not opposed to change per se. And I’m not a huge fan of capitalism as it stands and have no opposition to things like public health systems. I’m just highlighting issues with the ideas you expressed and having a lot of trouble seeing how we would ever get from A to B.
There are other things we CAN do that do seem realistic, like the circular recycling economy, some form of organic or regenerative farming, and perhaps more not for profit businesses. There is some public enthusiasm for these things, so getting from A to B looks plausible, and they appear to be largely benign and workable in the long run.
Killiansays
Nigel, how many times do you need all of these points pointed out? Why are you asking the same questions since Dec. 2016?
To all and everyone exept Killian, who will not bother.
“trolley” is an interesting word, the barbarians and prole- tarians-national-socialists never understood it.
It is old norse by the vikings Trill- Trall-Troll…….. “roll”……… trell Træl .. rail… Rallare Railways…
It is probably Sanskrit, you see…
The wheel shows up in early bronse age worldwide together with pottery..
The Gypsies,, the “Roma” people have now got their flag I have seen that is . Green below and blue above with a big, red , spiked wheel all over it. They were and they are the travellers..
I had to declare myself there and showed that we, the vikings, who rather rather travel at sea in boats when we conquer and rule the world and the situation. A drawn ship on rocks or a human on skis, that travel faster. The turbo jetliners in air is actually a way of gliding and skiing. in large, collective sleighs.
Hr Killian on linguistics have not yet reallized that , todays trolleys and wheelbarrows are severely dilettantic decadent and out of order.
They hardly go offroad. I had to re- construct it. Having glimpsed archaic wheelbarrows before they were extincted and banned, and having had it explained also in public school in terms of archimedian physics.
It is 2 long rods and shafts to a big wheel. Thus you can lift a lot and stear it from behind. Load it up as close as possible to the wheel. But then you need manpower and match- weight to pull it by a rope in the front.
That is the autentic and totally superior wheelbarrow..
The autentic wheelbarrow is rather a social instrument. With that, you also solve the problem of social disorder and unemployment.
And In have found relicts and steel rails for those “wheelbarrows” supported to us by the royal artilleries or rather stolen from there. Of course they neededc that also for the heavy cast iron
and bronse guns on bearing shafts with large wheels, with roaps and wedges,….. and it was further re- cyclede and taken into civil use again after having been borrowed from there.
That is trolley tralle trill roll trail Trillebør (trolley burden) you see.
The chineese have pictured the same very well, one large wheel barrows, with very long shafts ansd a lot of people around pulling.
No chineese wall without Trillebør. (=trolley-barrow)
PS
Yes, I see it now. Even Travel and travellers, , travel is bei9ng busy.
It may be the same troll trail tralle trolley and træl trell., even to roll. DS.
J Doug Swallowsays
The principal reason for the invention of the wheel barrow was to attempt to get people such as Killian up and off of going around on four feet.
I would prefer for you not to assume that I don’t know, use or support the most sustainable means of transportation. I find your comment offensive.
By the way, walking is the best and that’s what I maximize. Nobody in my family owns a car and has intentionally chosen to live in places that are car-independent. However, not everybody has that choice.
It’s about mobility, not cars in particular. It’s about everything from cars to motorcycles to utility vehicles to small electric planes. There will always be a need to ambulances, no? They will be electric, charged at a 100% clean, renewable network.
There will also be cars in use for the long term, it does not mean that they will be privately owned. The shared EV car model is one alternative. There will still be privately owned cars, for medical personnel, for instance, especially in the rural areas.
Killiansays
You present cars as a solution then get all uppity about it and claim it is insulting to point out cars are *not* a solution no matter how you use them?
You’re aggressively defensive with no cause to be. You boosted a bad idea, I said it is a bad idea. There was nothing personal in it. Why so defensive?
J Doug Swallowsays
Killian says that humanity should not be able to choose the type of transportation that they desire and that they perhaps should not travel at all; “Supporting and empowering a car-based economy is one of the worst things any human can do. There is nothing good about this in the long run”. Killian well represents the type of control hungry folks that this site well represents where individual freedom is seen to be a threat to the dictatorial desires that the alarmist, who love this site, that cannot, and has never been able to produce any empirical evidence, that their devil in the sky, CO₂, has the ability to cause the Earth’s climate to change or can cause the Earth’s temperature to increase in abnormal ways.
Dan Zullasays
I entirely agree with Kilian, and disagree with the PayPal Mafian American Tsarist, here. Cars vs Hyperloop.
This is unexpected. Of course there are further discussion points as if Stereoisomerically specific climate protectives should be seperated (at will) from ozone toxic H3O.
Chucksays
And you just outted yourself by revealing why you’re here; to disrupt the scientific conversation with b.s. You’re afraid someone is going to take away your truck and force you to be sensible about how you use energy. Your comments belong in the borehole.
Radge Haverssays
I admit there are a lot of things I find hard to resist about motor vehicles. Sort of.
However I’m not so enamored of the brain fevered retrogrades who roll coal while listening to radio wing-nuts fantasize about how much fun it would be to run over bicyclists; who expend their adult lives eating away at the very concept of what it means to think like an adult. They fear, loath, and deny change while disrespecting life; they take from society and offer nothing of commensurate value in return; and then they mock and cry bitter tears when they are called on it.
JDS: the alarmist, who love this site, that cannot, and has never been able to produce any empirical evidence, that their devil in the sky, CO₂, has the ability to cause the Earth’s climate to change
BPL: Oh, there are mountains of evidence. You just reject any evidence that doesn’t fit what you want to believe, because you’re one of the most intellectually dishonest people on the internet. M. Scott Peck wrote a book about people like you.
Karsten V. Johansensays
All this geoengineering chatter just begs the question: how do anyone think this should be set in motion by politicians who consequently do everything they possibly can to ignore the whole climate issue and continue with business as extremely usual behind a neverending screen of greencommercials for their careermaking?
“+ The war in Ukraine seems to be going badly for all involved, except the oil companies and the arms merchants.
+ Putin’s pal Vladimir Solovyov, a popular commentator on Russian TV, warned this week that if NATO keeps supporting Ukraine, there will be a “massive nuclear strike” which only “mutants” will survive.
I want to thank all the climate scientists running this website, in particular, and all climate scientists, in general, for their highly valuable and consequential work. Please continue informing us about the impending existential threat to life on Earth created by one species only, ours. It is completely unacceptable for climate scientists to be the most criticized, harassed, threatened of all scientists. I hope you can fight it effectively and that you will be able to attract young people into this field, despite underfunding, lack of prestige and the aggressive ignorance of politicians, businesses and fossil industry sold-out scientists.
GISTEMP has posted the LOTI numbers for May showing a global SAT anomaly of +0.82ºC, the lowest anomaly for the year-to-date being a smidgeon down on April’s +0.83ºC. Previous months were Jan +0.91ºC, Feb +0.89ºC & Mar +1.04ºC.
May 2022 becomes the =6th warmest May on the GISTEMP record (below 2020, 2016, 2017, 2014 & 2019, equalling 2018 and above 2015 & 2021. May 2022 becomes =76th highest all-month anomaly on record.
In terms of the start of 2022, after five months it continues at 5th warmest.
This link, if followed, tells the story that MA Rodger is unable to convey;
Heatwave of July 1936
Overview
The “Dust Bowl” years of 1930-36 brought some of the hottest summers on record to the United States, especially across the Plains, Upper Midwest and Great Lake States. For the Upper Mississippi River Valley, the first few weeks of July 1936 provided the hottest temperatures of that period, including many all-time record highs (see tab below).
The string of hot, dry days was also deadly. Nationally, around 5000 deaths were associated with the heat wave.
In La Crosse, WI, there were 14 consecutive days (July 5th-18th) where the high temperature was 90 degrees or greater, and 9 days that were at or above 100°F. Six record July temperatures set during this time still stand, including the hottest day on record with 108°F on the 14th. The average high temperature for La Crosse during this stretch of extreme heat was 101°F, and the mean temperature for the month finished at 79.5°F – 2nd highest on record. https://www.weather.gov/arx/heat_jul36
Since this link is to a government site that strays from the narrative of this site that is that all bad things that happen now in the world is due to too much atmospheric CO₂, it will never be read by MA Rodger because he will never see it. That is how Real Climate’s science works: If it strays from the desired narrative, then censor it.
“Where all think alike, no one thinks very much”. Walter Lippmann
jgnfldsays
Nice (in your words) *”story”*. Zero science.
Again: Single extreme values convey very little distributional or scientific information of any kind and thus have extremely limited power to make any scientific point pro or con about anything whatsoever.
Deluded idiots and cranks through ignorance and propagandists through design love single extreme values for this reason. You’ve yet again just provided evidence on this point.
JCHsays
“Since this link is to a government site that strays from the narrative of this site that is that all bad things that happen now in the world is due to too much atmospheric CO₂,…” – J Doug Swallow
No. By the Great Depression atmospheric CO2 was well above 300 ppm, and you’ve provided no reason for how the heat records of the Great Depression would even be possible without it. By the Great Depression, farming practices had changed radically from what they had been in the past. Especially in the wheat belt through the central United States. Two significant anthropogenic factors were present, and you’re arguing they had nothing to do with the heat records of the time.
You don’t know that. Have you even considered it?
J Doug Swallowsays
JCH says; “Two significant anthropogenic factors were present, and you’re arguing they had nothing to do with the heat records of the time”. JCH can explain how these heat records were set before there was an increase in CO₂.
You don’t know that. Have you even considered it?
What part did you alarmist devil in the sky, CO₂, play in these deadly heat waves that occurred 125 and 110 years ago?
The deadly 1896 and 1911 New England heat waves
On May 10, 1896 most of the Eastern US was over 90 degrees. New Bedford, Massachusetts was 96 degrees, which was 43 degrees warmer than the previous day’s forecast high, but the worst was yet to come. A heat wave during July and August, 1896 was at that time the worst weather-related tragedy in American history. By the time it ended in mid-August, 1500 deaths from the Midwest to New York to New England had been recorded.
On Tuesday, August 11, 1896 the Boston Globe reported ten fatalities in the city from the heat, twenty the following day, and fifteen more on the 13th when the heat wave finally subsided.
Fifteen years later, the record for heat-related fatalities was broken. In June and July, 1911 an eleven-day heat wave recorded temperatures above 100 degrees Fahrenheit in which two thousand people died, some from drowning trying to cool off. On July 11, crowds gathered in the shade at Hartford City Hall watched the Thermograph fluctuate between 110 and 112 degrees. https://historicipswich.org/2020/09/02/heat-waves/
JDS: What part did you alarmist devil in the sky, CO₂, play in these deadly heat waves that occurred 125 and 110 years ago?
BPL: For the Nth time, where N approaches infinity, no one EVER said heat waves (hurricanes, droughts, whatever) never happened before global warming. We did say they were LESS FREQUENT and OF LESSER INTENSITY. How many times do we have to say something before you stop accusing us of saying the exact opposite? Seriously, how dishonest are you?
John Pollacksays
It’s appalling how many people an urban heat wave can kill to those without access to air conditioning! August 1896 in Boston saw only one day where the heat got as high as third place, well behind more recent daily records. In Hartford CT, the official temperature reached 100 on July 10 and 97 on July 11, 1911. Temperatures for those two consecutive days were exceeded on June 30 and July 1 1964, July 2-3 1966, July 6-7 2010, and July 19-21 1991 – apparently without causing as many deaths. (for temperature records see http://threadex.rcc-acis.org/ )
Regarding the report about the Hartford thermograph: the official high for July 11 was 97. The crowd was in the shade, but perhaps the instrument wasn’t, or hadn’t been properly calibrated. In any case, the report seems to reflect a considerable concentration of the largest urban internal combustion byproduct of the era, horse exhaust.
….all bad things that happen now in the world is due to too much athospheric CO2….
NO, you are misconsceived.
It is due to
1, the american way of life
2, The Chineese wayn of life and
3, The Oil lead between Saudi Arabia and Pentagon!
This was true until recently and Al Gore saw it.
But quite recently the russian gas- leads soutrhstream andv Ukrainastream and Nordstream 1 and 2 comes to it and makes it even worse.
When shall you learn?
Al Gore was quite ingenious. He drove up the very Hollywood and took nstrangle grip on
1, The american way of life
2 The chineese way of life and
3, the oil lead between Saudi Arabia and Pentagon.
Strangle grip, beat that!
And set Guinness world record of conspiracy by that grip.
Q: when shall you learn how to beat that?
Steven Emmersonsays
This is, basically, an ad hominem attack and a non-sequitur because it doesn’t address the issue of global warming.
J Doug Swallowsays
John Pollack says; “I’ve heard of the Dust Bowl. I haven’t heard why you listed Georgia, South Dakota, and Washington states as having record lows coming after their record highs – when they came BEFORE the highs even in the data set you chose!”
I have no idea what John Pollack is trying to maintain with that comment other than he thinks that 1940 comes before 1983, 1936 comes before 2006 & that 2021 comes before 1968.
Georgia Maximum Temperature 112°F August 20, 1983 Greenville 2 NNW 093915 E1
July 24, 1952 Louisville 095314 E1
Georgia Minimum Temperature -17°F January 27, 1940 CCC Fire Camp F-16 (nr. Beatum) EA
South Dakota Maximum Temperature 120°F July 15, 2006 Fort Pierre 393076 N1
July 5, 1936 Gann Valley 393217 N1
South Dakota Minimum Temperature -58°F February 17, 1936 McIntosh 395381 E
Washington Maximum Temperature 120°F June 29, 2021 Hanford DOE Mesonet H100F NSA
Washington Minimum Temperature -48°F December 30, 1968 Mazama 455133 E2
December 30, 1968 Winthrop 459376 E2 https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records
John Pollacksays
I don’t think that 2021 comes before 1968. But maybe you do, since you listed Washington as one of the states where the record high came before the record low in your June 13 111am posting. You made the same error with Georgia, North Dakota, and South Dakota. You haven’t explained why.
I don’t see a need to explain why correct data is correct, but I’m interested in why you would post a false summary of correct data.
J Doug Swallowsays
John Pollack says “I don’t think that 2021 comes before 1968” and that was a misstatement on my part, obviously. As far as the rest of your remarks about the records for Georgia, North Dakota, and South Dakota goes, when I formulated my account of the state’s records what I was using is what NOAA had published in the link that I had used. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records
While you are wondering about my post in such detail, please produce any empirical evidence that your devil in the sky, CO₂, has the ability to cause the Earth’s climate to change or CO₂ can cause the Earth’s temperature to increase in abnormal ways. If more CO₂ causes the Earth’s temperature to rise, then explain why this nearly 109 year old record still stands.
All of these world records for cold were set AFTER 1913 and John Pollack can try to make a case about that fact.
The Coldest Recorded Temperatures In The World
Rank Temperature (°C ) Location Date
1 -89.2 Vostok Station, Antarctica 1983-07-21
2 -82.8 Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station, South Pole 1982-06-23
3 -82.5 Dome A 2005–07
4 -67.8 Verkhoyansk and Oymyakon, both in Sakha Republic, Russia 1892-02-07, 1933-02-06
5 -66.1 North Ice, Greenland 1954-01-09 https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-coldest-temperatures-ever-recorded-on-earth.html
John Pollacksays
J Doug Swallow stated “As far as the rest of your remarks.about the records for Georgia, North Dakota, and South Dakota goes, when I formulated my account of the states records, what I was using is what NOAA had published in the link that I had used.” Yet, your account was formulated incorrectly, based on the exact link that you referred to. In particular, you included Washington and the other three states as examples of state record high temperatures coming BEFORE record lows, when the opposite was true. You have not been able to explain why you did this.
I am not inclined to select from any of the very large body of empirical evidence that carbon dioxide changes the Earth’s climate, since I have seen how you are unable to accept the most basic empirical evidence (the time sequence of dated records) without reversing or distorting it.
Yes, I will make a case of of your misuse of whatever evidence might be contained in record lows. Indeed, all the lows that you listed came after 1913, except for the earlier date in example 4. You managed to get the date sequence right in this instance. However, examples 1,2,3, and 5 were recorded in the middle of winter in the interior of ice sheets. These places weren’t inhabited at that season in 1913, or for over 40 years thereafter. There was nobody around to read a thermometer then. Thus, there is no way to tell if it had been even colder in those places prior to 1913, which would have established an earlier record. It’s a false comparison.
JDS: please produce any empirical evidence that your devil in the sky, CO₂, has the ability to cause the Earth’s climate to change or CO₂ can cause the Earth’s temperature to increase
BPL: Whatever we produce, you will ignore it. That has always been your m.o. in the past. Your question is dishonest.
jgnfldsays
Wow. This maxes must come after mins ASSUMPTION you keep spewing out proves either that you know nothing about probability or that you know something, at least, and are willing to use your “knowledge” for propaganda rather than and even minimal bit of scientific understanding.
There is precisely ZERO observational, theoretic, scientific or modeled evidence that in any series–even slowly trending rising or falling ones–that such occurs. (Actually, mathematically,it is strictly not a provable statement unless the trend is infinitely up or down and therefore undefined.)
All a (positive) trend in a temp series does is bias the probabilities of new maxes/mins in any particular series such that you are somewhat more likely to see a new max sooner and a new min later (though NOT in relation to each other). Your “reasoning” here is basically a variant of the Gamblers Fallacy where a paucity or plethora of past independent values somehow directly influence present values. Hint: Gamblers employing the Gambler’s Fallacy usually lose.. Even when the underlying data are autocorrelated,
This is easily verified in R, Python or any other language in about 10 lines of programming.
Silvia Leahu-Aluassays
More clean, renewable energy – mobility solutions:
Let’s adopt them, let’s displace the fossil economy, before it’s too late. It”s not the imagination and talent of doers we miss, it’s the will to change, as there are too many biopaths (anti-biopshere) and sociopaths in decision-making positions. And too many idle chatters among those who understand we are in a climate emergency, but prefer debate to action.
The Antrarctic Sea Ice has been showing a bit of ‘behaviour’ of late.
From 1979 when satellite data became available, the Antarctic SIE has shown very little trend, this ‘flatness’ punctuated by a couple of icier years 2013-15 followed by a few meltier years 2016-20. Since autumn last year, the Antarctic SIE has been again running meltier, gaining record levels of melt-for-the-time-of-year for a week in Feb this year which happened to coincide with the annual SIE minimum (& thus was even picked up by the popular press). It has been since continuing significantly meltier than average although not record-breaking (bar one day last week).
One point with this continuing meltiness is that this wobble now exceeds in size any of the pre-2013 melty wobbles. The up-to-date JAXA SIE anomaly is plotted out in Graph 3 here.) And just to provide some emphasis for this ‘exceedance’, the JAXA Antarctic SIE has now dropped rather strongly below the previous time-of-year records set by 2017 & 2018, strong enough to even show on the more-smoothed NSIDC chArctic graphics.
Without any useful predictive models of what to expect (that I know of), this may be the start of something. Or it may not be.
J Doug Swallowsays
MA Rodger says; “Without any useful predictive models of what to expect (that I know of), this may be the start of something. Or it may not be”.
Is it possible that since the South Pole posted the most severe cold season on record in 2021 present an indication of what the future might be in Antarctica for its sea ice?
October 2, 2021 at 8:45 a.m. EDT
The record-breaking average temperature recorded at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station – where the geographic South Pole is located – between April and September was -61.1°C (-78°F), the lowest since records began in 1957. Italian journalist Stefano Di Battista first reported the figures, noting this was -2.5 °C (-4.5 °F) lower than the average for winter months in the preceding 30 years.
The numbers were confirmed by Dr Richard Cullather at NASA’s Global Modeling and Assimilation Office to The Washington Post. Dr Amy Butler, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA, told the Post the colder season was likely due to the stronger polar vortex, which appeared to have contributed to the unexpected cold around the South Pole. https://www.iflscience.com/the-south-pole-just-experienced-its-coldest-winter-on-record-61199
J Doug Swallow,
You ask if it is possible that the recent winter temperature record at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station may be predictive of Antarctic SIE trends.
The answer is an emphatic no. For some reason that I find difficult to usefully explain to you, there isn’t presently much sea ice to be found at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station.
Actually, I’m going to speculate that there is a possible link between the SP cold and the SIE trend, though not the one JDS is likely trying to suggest. His post included this bit:
Dr Amy Butler, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA, told the Post the colder season was likely due to the stronger polar vortex, which appeared to have contributed to the unexpected cold around the South Pole.
If that’s true, and should the condition persist into the melt season, it probably means *warmer* waters over much of the area where Antarctic SI forms seasonally, and hence *less* SI. Which would mean a continuation of the recent trend of declining Antarctic SIE.
J Doug Swallowsays
Kevin McKinney says some remark about; “Dr Amy Butler, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA, told the Post the colder season was likely due to the stronger polar vortex, which appeared to have contributed to the unexpected cold around the South Pole”.
I wonder if Kevin McKinney has the ability to recognize that there is a trend when one considers this record that was set in 2010.
“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/
Sorry, JDS, you need a tad more than that for an actual trend.
J Doug Swallowsays
MA Rodger says; “You ask if it is possible that the recent winter temperature record at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station may be predictive of Antarctic SIE trends. The answer is an emphatic no”. Why wouldn’t record low temperatures have an effect on the Antarctic sea ice, is the question for you to answer.
Ninety two years ago, Mawson was sailing along the Antarctic coast. In 2013, global warming nutcases trying to retrace Mawson’s route were hoping an icebreaker comes and saves them.
Sir DOUGLAS MAWSON’S second expedition on SCOTT’S Discovery to Antarctic waters south of the Indian Ocean and Australia is by this time already near the coast which he skirted and explored in the Summer of 1929-30. He identified Enderby and Kemp Lands, first seen by British explorers a hundred years before. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0D11F73F5C117A93CAAB1789D95F448385F9
Antarctic trap: Stranded ship awaiting Australian rescue after Chinese, French turn away December 29, 2013 10:17 The Akademik Shokalskiy, with 74 scientists, tourists and crew members on board, has been on a privately-funded research expedition to Antarctica to retrace the footsteps of an Australian geologist, who explored the Antarctic a century ago. http://rt.com/news/ship-stuck-antarctic-rescue-935/
Perhaps MA Rodger can tell me what the conditions were in 2013 at a place that he seems to not believe have any effect on the Antarctic sea ice today, Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station.
J Doug Swallow,
Perhaps I can tell you 2013 was the second warmest year on record at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station (1957-to-date) averaging -47.4ºC but what relevance that has for the price of cheese or indeed why you can’t look it up for yourself escapes me.
J Doug Swallowsays
Barton Paul Levenson says; “We did say they were LESS FREQUENT and OF LESSER INTENSITY. How many times do we have to say something before you stop accusing us of saying the exact opposite? Seriously, how dishonest are you?”
What does the one who says ‘We’ constantly that must mean that Barton Paul Levenson goes around with a mouse in his pocket, to now say that before his hoax of anthropogenic climate change came about that heat waves (hurricanes, droughts, whatever) were LESS FREQUENT and OF LESSER INTENSITY. As usual for him and his mouse, he is not telling the truth about these weather events.
“Average number of deaths by decade
In the chart we show global deaths from natural disasters since 1900, but rather than reporting annual deaths, we show the annual average by decade. The data for this chart can be found in the table presented here.
As we see, over the course of the 20th century there was a significant decline in global deaths from natural disasters. In the early 1900s, the annual average was often in the range of 400,000 to 500,000 deaths. In the second half of the century and into the early 2000s, we have seen a significant decline to less than 100,000 – at least five times lower than these peaks.
This decline is even more impressive when we consider the rate of population growth over this period. When we correct for population – showing this data in terms of death rates (measured per 100,000 people) – then we see a more than 10-fold decline over the past century. This chart can be viewed here. https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters#what-share-of-deaths-are-from-natural-disasters
Barton Paul Levenson should pay special attention to Figure 3. U.S. Annual Heat Wave Index, 1895–2020, to see that according to the EPA, heat waves in the US have been in a sharp decline since 1936 while CO₂ has been increasing.
This indicator describes trends in multi-day extreme heat events across the United States.
• Figure 3. U.S. Annual Heat Wave Index, 1895–2020 https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heat-waves#%20
Does the phrase “confounding variable” mean anything to you, JDS?
‘Cause you do seem a tad “confounded.”
J Doug Swallowsays
Kevin McKinney says; “Does the phrase “confounding variable” mean anything to you, JDS?
‘Cause you do seem a tad “confounded.” ” It would be great if Kevin McKinney could possibly elucidate how what he writes to me can be applied to what the EPA graph shows that from 1936 to the present date, there were no heat waves similar to the one that the nation experienced in 1936. I look forward to your explanation of how that can be considered to be “confounding variable”.
Heatwave of July 1936
The “Dust Bowl” years of 1930-36 brought some of the hottest summers on record to the United States, especially across the Plains, Upper Midwest and Great Lake States. https://www.weather.gov/arx/heat_jul36
Easy, JD, and thanks for asking. “Over the course of the the 20th century” there was indeed a drastic decline in deaths due to heat.
The “confounding variable?” An economic and technological explosion unparalleled in human history.
As to the US records from the 1930s, have a look at the *global* record. The rest of the world had quite a different weather experience in those days.
J Doug Swallowsays
MA Rodger says on 25 JUN 2022, this in a comment to me; “J Doug Swallow, You ask if it is possible that the recent winter temperature record at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station may be predictive of Antarctic SIE trends.
The answer is an emphatic no. For some reason that I find difficult to usefully explain to you, there isn’t presently much sea ice to be found at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station”. Then MA Rodger says on 26 JUN 2022: “J Doug Swallow, Perhaps I can tell you 2013 was the second warmest year on record at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station (1957-to-date) averaging -47.4ºC but what relevance that has for the price of cheese or indeed why you can’t look it up for yourself escapes me”. How is it then that when I post the record lows for 2021—“October 2, 2021 at 8:45 a.m. EDT, The record-breaking average temperature recorded at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station – where the geographic South Pole is located – between April and September was -61.1°C (-78°F), the lowest since records began in 1957”, that is then seen by MA Rodger as having no relevance to the sea ice extent of Antarctica?
“On board the Akademic Shokalskiy are scientists from the University of New South Wales, a number of tourists who paid to be part of the historical expedition, many of them Australian, as well as a journalist from the Guardian, who described how the ship became trapped in heavy ice.
“We had run into trouble two miles from the Antarctic shore and can clearly see the ice caps. All around us is a flat landscape of ice, stretching out for 18 nautical miles. The sight is not unlike the images sent by Curiosity Rover from Mars, only in white,” Alok Jha wrote on his blog on December 27. https://www.rt.com/news/ship-stuck-antarctic-rescue-935/
The whole point of this exercise is to show how different the ice conditions were in Antarctica 110 years ago, as this photograph should show even MA Rodger, if he was to even look at it.
Frankly, I have no grasp of what this imbecile J Doug Swallow is prattling on about. If anybody feels they do, it may be worth them explaining although my take on it is that J Doug Swallow is just prattling.
As far as the temperature record at the South Pole having some correlation with Antarctic SIE, a very selective approach could provide a very rough correlation in that the increase in SIE 2013-16 did occur during a longer-lasting warming trend at the S Pole 2000-20 and the recent couple of years have seen plunging S Pole temperatures and plunging Antarctic SIE. Such a correlation would fit with speculation from <a href="https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/06/unforced-variations-june-2022/#comment-804631"Kevin McKinney up-thread.
But such an interpretation ignores far too much to be taken as a serious correlation. Firstly it ignores the cold S Pole temperature in the late 1990s which is not reflected by any low SIE levels and secondly it ignores the warmest S Pole temperatures 2017-19 which coincide with the meltiest SIE on record rather than an iciest SIE predicted by the rough-&-selective correlation.
I’m not all that attached to my little speculation above, but recall that the idea was not that SP invariably anti-correlated, but rather both could be driven, albeit in opposite directions, by the strength of the Southern Polar Vortex.
So, to really test the idea one way or the other, you’d need to look at some sort of metric for the SPV. It seems highly likely that not all variations in SIE or polar temp are driven by SPV uniquely.
Kevin McKinney,
I guessed there was no great attachment to your speculation although it at least made sense to speculate that if the temperature at the South Pole is held low by the Vortex trapping the cold air, that cold would be less able to cool the air over near-by oceans and spread the Antarctic SIE.
Mind, if the Vortex itself were invoked, I’m not sure what particular data you’d use to measure Vortex strength.
I’m not sure, either, though none of the data you link, MAR, seems quite on point–largely, I suppose, because that collection is aimed at the stratosphere, not surface temps. But it did lead me to look into what data might be out there, in one study or another.
Unfortunately, this paper is paywalled, but the abstract reads thus:
In the Southern Hemisphere, variability of the stratospheric polar vortex is an important driver of surface climate. In this study, we explore the influence of weakening and strengthening of the polar vortex on regional Antarctic sea ice in observations and model simulations. We propose a two-stage mechanism that translates stratospheric harbingers to sea ice changes: (a) it starts with polar vortex variability that is highly correlated with the Amundsen Sea Low (ASL); through modulation of the ASL and thus surface winds, (b) weak polar vortex leads to statistically significant decrease of sea ice over the Ross Sea and increase of sea ice around the Antarctic Peninsula, and vice versa. The two-stage mechanism can be detected in observations and state-of-the-art model simulations, confirming a robust chain of response. This study underlines the importance of stratosphere-troposphere coupling on the Antarctic sea ice variability and its seasonal predictability.
So, if you’ve got access to an academic library, have at it!
I suppose I should note that the effect on SIE found by Wang et al isn’t really congruent with what I had suggested, in that they find that a weaker SAM leads to *more* ice in a relatively northerly location–the Peninsula–and less in a more southerly are (the Ross Sea). I expected to find the opposite!–well, ‘sort of opposite,’ anyway.
It is interesting to note just how markedly (if irregularly) the SAM has been strengthening over the decades:
Kevin McKinney,
If you turn that ‘Southern hemisphere Annular Mode index’ upside-down, it does at an inter-annual level show an interesting ‘Grand Old Duke of York’ type correlation (ie “when they were up they were up, and when they were down they were down”) with the Amundsen Scott South Pole temperature record.
Where any attempt at correlation breaks down entirely is within the longer-term trends since 2000 with the 60-month averages 2003-15 for the ASSPtemp diverging strongly (continuing an upward trend) while in the same 2003-15 period the -veSAM continuing its long term drop.
Perhaps it should be noted that this is roughly the same period in which Antarctic SIE took on a strong positive trend (or at least a big big upward wobble that ended in 2015).
And since 2015, the -veSAM has been rising strongly while ASSPtemp has also been rising but less strongly. And through this period Antarctic SIE has been mainly dropped well below the 1979-2000 levels.
Mind, all this a very rough-&-ready account. The most recent years shows both 60-month ASSPtemp & -veSAM in what is so-far strong downward wobbles, althugh not in sync with the present downward SEI wobble.
The NSIDC webpage you linked-to complete with its ‘Compare Anomalies’ & ‘Compare Trends’ links provides interesting maps of SIE trend and anomaly. But making sense of these SIE trends for the various parts of Antarctic and the various seasons would not be a trivial task. Myself I’m inclined to stick with the pan-Antarctic numbers and wait-&-see where they take us.
jbsays
I like the new policies, especially the one comment per day limit. It seems, however, that they have already slipped pretty substantially. I don’t think you can rely on the honor system. The most toxic commenters will certainly not police themselves.
As an example, you have Ol’ Swaller. Three comments each on the 18th, the 24th and the 25th. Two each on the 13th, 15th and 22nd. Are they of such high quality that they merit an exemption?
This would have gone in FR, if we still had such a thread, but I think it’s worth noting that yet again something is being done which we have been solemnly assured to be impossible:
The goal is to have the project operational by September 2022 when Hawaii’s last remaining coal plant, which is located just down the road from KES, is expected to be retired.
The coal power plant is used to maintain grid frequency – something Tesla’s energy storage products have proven capable of doing – and that’s what KES is aiming to do along with absorbing excess solar power during the day and discharging during the evening…
Plus Power also says that the Tesla Megapack will act as a “black-start” system to jump-start the island’s electric grid if it gets shut down by any calamity. They are calling it the “Ultimate pacemaker for the grid.”
So, complete retirement of coal, check; time abritrage, check; frequency regulation, check; and black-start, check. (However, Hawaii is still all-too-dependent upon expensive imported petroleum for electric generation, at about 60% of generation in 2020, per EIA–although that was down from ~70% in 2014.)
UAH TLT has been posted for June with an anomaly of +0.06ºC, down on the last three months (March +0.15ºC, April +0.26ºC, May +0.17ºC) but above the chill of Jans +0.03ºC and Feb’s +0.00ºC.
June 2022 sits as the =12th warmest June on the UAH TLT record, behind 1998 (+0.44ºC), 2019, 2020, 2016, then 1991, 2015 & 2010 (all +0.18ºC) and warmer than Junes 2002, 2014, 2017 & 2013. June 2022 equals June 2018.
June 2022 is =142nd in the all-month UAH TLT rankings.
With the year now half gone, the drop in a single month anomaly doesn’t make so much difference to the start-of-year rankings, 2022 dropping from =7th Jan-May to 8th Jan-June
Any discussion relative to regional temperature records both hot and cold somehow showing that there is no global warming is completely inane and a simple disinformation distraction meant to sow doubt.
Evidence for a warming planet goes way beyond surface temperatures and is so compelling that most halfway intelligent climate deniers even admit that the earth is warming. To do otherwise immediately eliminates any possible remaining credibility that the denialist may have.
Some of the signs of a warming planet in addition to the surface temperature record:
Global glacier ice loss is accelerating
Decreases in arctic sea ice minimums per satellite imagery
Accelerating sea level rise as measured by satellites
Accelerating increases in ocean heat content as measured by the ARGO buoy system
Increasing atmospheric humidity levels
Winter snow cover is reduced and is melting earlier per satellite imagery
Growing seasons are lengthening
Species are migrating poleward and upward
UAH TLT has been posted for May with an anomaly of +0.17ºC, down on April’s +0.26ºC, but above March’s +0.15ºC, Feb’s -0.01ºC and Jan’s +0.03ºC.
May 2022 sits as the 7th warmest May on the UAH TLT record, behind 1998, 2016, 2020, 2017, 2010 & 2019 and warmer than May 2015, 2002 & 2014.
2022 is =82nd in the all-month UAH TLT rankings.
After the chilly early months of 2022, the year continues its climb up the start-of-year rankings with the more recent ‘warmer’ months, climbing from =9th for Jan-Apr to now =7th Jan-May.
…….. Jan-May Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.56ºC … … … +0.39ºC … … … 1st
1998 .. +0.46ºC … … … +0.35ºC … … … 3rd
2020 .. +0.41ºC … … … +0.36ºC … … … 2nd
2010 .. +0.31ºC … … … +0.19ºC … … … 6th
2017 .. +0.25ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 5th
2019 .. +0.24ºC … … … +0.30ºC … … … 4th
2022 .. +0.12ºC
2002 .. +0.12ºC … … … +0.08ºC … … … 10th
2018 .. +0.10ºC … … … +0.09ºC … … … 9th
2007 .. +0.10ºC … … … +0.02ºC … … … 14th
Recent years not featured in UAH TLT top-ten warmest Jan-to-May – 2015 the 13th & 2021 in 15th.
2015 .. +0.07ºC … … … +0.14ºC … … … 7th
2021 .. +0.07ºC … … … +0.13ºC … … … 8th
Recently I have been having a bit of a read of Hansen’s important 1988 paper. I had read many times that his temperature projections were accurate and that the world was tracking closest to scenario B, so thought I would check the projected concentrations.
Here is how I interpret his text:-
https://photos.app.goo.gl/bvj9SCLmEi9iBCjd8
I haven’t bothered with the CFCs as Hansen couldn’t really have predicted the success of the Montreal protocol. Two things stand out to me on these plots:-
1) He has done an amazingly good job with CO2. the concentration has matched the BAU scenario beautifully.
2) The CH4 on the other hand is a terrible match. I understand that even now there is no real consensus on what is driving the CH4 curve and where it will head, but my big worry is that even the initial conditions were significantly wrong. This applies to both absolute value and rate of change..
Does anyone have any thoughts on how he could have got CH4 so wrong?
Keith Woollard,
I don’t think it is correct to say “he” got CH4 wrong. Hansen et al (1988) was using the CH4 data available at the time. Back then direct measurements of atmospheric CH4 had only just begun so the rate of annual increase would still have been difficult to nail down. And the variation of CH4 levels round the world are quite large (presumably as it is a short-lived GHG) making a global average more difficult to derive. As this RC item from 2018 says in respect to the CH4 estimates used by Hansen et al “estimates of global CH4 have been revised down since the 1980s.”
Didn’t you look at the graphs I linked to? He had 5 years of Manau Loa CH4 data to work with. I have that plotted.
Why would he use extrapolation of his own estimates 7 years earlier rather than going and using real data?
Keith Woollard,
You ask if I bothered to look at the graphs you linked-to and insist “he” (meaning Hansen, Fung, Lacis, Rind, Lebedeff, Ruedy, Russell & Stone: a.k.a. Hansen et al) in the paper submitted Jan 1988 had “5 years of Manau Loa CH4 data to work with.”
So how would that be? Did these climatologists have access to a time machine? At best, any NOAA annual CH4 data available from Mauna Loa or anywhere else would have been for three years and that assuming the work reported in Hansen et al (1988) was started late enough in 1987 for the 1986 annual value to be available to them.
As it was, the data used by Hansen et al (1988) was sourced from elsewhere and apparently ran only to 1979 as the values used (as per this data file) show estimated values post-1979.
You may find this all rather strange but did you read the comment you were replying to? You may find it less strange if you did!!
KW Jun1: The CH4 on the other hand is a terrible match.
Stop the presses! “35 years ago Hansen didn’t get everything right!”
He “terribly” missed the projection of future CH4 – a gas whose cycle was not well known at the time, a gas that has 200 times lower atmospheric concentration and order of magnitude shorter residence time in atm. than CO2 – both of which make its RELATIVE conc. intrinsically MORE prone to any natural or human imbalances, a gas whose anthropogenic emissions are much more non=point than those of CO2 (wetlands, rice fields, permafrost), and unlike Co2 have been coming disproportionally from developing countries that in mid-1980 didn’t have a great record of tracking their CH4 emissions. Given ALL THAT – I would have been suspicious, if Hansen got his CH4 predictions BETTER.
So the real question is: why would K. Woollard bring it up here in the first place?
It can’t be – to improve current climate models, since we are not using Hansen 1988 modelling of CH4 today.
If, on the other hand, he wanted to make a point that Hansen’s best guess about a gas vulnerable to changes, about which nobody knew much at the time, and without benefit of knowing future emissions – wasn’t very successful, then, duh, Mr Woollard you must be one successful Monday-morning quarterback.
Instead, my Occam razor suggests a more plausible answer – given Mr. Woollard’s past denialist posts – he is now employing a classical denialist logic -> if even one aspect of climate change was, at some point in the past, wrong, then the entire body of climate science must be wrong (“ weren’t you guys predicting global cooling“?). And this interpretation is supported by the Mr. Woollard’s line:
“ even now there is no real consensus on what is driving the CH4 curve and where it will head, but my big worry is that even the initial conditions were significantly wrong”
This would make sense ONLY if the science didn’t progress from 1988 modelling of CH4 by Hansen. But this is a circular argument – a failure of a 1988 model CANNOT prove the failure of the current models.
But, of course, I may be wrong and you have a more logical explanation. Shouldn’t be difficult – after all, you remember what you wanted to achieve with this post, right?
Keith woolland
I do not bother about that so much because I am a chemist and furter aquainted to make up my own mind on that fundament first.
CH4- moor- gas is the result of anaerobic decay of dead plant material, think in tems of cellulose, that is a major component of wood.. The practical general formula is (HCOH)n , Carbo- hydrates, from CO2 + H2O -> O2 + sugars, where the oxygen from the CO2 (and not from the taken up water , shown by isotopic methods) goes right back to the atmosphere where it came from..
Then by anaerbic decay, the very combustible gas <CH4 is set free and it ends up in peat, lignite, and coal. The oxygen content probably goes into water by that "carbonification" process. , All this goes by microbic activity, that slows down at low, and speeds up at high temperatures. Thus a cause of such humus decay into CH4 and coal and mineral salts is higher temperature. A fact that is also obvious in soil science.
Then the activity of Ruminants.
They eat a waste lot of grass and plant material that contains a waste lot of calories (=very combustible) but pure of ammonium and calsium magnesium phospate sulphur potassium iron and so on. So they simply lay down and rest and chew it again, the microbes of their stomack do the same as in the anaerobic wetlands, and they burp up allmost all those calories in the form of the very flameable gas CH4 in order to concentrate the more valuable remainings, . A moose cow can milk up 2 large calves in the season with very valuable highly concentrated flesh and bones and furs and blood and fat for the winter or for the further carnivores.
If they could not burp up and fart away all those very combustible calories they wold have to sport it away or lay there yellow hot and breathe very fast to radiate it away.
This is what I need for explaination, and what James Hansen has said or not said about this, I do not bother.
In addition to this you have the leaks in the worlds gas pipelines, that are known to be consciderable in our days.
And the arctic tundra will also burp up a lot more CH4 when thawing.
Animal life and microbial life is very old on earth, so one can say that it has got aquainted to improoving its own environment and life conditions in tempered and arctic zones, a positive feedback,…. by theese metabolic effects.
Sorry, Poor of ammonium and so on
Good stuff. I learned a lot. Perhaps you can answer a question I’ve pondered:
How much raw petrol would have to escape to equal the GHG potential of burning the rest at short and long time scales?
I think that where Carbomontanus mentions gas, he means gas (and specifically methane), not gasoline.
Carbomontanus: if you want to use archaic names for methane, it’s marsh gas or swamp gas (or firedamp, if you want to be even more obscure or are talking about coal mines), not moor gas.
@prt
The word gas is french, etymological of CHAOS.. It was possibly coined by Lavoisier at about 1780, who found out about “chaleur” and “æææææ caloriøøøø” in french.
They found that heat behaves rather similar to gases, that they knew from before, and checked up and found that it has absolutely no weitght or mass, thus it cannot be material.
But gases, different kinds of airs were earlyn on shown to have mass and weight. Thus material.
In old books I have about gases in Danish “luftarter” that means sorts of air. Gas & pluralo Gase is German.
Gas- oline means detillates of special oils It has also been called Petrol- Eter.
Your american “gas” for light petroleum -eter is confusing and inferiour., misconsceived.
We say “bensin” that is from Carl and Bertha Benz. In russian Bensjine.
French “Lessangsøøøø!”
for a carburetor, that is near non- sense, we say Forgasser, German Vergaser. You should say evaporizer.
I would never say “gass” about Bensin, that is a liquid.
Gas- Gass Myr-gass, Jord- gass is not archaic at all. It is very precise and well understood. The very Russia and EU is calling it Gas, and know what it is about. Russian Gaz and Gazprom. Ros- neft is from russian nafta. They rather sell diesel and gasoline,m and not Gas. that is metan etan propan butan.
A gas- bottle or tank does not contain gasoline.
LNG what is that? and LNG- tankers? Gas- pipelines? Gas-fields?
Rather try and be consequent.
I am to keep order in it and have to think chemically about it and thus cannot say “Gas” for light aliphatic liquid hydrocarbons. For instance know the difference between a bunsen burner and an eaporizing kerosene- burner. Not confuse the fuels there. So I cannot allow myself any kind of terms that are confused and have come astray.
My handle is not not prt, and I think you’ve entirely missed the point I was trying to make.
Fox News’s lead global warming skeptic has launched a crusade to recast the Climate Wars as a titanic struggle between Captain Planet and Scrooge McDuck
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/6668567922800918096/5351843538390118555
Wrong link, evidently.
“Chill. Killian, the climate policy Overton Window has been thrown open by the prospective interaction of galactic cosmic rays with dark matter dust bunnies”
Well, then. Please pass the beer.
What beer have you got over there?
Standard imports. Some microbrews. Lots of new local micros. One, Goose Island has a really nice citrusy IPA.
So, what shall we do with the drunken sailors?
Suggest some beer for them of course, then they wake up and react.
============000
We have plenty of good beers in Norway now. It is better than ever.
Once upon a time in old Plzen in Bohemia, their beers only got worse and worse. So the citizens in the Ratskeller or Bürgerstuben at the market square came together and voted against it with large mjaority. As the beer waggon arrived at the market square in Plzen then, they went out and emptied all the barres on the pavements and into the sewages.
The brewery master was quite despaired, he scratched his head and asked “What shall I do?”
So he wote a letter to his colleague in Bayern and asked for advice.
Who wrote back:
“First of all, you must have clean water. Then choisest malt, and choisest bohemian hops. But then you need this new yeast that just has come from South America. It sinks to the bottom and it rather goes at low cellar temperature, take andvantage of your quite cool, bohemian caves and rather brew it down there.
Thus we have the very successful Pilsner Urquell, that is actually rather a Bayer Lager, and further the Budveiser from Ceske budjejovice next by in Bohemia.
That yeast was identified by the Danes at the frameous Carlsberg laboratories and called Saccaromyces carlsbergiensis.
In fact, Beer or Bierro as such is the result of that certain and fameous saccaromyces.
Whereas ” ale” and “pale ale, brown ale” is the old norse Øl. That is rather top- yeast and wild yeast at higher and room- temperature.
It is really good as well and also under culture. I have tried Carlsbergiensis from Schous brewery in Oslo and it is exellent on malt- extract. But for ciders and wines I rather use wild yeast chateau origine, different from cave bottom lager and cellar- fermentation.
What rather matters is the substrate substance with low enough pH and proper mineral content also for the yeast. That can be bought as “yeast salt” but a spoonful of common NPK fertillizer plus a dash simply of common clay makes it as dirty as any “Chateau” and swetting feet for squashing it. Fruit- acids, pH and malt acids in a proper rural atmosphere or climate is what makes the difference.
Hops is new and snobbish, hardly more than 150 years old. The autenlic ale-øl is made with choisest plant and bush hot extracts from species like common spruce Picea exelsior, or Juniperus communis or Artemisia vulgaris (Vermuth) or the finest Klosterbrau from Myrica gale L.
Citrus is splendid but it must be original Mandarines Appel-Sins of the strong and bitter kinds.
“Geo-engineering could be the answer to rising sea levels”
https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/300604937/geoengineering-could-be-the-answer-to-rising-sea-levels
This seems possibly useful, low negative environmental footprint, and at least it has been quantified. However I wonder what the wider implications are of stopping established ocean currents like this.
Breathtakingly ambitious–but, as the story says, still *much* cheaper than the potential losses, not to say adaptation costs.
@KMcK: – ” Breathtakingly ambitious ”
Antarctica’s total contribution to sea level rise has been estimated to be 8 to 14 mm. (~20-40%)
Ocean currents are similar to winds in the atmosphere in that they transfer significant amounts of heat from Earth’s equatorial areas to the poles and thus play important roles in determining the climates of coastal regions. In addition, ocean currents and atmospheric circulation influence one another.
The gigantic amounts of heat are guided to the right, left, above the curtain and also via the atmosphere passing by the breathtaking dumb 50 billion grave and find other sections of the coast where they release their energy.
https://cdn.britannica.com/91/53891-050-2E93317C/ocean-systems-world.jpg
If you want to divert this heat exchange under water with 200km “water sails”, you can also try to buy and fill milk into a bird cage ($ 2,50) – or put up a prohibition sign ($ 5,-) on the glacier “!Melting forbidden!” —
The measurable result (SLR) of such foolishness will remain the same at a significantly reduced cost.
MS
“The gigantic amounts of heat are guided to the right, left, above the curtain and also via the atmosphere passing by the breathtaking dumb 50 billion grave and find other sections of the coast where they release their energy.”
Yes and away from the base of the specific glaciers that are at risk of destabilising. That’s the whole idea. Sigh.
And you criticise the costs of the ocean currents barrier scheme. What is the cost of YOUR climate scheme of storing water on land to stop sea level rise? For example one metre of sea level rise? I’ve asked before twice. and I’m still waiting to hear an answer and see the detailed analysis.. I wonder why that could be? Is it that you don’t know how? Or are you afraid it could be embarrassingly high?
@Nigel junior
You still seem to think the idea of hanging curtains in the sea is sensible and intelligent.
One could almost believe that you traveled the seven seas as a blind stowaway for years.
Have you ever heard of tides (in the relevant Antarctic region ~ 2m), ebb and flow?
This alone will move and exchange trillions of cubic meters also under Thwaites Glacier THAT YOU CAN’T STOP WITH A HOLEY UNDERWATER CURTAIN !
So where is the equivalent of a $70 billion cost and what idiot is footing the bill???
Maybe I’m also a little more relaxed about the calving of glaciers and their drifting to warmer regions.
Similar to the net effect of clouds, which reflect solar light but also reduce the emission of thermal radiation into space – sea ice also creates an insulating cap across the ocean surface, which reduces evaporation and heat loss to the atmosphere.
As a result, the weather over ice-covered areas tends to be colder and drier than it would be without ice.
N.: ” I’ve asked before twice. ”
No, you have already asked 5 times about the profitability of my concept – and always received an answer. Holding back water over land is a good deal if only because 1m³ of water has a price (ask your local water company).
– Whether you invest in a rain barrel for your home,
– a rainwater retention basin in your community,
– or in pre-Columbian strategies ( https://hidraulicainca.com/acerca-de-hidraulica-inca/hidraulica-inca/ ),
you always get a great deal precisely calculable and guaranteed value in m³ of water.
In my region with average rainfall of ~850L/m² per year and water prices of $2.50/m³ the profit situation is as follows:
1. Rain Butt for my 175m² roof = $318.75/y of profit/saving on expensive drinking water for the homeowner / 148.75m³ stay in the groundwater of my region.
With larger rainwater retention basins (e.g. 10 million m³/y), which discharge the cleaned water into the groundwater, the procedure is simply identical: investment costs / annual yield of m³ of water.
You can estimate the global potential of rain retention on urban areas alone (> 1.5 million km²) if you generously allocate 25% roof area and a further 25% municipal retention area with an average annual rainfall (e.g. 750mm/y) to urban areas.
The global potential of this milkmaid calculation = 562.5 km³/y = ~ 42% SLR/y (1.6mm)
The strategy of the ancient Incas applied to areas of agriculture, forests and moors with a total of ~75 million .km² has the far greater potential.
The controllable distribution of water in the area not only offers good protection against heavy rain and flooding, but of course the same infrastructure ALSO helps against drought, dryness and extreme temperatures in summer.
In addition to the added value of more water, you can offset the investment costs against the consequential costs of crop failures, flooding and sea level rise.
If you have understood that the earth’s crust is often up to 30km thick over land areas and the annual SLR here is only +9mm/y, you don’t need to worry about 1m SLR (up to 2100 ?). Your ~ 150,000km³ of water I easily fit into the 2,000,000km³ of sand in the Sahara.
On 22.5 million km² of global karst rock, down to a depth of at least 3km, we have a holey Swiss cheese with millions of cavities into which the World Trade Center fits in.
MS
“You still seem to think the idea of hanging curtains in the sea is sensible and intelligent”
I didn’t say the curtain scheme to stop warm ocean currents scheme looks ‘ intelligent’. I said it looks possibly useful. I was interested in feedback. Thank’s for yours. The advantage of the curtain idea is its very localised, so if it didn’t work or had unanticipated side effects it wouldn’t matter too much. The problem with other geoengineering schemes at a global scale is the possible negative side effects that could obviously be very concerning. I do think the curtain idea has potential if we MUST use high tech. based geoengineering.
“Have you ever heard of tides (in the relevant Antarctic region ~ 2m), ebb and flow? This alone “will move and exchange trillions of cubic meters also under Thwaites Glacier THAT YOU CAN’T STOP WITH A HOLEY UNDERWATER CURTAIN !”
Tides will wash over the top of the curtain but that is not of concern. The idea is to stop the warm ocean current deeper down getting at the base of the glacier. The tides would wash some of the warm warm water around the sides but only some. I suspect the authors would have considered all this.
“Maybe I’m also a little more relaxed about the calving of glaciers and their drifting to warmer regions.”
I’m not. The experts on sea level rise (as opposed to musicians with biology degrees and people like me with design degrees) say that the problem is the speeding up of glaciers moving towards the ocean and this is going to accelerate sea level rise and I see no reason to doubt their investigations. Again to convince me otherwise you have to point to something specific in the related peer reviewed research papers you believe is flawed.
“No, you have already asked 5 times about the profitability of my concept – and always received an answer. Holding back water over land is a good deal if only because 1m³ of water has a price (ask your local water company).”
I don’t recall mentioning profitability. I asked about 1)cost effectiveness compared to other options and 2) how much it would cost per metre of sea level rise or any other specific reduction you want to use.
“Holding back water over land is a good deal if only because 1m³ of water has a price (ask your local water company).”
Your suggestion appears to be using rain water tanks as opposed to our system of pumped water supply. The use of rain water tanks like that does appeal to me and may cost the homeowner less in the long run, although you have more limited supply of water and other problems to consider. And the resultant foul water has to go somewhere, so you either need septic tanks which are not the most wonderful of things or conventional foul water drains and treatment plants. Its far from clear just how much water would actually be stored “on land” and it intuitively wouldn’t store many years of sea level rise, and it still doesn’t give me an ultimate number to put on the costs of stopping a given quantity of sea level rise that way (per unit of sea level rise).
Personally I think your generally multi facetted and natural and holistic approach to agriculture and housing has merit, but it would only make a small difference to sea level rise, and your problem is you over sell what your ideas can do. If you were a bit more realistic you would get less push back.
“You can estimate the global potential of rain retention on urban areas alone (> 1.5 million km²) if you generously allocate 25% roof area and a further 25% municipal retention area with an average annual rainfall (e.g. 750mm/y) to urban areas.” The global potential of this milkmaid calculation = 562.5 km³/y = ~ 42% SLR/y (1.6mm)”
This appears to be one years worth of sea level rise. Slightly helpful but falls far short of a grand solution.
“and the annual SLR here is only +9mm/y, you don’t need to worry about 1m SLR (up to 2100 ?). Your ~ 150,000km³ of water I easily fit into the 2,000,000km³ of sand in the Sahara.”
Maybe so, but imagine the horrendous costs of getting all the water there from other regions / countries / continents You would probably need to turn half the worlds economy into a huge pumping project! It just doesn’t sound realistic or ‘sensible”..
“Holding back water over land is a good deal if only because 1m³ of water has a price (ask your local water company).”
Using water that has been ‘pumped’ by natural evaporation is a good idea because otherwise humans will use power to do the pumping. (And in theory, you could extract power from rainwater–well, more than ‘in theory’ because of course that’s precisely how conventional hydropower works in ‘the big picture.’)
However, over time it will have essentially zero effect on sea level rise because input to storage, and output from it, must equilibrate over longer terms. 42% of 1 year’s SLR sounds great–but considering you’ve got to increase storage by the stated amount EVERY YEAR to keep up with the current mean annual input, as a solution to SLR it’s just ‘Not On.’
One must think clearly about fluxes versus stocks here.
@Nigel Junior:
– ” I don’t recall mentioning profitability. I asked about 1)cost effectiveness compared to other options and 2) how much it would cost per metre of sea level rise
ms: —Profit is still = sales – costs!
nj: – ” although you have a more limited water supply and other issues to consider. And the resulting dirty water has to go somewhere, so you either need septic tanks, which aren’t the prettiest things, or traditional dirty water drains and treatment plants. It’s far from clear how much water would actually be stored ‘on land’
ms: — The fact that you don’t understand that a homeowner who uses rainwater from his roof for the garden, toilet and washing machine to ensure lower water bills and higher groundwater levels in the region – makes me a little helpless.
You also don’t need new sewage pipes, septic tanks, or any other shit you put in my sense or your nonsense of a rain barrel.
LMAO – stopping an ocean current with a curtain – big climate theater for just $ 70 Billions / 20y
GWYNNE DYER (author of the article) has worked as a freelance journalist,.. originally trained as an historian…, finishing with a Ph.D. in Military and Middle Eastern History .
… SO HE MUST BE A REAL CLIMATE EXPERT
Gwynne Dyer does not need to be, and is not claiming to be, a climate scientist – he is not presenting his own climate ideas – he is a freelance journalist, and does what
good journalists do: talks to climate scientists and presents results of THEIR research and ideas to the wider public, in a language more accessible to them than the original research papers.
And uses his education (“Ph.D. in Military and Middle Eastern History”) to discuss social and political implications of the climate change in terms of human conflict – for instance, in his 2008 book “Climate wars” he identifies several areas of potential major military conflicts that can b brought on by climate change (e.g. the war between the nuclear Pakistan and India – over the water from the rivers coming from the Himalayas). He also talked how Pentagon considers climate change a threat to the security of the US – through the destabilization of entire regions and ensuing wars, through growing radicalism in the most affected area, and the flood of climate change refugees potentially destabilizing the US and its allies. And i doing so he might get to some of the American public that the climate scientists and activist couldn’t – Pentagon can hardly be accused of pushing a leftist agenda…
And if you consider scientific research in the effects of climate change a necessary prerequisite to discuss climate change the public what your scientific credentials in climate science, Mr. Macias “LMAO” Shurly?
@piotr –
You, Gwynne Dyer and the relevant climate scientists presented with their ideas have one thing in common: – you are incapable of distinguishing limp crap from tight, tangible physics.
A geoengineering concept requires a transparent, qualitative and quantitative analysis, from which the described idea of diverting ocean currents is far removed.
The ways in which stupidity reproduces itself are as unfathomable as the ways of the Lord. What would have happened if a D. Trump’s suggestion of drinking disinfectant to fight the Covid-19 virus had been considered and circulated as a serious option by alleged journalists and freelancers? — The same – first you become blind and then you even risk your life.
P.: – ” what your scientific credentials in climate science, Mr. Macias …? ”
– With a degree in biology, I specialize in photosynthesis, light spectra and general theories of evolution.
As an artist, I first transformed the (scientific) knowledge of evolution into painting, sculpture and dance theater – later into everything that moves. Also in concepts for climate protection.
As an entrepreneur and world champion in lamp efficiency, I am also the coolmaster of our solar system with water-cooled LED technology and PV-T modules.
While artists like you search for the causes for decades – I find and invent solutions with which I often kill 7 birds in one go. If that still doesn’t seem like enough qualification to you – my first professional training over 40 years ago, even before I graduated from high school, was a diploma as a fire brigade squad member.
And if you (also due to global warming) have the feeling that your house or forest is on fire or that your basement is often under water – I’m actually responsible for helping you.
“Keep calm” and “Danger recognized – danger averted” are the first principles you learn.
However, there is a danger to the climate and nature not only from increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, but also from the drying out of the land surface caused by humans.
Like many other “climate experts” here and elsewhere, you still don’t realize that too little evaporation over land impairs, among other things, the flow of energy from the surface into the atmosphere and cloud formation – (regardless of how much greenhouse gas is currently in the atmosphere) – and thus the global temperature increases due to a decreasing cloud albedo.
It is no coincidence that my holistic climate protection concept for lowering sea level rise and earth temperature has the character of a fire-fighting emergency measure.
Macias Shurly: “ [Gwynne Dyer is] incapable of distinguishing limp crap from tight, tangible physics”
…. brave words from the mouth of somebody who cannot even understand, much less answer, science-based questions on his hare-brained schemes.
M.Shurly:” What would have happened if a D. Trump’s suggestion of drinking disinfectant to fight the Covid-19 virus had been considered and circulated as a serious option by alleged journalists and freelancers?”
“ alleged journalist and freelancer” Gwynne Dyer:
“Trump’s bizarre behaviour — the endless, shameless lies, the narcissism, the suggestions that people should inject bleach, etc.”
But don’t let it stop you, Mr. Shurly, from discrediting Dyer by tarring him with the very hubris he was opposing.
Macias Shurly: “ With a degree in biology, I specialize in photosynthesis, light spectra and general theories of evolution.”
“ MUST BE A REAL CLIMATE EXPERT” (c) M. Shurly
Maybe.
I wish the geo-engineering “solutions” would add a disclaimer when they don’t address ocean acidification.
It’s not like there’s an ecosystem down there or anything…. Can it be done sustainably? No. What happens if it fails? How does changing those currents affect global currents?
Sad how the craziest crap will get billions in consideration while simpler, natural, faster options – that are long-term solutions – get little funding.
They believe that they can overwhelm and keep up with the sea serpent after first having denied and ridiculed him.
But that is not sustainable.
The Sea Serpent has been given as an argument and as the cause for disaster in Norway under Danish royal rule and regiment order and stood to court on landf with Royal Danish stamp. Case dismissed and the human prosecuted set free again, The sea serpent got the blame.
Beat that!
There is a lot of things that you have to learn over there in the states before you can behave.
The sea serpent is now on the FAO, WMO , WHO and UNESCO and IPCC red list of endangered species. The Pope has suggested and defended him in the form of Laudato si.
More promptly than in recent months, the RSS TLT numbers have been posted for May (although the Browser Tool still not updated) with an anomaly of +0.53ºC. As with UAH TLT, this is a sizable drop from April’s anomaly, April having been the highest of the 2022 year-to-date (+0.68ºC), May 2022 becoming the second lowest of the year-to-date.
May 2022 sits as the 8th warmest May on the RSS TLT record (7th in UAH TLT), May 2022 in RSS sitting below Mays 2020, 2016, 1998, 2017, 2010, 2019 & 2021 and above 2015, 2014 & 2018.
May 2022 is 106th in the all-month RSS TLT rankings (=82th in UAH).
After the chilly early months of 2022, its year-to-date RSS ranking continues to nudge higher (from 11th spot Jan-Mar, =7th Jan-Apr) to become the 7th warmest start to the year (=9th in the trend-defying UAH TLT). With strong La Niña conditions having persisted, it looks perhaps as though the wobbly TLT record will place the full 2022 just outside the top 5 while the SAT records may rank the full year 2022 a couple of places higher.
…….. Jan-May Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.01ºC … … … +0.81ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +0.88ºC … … … +0.82ºC … … … 1st
2019 .. +0.72ºC … … … +0.75ºC … … … 3rd
1998 .. +0.71ºC … … … +0.58ºC … … … 8th
2010 .. +0.69ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 5th
2017 .. +0.66ºC … … … +0.69ºC … … … 4th
2022 .. +0.57ºC
2021 .. +0.56ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 6th
2018 .. +0.53ºC … … … +0.54ºC … … … 9th
2015 .. +0.52ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 7th
2005 .. +0.49ºC … … … +0.47ºC … … … 11th
Progress:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2022/06/06/weather-forecasts-power-grid-renewables/
Maybe all that model-stuff is good for something after all, eh.
I don’t really understand the perspective here.
If global warming isn’t a problem, everything is fine and society will continue on as normal. However, if global warming is real and the scientific establishment of the world, using the most up-to-date and expensive measuring tools, is collectively correct, everyone will die horribly.
Why would someone not want to prevent everyone they know and love dying horribly? For a while I just thought all global warming deniers were very old people who would die of natural causes soon, but surely some of you must be on the youngish side, or even have children or grandchildren whose well-being is important to you. Why do you hold the beliefs that you do? Even the worst dictators in the planet’s history wanted to preserve the lives of their own people. It just doesn’t make sense.
Hi Bird,
It’s not an either/or situation.
I think it’s fair to say that RealClimate is run by top tier climate scientists. An implicit operating assumption is that there should be a firewall between the science on one hand and policy/politics on the other, and that the science should flow out, but the politics should not flow in. There may be some wiggle room in the porosity of the wall, The idea, however, is to stick to issues of evidence and analysis in terms of climate science and go where the facts lead for better or worse without prejudice or partisanship.
The comment section is more free ranging and may respond to the implications of the science based on a range of scenarios (see the IPCC reports) ranging in severity from disturbing to terrifying (depending on your temperament). Where we’re headed depends on what we do and how fast we do it — globally. So although the prevailing viewpoint here mainly acknowledges anthropogenic global warming, there can be disagreement on the particulars and how best to respond, which is healthy. Then there are the trolls, cranks, and other assorted beasts…
Why these contrary characters hold the views that they do has been a topic of discussion here over the years. Elsewhere it has been the subject of books, studies, essays, and a whole lot of commentary.
Welcome to the thunderdome.
Bird,
Please list all of the things you are doing in your daily life to fight climate change. We need a good example to follow.
Thank you.
I’m responding to stupid statements like this on the Intertubes from imbeciles who think the problem can be solved by individual action alone.
Ray Ladbury
Please list all of the things you are doing in your daily life to fight climate change. We need a good example to follow.
Thank you.
The ERA5 re-analysis has been posted for May showing a global SAT anomaly of +0.26ºC, not greatly different from April’s +0.28ºC with the 2022 highest anomaly being March’s +0.39ºC and lowest Feb’s +0.23ºC.
May 2022 becomes the =5th warmest May on the ERA5 record (below 2020, 2016, 2017 & 2019, equalling 2021 and above 2018. May 2022 becomes =66th highest all-month anomaly on record.
In terms of the start of 2022, after five months it continues at 5th warmest.
…….. Jan-May Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.56ºC … … … +0.44ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +0.53ºC … … … +0.47ºC … … … 1st
2017 .. +0.42ºC … … … +0.34ºC … … … 4th
2019 .. +0.38ºC … … … +0.40ºC … … … 3rd
2022 .. +0.29ºC
2018 .. +0.27ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 6th
2010 .. +0.23ºC … … … +0.13ºC … … … 8th
2021 .. +0.19ºC … … … +0.27ºC … … … 5th
2015 .. +0.17ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 7th
2007 .. +0.14ºC … … … +0.04ºC … … … 14th
2014 .. +0.08ºC … … … +0.11ºC … … … 9th
MA Rodger says; “May 2022 becomes the =5th warmest May on the ERA5 record (below 2020, 2016, 2017 & 2019, equalling 2021 and above 2018. May 2022 becomes =66th highest all-month anomaly on record.
In terms of the start of 2022, after five months it continues at 5th warmest”.
Those who say global temperature continues to increase cannot answer why these records still hold in the United States. 25 states have record highs temperatures from the period 1930-1937. I will even list them; Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia & Wisconsin adds up to 25 states whose record HIGH have all occurred between 1930 & 1936.
These 13 states listed below had their record highs occur BEFORE 1930 & 1936, such as; Alaska, California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia & Washington.
The above in formation came from this source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records
A total of fourteen states set record highs in 1936 that obviously still stand. They occurred from July 5th to August 10th although July 10th has four of the records for high temperature in include Maryland which tied the record set in July 3, 1898 of 109°F, the rest that set records that year are New Jersey, Penn. & Virginia.
Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin are the 26 states that set the record temperature for cold AFTER the record for high temperature was set.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records
Those who say global temperatures continue to increase can answer why the records hold, and have already done so the last time you brought this up. For those who may have missed it and are wondering, here are some of the reasons:
When you have a small sample, lots of statistical oddities appear that have little to do with any underlying trend. JDS is using a small sample, and then marveling at a statistical oddity. State record highs and lows are a small sample because the U.S. is only a small part of the globe, state records are only a very small part of daily temperatures, and the areas of states are extremely uneven.
If you want to get a good idea of a trend, it is best to use an average of a large amount of data, and then weight it by area. This is what the annual global temperature graphs represent.
That said, the 1930s were a period of extreme drought in the central U.S. This produced several exceptionally hot summers and set many records as the heat spread around. It so happens that we haven’t had a multi-year drought of similar intensity in that region since. Some of it is due to sheer luck, and some to improved agricultural practices with regard to soil erosion.
Now, why is JDS posting inaccurate summaries of his chosen data set? Putting aside ties, Colorado’s record high was in 2019, not in the 1930s. Of the states where he claimed that the record low came AFTER the record high, there were numerous states where the records were tied in multiple years, so which came first depended on what tie year you picked. (e.g. Connecticut, with record highs in 1916 tied in 1995, and lows in 1943 tied with 1961.) More curiously included are Georgia, with a record low in 1940, and highs in 1952 and 1983. Washington state had a record low in 1968, but the high was in 2021. The case of South Dakota was a real gem! Their record minimum came on Feb. 17, 1936 – FOLLOWED by a record high on July 5, 1936 (later equaled in 2006). JDS, do you realize that July comes AFTER February, or were you asleep the day they covered the calendar in primary school? Or perhaps you took somebody else’s tripe from another website, didn’t bother to check it, and then dumped it here?
John Pollack says; “When you have a small sample, lots of statistical oddities appear that have little to do with any underlying trend. JDS is using a small sample, and then marveling at a statistical oddity. State record highs and lows are a small sample because the U.S. is only a small part of the globe, state records are only a very small part of daily temperatures, and the areas of states are extremely uneven.”
What will John Pollack have to say about the world record high temperatures?
What follows are world record high temperatures:
North America (U.S.), Death Valley, Calif.; July 10, 1913 (134F)
Asia; Tirat Tsvi, Israel, June 21, 1942, (129F):
Australia ,Cloncurry, Queensland; Jan. 16, 1889 (128F):
Europe, Seville, Spain,Aug. 4, 1881 (122F): (for what ever reason, this one has been changed to what is shown below)
Europe Athens, Greece (and Elefsina, Greece) July 10, 1977 118.4 48.0
South America, Rivadavia, Argentina; Dec. 11, 1905 (120F):
Canada,Midale and Yellow Grass, Saskatchewan, Canada; July 5, 1937 (113F):
Oceania;Tuguegarao, Philippines, April 29, 1912 (108F):
Persian Gulf (sea-surface): Aug. 5, 1924 (96F):
Antarctica; Vanda Station, Scott Coast, Jan. 5, 1974 (59F):
South Pole, Dec. 27, 1978, (7.5F).
Highest average annual mean temperature (world): Dallol, Ethiopia (Oct. 1960 Dec. 1966), 94° F.
Longest hot spell (world): Marble Bar, W. Australia, 100° F (or above) for 162 consecutive days, Oct. 30, 1923 to Apr. 7, 1924. Notice anything regarding the dates of these records? Anyone heard of the dust bowl & wasn’t that in the 30’s?
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001375.html
Concerning the supposed world record high temperatures you provided, I say:
1. It’s still a very tiny selected fraction of global temperatures. You can’t use a handful of extremes to show global warming or lack thereof, as several others have explained.
2. The world is over 70% ocean. You have only one temperature record pertaining to the ocean, and it’s outdated. FYI the modern record for the Persian Gulf is 37.6C (99.7F)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0025326X20308845
3. I notice that the dates on several of your other records are also old and inaccurate. For example, Australia and Antarctica. The Feb. 6, 2020 record for Antarctica was 64.9F at Esperanza Research Station, quite a bit above 59F. https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-meteorological-organization-global-weather-climate-extremes-archive
The June 2021 heat wave greatly exceeded a lot of old records in Canada. Lytton reached 49.6C (121.3F). https://www.rmets.org/metmatters/record-breaking-heat-canada
I’ve heard of the Dust Bowl. I haven’t heard why you listed Georgia, South Dakota, and Washington states as having record lows coming after their record highs – when they came BEFORE the highs even in the data set you chose!
I would certainly hope that John Pollack is able to notice the year that these records were set.
South Dakota Maximum Temperature 120°F July 5, 1936 GANN VALLEY
South Dakota Minimum Temperature -58°F February 17, 1936 MC INTOSH
In Steele, North Dakota on July 6, 1936 the record HIGH Temperature for the state was 121⁰F.
In Parshall, N. Dakota on Feb. 15, 1936 the record LOW Temperature for the state was -60⁰ F.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records
I hope that John Pollack is with it enough to realize that 10 July 1913 was very close to 109 years ago and that both North and South Dakota Minimum & maximum temperatures were set in the same year, 1936, or 86 years ago
World Meteorological Organization Assessment of the Purported World Record 58°C Temperature Extreme at El Azizia, Libya (13 September 1922)
“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&
Yes, 1936 was a long time ago, but February arrived BEFORE July every year, even in the rural Dakotas. Why did you tell us that the record lows in North and South Dakota were set AFTER the record highs? You were also wrong about Georgia and Washington states, by decades rather than months.
John Pollack, I hope, is aware of when this occurred last year.
The South Pole Just Experienced Its Coldest Winter On Record
Oct 7, 2021 9:17 PM
The record-breaking average temperature recorded at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station – where the geographic South Pole is located – between April and September was -61.1°C (-78°F), the lowest since records began in 1957. Italian journalist Stefano Di Battista first reported the figures, noting this was -2.5 °C (-4.5 °F) lower than the average for winter months in the preceding 30 years.
The numbers were confirmed by Dr Richard Cullather at NASA’s Global Modeling and Assimilation Office to The Washington Post. Dr Amy Butler, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA, told the Post the colder season was likely due to the stronger polar vortex, which appeared to have contributed to the unexpected cold around the South Pole.
https://www.iflscience.com/the-south-pole-just-experienced-its-coldest-winter-on-record-61199
J Doug S is, I hope, aware by now that this is a pretty meaningless statistic.
Even more so in light of this research:
https://www.science.org/content/article/greenhouse-gases-are-warming-world-chilling-antarctica-here-s-why
John Pollack says; 3. “I notice that the dates on several of your other records are also old and inaccurate. For example, Australia and Antarctica. The Feb. 6, 2020 record for Antarctica was 64.9F at Esperanza Research Station, quite a bit above 59F”.
The Question is, why didn’t John Pollack notice this below rega4rding Australia’s record high temperature?
“The Stevenson Screen became a national standard by 1910, but before then thermometers were sheltered in a variety of ways, sometimes resulting in the instrument being in direct sunlight.
For these reasons only those records taken since 1910 are included in the tables of extreme temperatures. There have been cases where Stevenson screens have been affected by bushfires and these measurements are not included. Only data that is contained in the Bureau’s digital database called the Australian Data Archive for Meteorology has been included in these documents”.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/extreme/records/about.shtml
Southern Hemisphere Highest Temperature 50.7°C (123°F) 2/1 (January)/1960 59 years Oodnadatta, Australia 27°32’S, 135°26’E 112m (367 ft)
https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-meteorological-organization-global-weather-climate-extremes-archive
That means that Australia does like NOAA and NASA does with US temperature, just change them to show what you want to make people believe that the planet is getting hotter. John Pollack doesn’t want to comment on this record, I notice.
Northern Hemisphere Highest Temperature 56.7°C (134°F) 10/7 (July)/1913 1911- present Furnace Creek (Greenland Ranch), CA, USA 36°27’N, 116°51’@ -54m (-179ft) )
I don’t see anything unusual about statement from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM).
Here’s a quote from a BoM climatologist about the temperature measurement setup in Cloncurry at the time of the 1889 “record” temperature:
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/hottest-temperature-on-earth-revised-20120914-25wji.html (The SMH site is paywalled, but will normally allow a small number of free accesses/month)
JDS: Australia does like NOAA and NASA does with US temperature, just change them to show what you want to make people believe that the planet is getting hotter.
BPL: When you can’t think of any other argument, just accuse the other side of lying. It’s so much easier when you can just ignore any evidence you don’t like.
What is your point? 3, 4, 5, or greater sigma events are extremely rare. By definition. If you want to look at using only extremely rare values in a statistical way to make a sensible inference, you need a large number of them.
Is there any way we can solve this scientific puzzle? Yes. One way is to count the rate at which new records are being set at all discrete locations. Oddly, when such an analysis is done, new hot records are far more common than new cold records. So maybe something *is* happening with extreme record values.
What sort of inference would one make from this observation if one were an honest observer and an honest communicator?
JDS: Those who say global temperature continues to increase cannot answer why these records still hold in the United States.
BPL: Sure they can. There are tens of thousands of records all over the world and they won’t all be broken at once, because temperature and temperature variations are different all over the world. Global warming refers to the global average only.
My father’s ranch was just down the road from the temperature station at Gann Valley where the South Dakota record high was set in the dirty thirties. The Gann Valley giant used to eat Sunday dinners at our house. It’s very easy to explain: bad drought combined with the horrible agricultural practices of the day. The record has since been tied with modern agricultural practices.. South Dakota is considerably warmer now than when I was a kid. It has a noticeably different climate.
J Doug Swallow,
Given you have problems distinguishing ‘global’ temperature from ‘Greenland’ temperature (all very complicated as they do both start with the same letter of the alphabet) and then brand me as “so uninformed” for my trouble, an explanation of this apparent oddity of US temperature records may be entirely wasted on you.
Consider the first of your listed US States – Arkansas. The temperature record (1895-to-date) shows very little warming (a linear trend over the full record of +0.03°F/decade) but Arkansas is only one tiny little bit of a big big planet.
The May temperatures have been posted by NOAA for Arkasas showing an average monthly high temperature for 2022 May of 81.2°F, significantly up on April’s at 71.2°F which should come as no surprise given the annual temperature cycle in the northern hemisphere. May becomes the month with the highest ave max temp of the year so far and sits as the May with the 88th hottest AveMaxTemp on the full 128 year NOAA record for Arkansas, below 1962, 2018, 1896, 2012, 1987, ……
In the all-month ratings, the Arkansas AveMaxTemp for May 2022 sits in a lowly 922nd spot, behind top spot July1980 (99.3°F) and July1954, Aug1954, July1930, July1934, Aug1943, Aug1936, July1901, Aug1980 with Aug1947 (97.5°F) in 10th spot. These AveMaxTemp comprise averaged daily data across Arkansas and with AveMinTemp will become a tiny part of the grand global average for the period in question.
One point that may escape the foolishness of denialists like J Doug Swallow is that these record high temperatures for US states are usually accompanied by lists of their record low temperatures. The record low temperatures are generally older than the record high temperatures, with 33 of the states being so. This is suggestive of a significant warming trend buried within the noisy record high/low data.
MA Rodger says; “Given you have problems distinguishing ‘global’ temperature from ‘Greenland’ temperature (all very complicated as they do both start with the same letter of the alphabet) and then brand me as “so uninformed” for my trouble, an explanation of this apparent oddity of US temperature records may be entirely wasted on you”.
I wonder why MA Rodger is unable to understand and factor into his reply to me what I said in my comment that seems to distress him so much; “Those who say global temperature continues to increase cannot answer why these records still hold in the United States”. Just cut the insults and answer the question, MA Rodger. Of course this will never be allowed by the moderators to be seen by MA Rodger and therefore it is one-sided conversation, by design.
JDS: “Those who say global temperature continues to increase cannot answer why these records still hold in the United States”. Just cut the insults and answer the question
BPL: I answered it. Did you miss it?
J Doug Swallow,
Given your Global/Greenland nonsense from last March which I linked-to above, and all the other nonsense you spout endlessly here at RC (which does result in you being bore-holed), why would I even bother explaining “why these records still hold in the United States”? And you branded me back in March as “not educated enough” so why would you even ask me? And if I do explain further, will you put on your clever head and read what I write? Or will you ignore what is placed before you, as you have done countless times in the past?
…
Since 1980 the world has been warming with average global temperatures having climbed above the levels recorded back in the 1930s. Despite this warming, through those 42 years since pre-1980, only on 13 occasions was a post-1980 annual global average temperature higher than all previously recorded annual global averages, thus becoming in turn ‘record’ years; 1981, 88, 90, 95, 97, 98, 99, 2005, 10, 15 &16. (This using HadCRUT5.) So we could say that there is only a [11/42=] 26% chance of the temperatures averaged over the whole year and over the whole globe becoming one of those ‘record’ years for global temperature. This is due to the wobbles that effect global average temperatures.
If the warming trend was greater, there would be more frequent ‘record’ years and conversely, if the trend were less, the ‘record’ frequency would also reduce.
If the wobbles were greater (or at least the variation in wobble size were greater), there would be less chance of a ‘record’ year. If smaller, more chance.
And if the 1930s were relatively warmer or cooler, the run of post-1980 ‘record’ years in which a year could become a ‘record’ year will be respectively shorter or longer.
In a big wide world, there will of course be places that are above average in these matters, and those that are below average, at least in most of these matters. Thus the number of ‘record’ years for different parts of the world will vary. Some will have more ‘record’ years, some less. And likely some will have none at all post-1980.
.
The Arkansas warming trend post-1980 is similar in rate to the global trend but the wobbles are about 4x bigger. As well, Arkansas temperatures hardily get above the 1930s levels. There is but one ‘record’ year post-1980; 2012. The previous ‘record’ year was 1921 (those wobbles at work) with the ranked warmest Arkansas years running 2021, 1921, 1988, 2016 & 1954, 1938. This last one is the one when Arkansas’s state ‘record’ daily high temperature was recorded, the year-of-interest.
But if it is not temperature anomalies but absolute values that are being compared (which is what those state ‘records’ are doing), it is only the summer months which can feature as ‘hottest’. When July & August are considered rather than the whole Arkansas year, the wobbles are greater still, over 5x bigger than global ave wobbles, while the warming trend is now halved. The chances of post-1980 ‘records’ become a whole lot smaller yet there is still one post-1980 summer that gains the ‘record’, 2011. Note that the year-of-interest 1938 sits at a lowly 59th in these rankings. Even if August in Arkansas is examined (rather than Jul&Aug), 1938 only ranks 13th.
These however are average daily temperatures, so we are still not considering averaged daily-high temperatures. For July & August in Arkansas, the daily-high temperatures are even more wobbly, 9x the global annual average wobbles, and the post-1980 warming trend becomes negative for these two summer months. Thus there is little chance of any post-1980 Arkansas ‘record’ for summer high temperature, and indeed none occurs with 2011 being the ranked 4th behind 1954, 1934 & 1952.
1938 again appears at a rather lowely 51st. For August alone, 1938 manages 16th.
Of course, the ‘records’ featured on the Wkikthing page are the highest temperature ever recorded by any single weather station on a single day. Such multiplicity does allow the wobbles to do their work without being averaged out. And so do any recording errors (and biases).
The station holding the Arkansas ‘record’ doesn’t show a GHCN value for August 1938 which suggests there are problems with the data for that month, perhaps involving that ‘record’ temperature for Arkansas, perhaps not.
And I’m sure there are many who will draw their own crazy conclusions from that GHCN data, just as they probably believe that Elvis shot JFK and that Prince Philip was a shape-shifting lizard so he isn’t dead but has just shed his skin. And as Prince Philip told me and Elvis last night “While one can never be sure of the prognosis of a collective madness, dear boys, there are steps that can be taken to help effectuate a cure.”
Actually, it’s been explained to you repeatedly. You just don’t understand enough about extreme value theory to realize that the answer is trivial.
An exercise for the reader:
Flip a coin 20 times and tally the number of heads.
Repeat this exercise and take the highest tally.
Repeat again and take the highest tally.
Keep doing this and look at the number of 20-flip trials between times where the record changes. Report on your results.
(teaching moment started by RL continued) … then slightly bias your coin to come up heads (e.g., warmer) by a percent or two. What happens? Do new low values continue to be set? [Hint: Yes. …well up to a run of 20 tails which happens every million times or so at which point you should reset.] Do new high values continue to be set? [Hint: Yes /same caveat.] Do you notice any change in the amount of new tails (cold) versus heads (warm) records? [Hint: Yes. We see the average interval till a new warm record drop slightly and the average interval till a new cold record rise.] Can the biased versus unbiased coins be ID’d (Hint: Yes, given a LOT of flips as extreme values are rare by definition which of course is why deniers so love this “approach”.)
This is the sort of approach one would take if extreme values were the only data points available. Some information can be extracted, but it is limited and lacks statistical power to see true differences. As stated above, this is why deniers so love going this route, of course and I’ve been seeing a lot of such “reasoning” going on lately as all other measures fail to produce enough FUD any more.
Summary: If one is actually interested in looking at reality on some dimension, the best way is generally to use all the data one can gather instead of throwing away every single bit of data on said dimension except for single extreme values. Only a self-deluded idiot/crank or a committed propagandist (take your pick) would do that when the full data are available.
Well-said.
It’s vaguely parallel to the tactic of pretending that we don’t actually understand the physical processes involved, and must rely on probabilistic analysis exclusively to determine whether ‘there’s anything in it.’
Solutions: clean, renewable energy – mobility systems.
If I may, I will promote this particular business as an example of doers in above mentioned space and builders of an electric future, literally and figuratively.
https://driveco.com/en/home/
Your family, like mine, can solve the climate emergency if we put our minds and hands to work on solutions.
Supporting and empowering a car-based economy is one of the worst things any human can do. There is nothing good about this in the long run. If you want to promote transportation, support light rail, trolleys, buses, bullet trains. And as little of those as is absolutely needed.
The planet doesn’t care how cute the tech is, it cares that you dig it out of her skin.
K: The planet doesn’t care how cute the tech is, it cares that you dig it out of her skin.
BPL: That’s why God made recycling.
The wheel has been invented Hr Killian
And the combustion engine. There is so much propaganda of Thermo- dynamics.. in the climate dispute, from people who hardly know what that is about.
It is PdV = E in a cylinder with tight mooving piston and a crankshaft. One of mankinds greatest inventions.
The crank was patented by the weavers for the rocking wheel spinning machine. So James Watt had to invent the planetary gear to make his doubble action steam engine work because he could not simply use the obvious piston rod to a crankshaft.
Human intelligence, you see, and permaculture, sustainability.
The horses had to sleep and to eat and to rest, else no permaculture horsepowers. But by Watts engine you only have to shuffle coal day and night and inject more water by a feed- pump driven by the same machine and it works, cyclic , sustainable!
.
I didn’t think HST or bullet trains were very good environmentally, because energy requirements for movement increase non-linearly with speed. The most energy efficient way to move about is slowly. Bicycles are the most energy efficient way to get about and are good for moving around in the limitied confines of a town or city.
Two problems with rail in the UK:
1. Periodic industrial action results in large parts of it shutting down.
2. It is very expensive. If I want to visit my family who live 240 miles away, the cost of fuel is around £60 even after the surge in energy prices. To go by train costs well over £100. As long as our current way of life (aka capitalism where externalised costs don’t exist on the balance sheet) financially punishes people for trying to make better choices, it is going to be very difficult to put a dent in CO2 emissions. The system has to change.
But god didn’t and it largely does not exist. You know this. 30% of what we produce is unrecyclable, another significant chunk is so difficult to recycle we don’t even really try and the rest is recycled at rates far below current production/consumption.
Again, you know this. Looks like the honeymoon has ended and old habits are re-asserting.
Adam, public transport has obvious advantages over car culture in far less resource consumption, far less ecological damage, greater efficiency, etc.
1. Sounds like a local political problem.
2. No reason it need be expensive – or have any cost. Remember: We are always, even when we don’t say so or even know so, talking about systemic change.
3. Regardless, by every measure, public transport is a better ecological option. (Not my personal first option, but, you know, gotta deal with the pervasive refusal to consider simplification.)
I agree public transportation has advantages over car culture. Private motor vehicles are very inefficient consumers of space and one issue with them is the motorist does not pay the full cost. Road accidents and environmental damage don not appear on the motorist’s balance sheet.
1. is a national problem in the UK, and is about the reduction of wages in real terms and unfavourable changes in working conditions. It has been brewing for a while and is at least partly fueled by the worst cost of living crisis in the UK for 60 years. There is now talk of teachers undergoing industrial action for similar reasons.
2. In the current system it must have costs. Public transport is a collection of machines which require fuel, maintenance, infrastructure, and people to operate. All that costs money. The whole system needs to change to something where money doesn’t exist and everyone undergoes voluntary work to get done what needs to be done for the benefit of society. How you get from here to there I have no idea.
Your last point: Yes. And: I do. Come to Clubhouse, Regenerative Governance club.
Adam Lea
“The whole system needs to change to something where money doesn’t exist and everyone undergoes voluntary work to get done what needs to be done for the benefit of society. How you get from here to there I have no idea.”
With money you can decide what you want to buy. Without money how does it work? Do we seriously go back to the problems of bartering goods? Or does the community decide who gets what goods and services? Imagine the enormous complexity of this given the range of even just the basic commodities. Do we really want some committee deciding on what we can consume? The problems of all that are fairly obvious.
With voluntary work for the benefit of society, I agree it would be nice, but similar ideas were tried by Maos China and the Soviet Union and other very socialistic countries, and people largely do the bare miniumm of work and their work is very poor quality. There are exceptions where some sectors perform well like healthcare, but overall it doesnt seem to work terrirbly well. And yes I know those countries I mentioned are largely autocracies and / or totalitarian states , but their socio economic policies are not unlike what you proposed
.
You also need to get from A to B as you mention. So we need to persuade people. I don’t know how that works because most people seem very intent on working for their own benefit and to accumulate money and material wealth. They are aware of how the very socialistic experiments in China and the Soviet Union, or Venuzuela or Cuba havent worked so well and even their environments suffered badly in most cases, so suggesting something even slightly similar runs into trouble.
Policial parties that support your ideas or vaguely similar ones seem to get very low polling
these days. For example our Green Party in New Zealand. So the public largely seem unenthusiastic. Of course that COULD all change but its hard to see HOW.
I’m certainly not opposed to change per se. And I’m not a huge fan of capitalism as it stands and have no opposition to things like public health systems. I’m just highlighting issues with the ideas you expressed and having a lot of trouble seeing how we would ever get from A to B.
There are other things we CAN do that do seem realistic, like the circular recycling economy, some form of organic or regenerative farming, and perhaps more not for profit businesses. There is some public enthusiasm for these things, so getting from A to B looks plausible, and they appear to be largely benign and workable in the long run.
Nigel, how many times do you need all of these points pointed out? Why are you asking the same questions since Dec. 2016?
To all and everyone exept Killian, who will not bother.
“trolley” is an interesting word, the barbarians and prole- tarians-national-socialists never understood it.
It is old norse by the vikings Trill- Trall-Troll…….. “roll”……… trell Træl .. rail… Rallare Railways…
It is probably Sanskrit, you see…
The wheel shows up in early bronse age worldwide together with pottery..
The Gypsies,, the “Roma” people have now got their flag I have seen that is . Green below and blue above with a big, red , spiked wheel all over it. They were and they are the travellers..
I had to declare myself there and showed that we, the vikings, who rather rather travel at sea in boats when we conquer and rule the world and the situation. A drawn ship on rocks or a human on skis, that travel faster. The turbo jetliners in air is actually a way of gliding and skiing. in large, collective sleighs.
Hr Killian on linguistics have not yet reallized that , todays trolleys and wheelbarrows are severely dilettantic decadent and out of order.
They hardly go offroad. I had to re- construct it. Having glimpsed archaic wheelbarrows before they were extincted and banned, and having had it explained also in public school in terms of archimedian physics.
It is 2 long rods and shafts to a big wheel. Thus you can lift a lot and stear it from behind. Load it up as close as possible to the wheel. But then you need manpower and match- weight to pull it by a rope in the front.
That is the autentic and totally superior wheelbarrow..
The autentic wheelbarrow is rather a social instrument. With that, you also solve the problem of social disorder and unemployment.
And In have found relicts and steel rails for those “wheelbarrows” supported to us by the royal artilleries or rather stolen from there. Of course they neededc that also for the heavy cast iron
and bronse guns on bearing shafts with large wheels, with roaps and wedges,….. and it was further re- cyclede and taken into civil use again after having been borrowed from there.
That is trolley tralle trill roll trail Trillebør (trolley burden) you see.
The chineese have pictured the same very well, one large wheel barrows, with very long shafts ansd a lot of people around pulling.
No chineese wall without Trillebør. (=trolley-barrow)
PS
Yes, I see it now. Even Travel and travellers, , travel is bei9ng busy.
It may be the same troll trail tralle trolley and træl trell., even to roll. DS.
The principal reason for the invention of the wheel barrow was to attempt to get people such as Killian up and off of going around on four feet.
Yes!
I would prefer for you not to assume that I don’t know, use or support the most sustainable means of transportation. I find your comment offensive.
By the way, walking is the best and that’s what I maximize. Nobody in my family owns a car and has intentionally chosen to live in places that are car-independent. However, not everybody has that choice.
It’s about mobility, not cars in particular. It’s about everything from cars to motorcycles to utility vehicles to small electric planes. There will always be a need to ambulances, no? They will be electric, charged at a 100% clean, renewable network.
There will also be cars in use for the long term, it does not mean that they will be privately owned. The shared EV car model is one alternative. There will still be privately owned cars, for medical personnel, for instance, especially in the rural areas.
You present cars as a solution then get all uppity about it and claim it is insulting to point out cars are *not* a solution no matter how you use them?
You’re aggressively defensive with no cause to be. You boosted a bad idea, I said it is a bad idea. There was nothing personal in it. Why so defensive?
Killian says that humanity should not be able to choose the type of transportation that they desire and that they perhaps should not travel at all; “Supporting and empowering a car-based economy is one of the worst things any human can do. There is nothing good about this in the long run”. Killian well represents the type of control hungry folks that this site well represents where individual freedom is seen to be a threat to the dictatorial desires that the alarmist, who love this site, that cannot, and has never been able to produce any empirical evidence, that their devil in the sky, CO₂, has the ability to cause the Earth’s climate to change or can cause the Earth’s temperature to increase in abnormal ways.
I entirely agree with Kilian, and disagree with the PayPal Mafian American Tsarist, here. Cars vs Hyperloop.
This is unexpected. Of course there are further discussion points as if Stereoisomerically specific climate protectives should be seperated (at will) from ozone toxic H3O.
And you just outted yourself by revealing why you’re here; to disrupt the scientific conversation with b.s. You’re afraid someone is going to take away your truck and force you to be sensible about how you use energy. Your comments belong in the borehole.
I admit there are a lot of things I find hard to resist about motor vehicles. Sort of.
However I’m not so enamored of the brain fevered retrogrades who roll coal while listening to radio wing-nuts fantasize about how much fun it would be to run over bicyclists; who expend their adult lives eating away at the very concept of what it means to think like an adult. They fear, loath, and deny change while disrespecting life; they take from society and offer nothing of commensurate value in return; and then they mock and cry bitter tears when they are called on it.
Denialists. What a waste.
JDS: the alarmist, who love this site, that cannot, and has never been able to produce any empirical evidence, that their devil in the sky, CO₂, has the ability to cause the Earth’s climate to change
BPL: Oh, there are mountains of evidence. You just reject any evidence that doesn’t fit what you want to believe, because you’re one of the most intellectually dishonest people on the internet. M. Scott Peck wrote a book about people like you.
All this geoengineering chatter just begs the question: how do anyone think this should be set in motion by politicians who consequently do everything they possibly can to ignore the whole climate issue and continue with business as extremely usual behind a neverending screen of greencommercials for their careermaking?
The catastrophe is already here, and therefore Putin the oiligarch has, on behalf of all the oiligarchs everywhere, started their petroholic third world war. https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/06/03/petroleum-wars-in-the-age-of-climate-disaster-a-bridge-fuel-too-far/
“+ The war in Ukraine seems to be going badly for all involved, except the oil companies and the arms merchants.
+ Putin’s pal Vladimir Solovyov, a popular commentator on Russian TV, warned this week that if NATO keeps supporting Ukraine, there will be a “massive nuclear strike” which only “mutants” will survive.
+ Mutants can’t be any worse than the genetic specimens now running the planet…” https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/06/10/roaming-charges-56/
June 12 is Hug a Climate Scientist Day!
Origin: https://cosmosmagazine.com/people/its-thank-a-climate-scientist-day/
I want to thank all the climate scientists running this website, in particular, and all climate scientists, in general, for their highly valuable and consequential work. Please continue informing us about the impending existential threat to life on Earth created by one species only, ours. It is completely unacceptable for climate scientists to be the most criticized, harassed, threatened of all scientists. I hope you can fight it effectively and that you will be able to attract young people into this field, despite underfunding, lack of prestige and the aggressive ignorance of politicians, businesses and fossil industry sold-out scientists.
Hugs and thanks!
GISTEMP has posted the LOTI numbers for May showing a global SAT anomaly of +0.82ºC, the lowest anomaly for the year-to-date being a smidgeon down on April’s +0.83ºC. Previous months were Jan +0.91ºC, Feb +0.89ºC & Mar +1.04ºC.
May 2022 becomes the =6th warmest May on the GISTEMP record (below 2020, 2016, 2017, 2014 & 2019, equalling 2018 and above 2015 & 2021. May 2022 becomes =76th highest all-month anomaly on record.
In terms of the start of 2022, after five months it continues at 5th warmest.
…….. Jan-May Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.19ºC … … … +1.01ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +1.14ºC … … … +1.02ºC … … … 1st
2017 .. +1.03ºC … … … +0.92ºC … … … 4th
2019 .. +0.98ºC … … … +0.97ºC … … … 3rd
2022 .. +0.90ºC
2015 .. +0.85ºC … … … +0.90ºC … … … 5th
2018 .. +0.85ºC … … … +0.84ºC … … … 6th
2010 .. +0.82ºC … … … +0.72ºC … … … 9th
2007 .. +0.78ºC … … … +0.66ºC … … … 12th
2021 .. +0.77ºC … … … +0.84ºC … … … 7th
2014 .. +0.75ºC … … … +0.74ºC … … … 8th
This is what I receive when I go to the site that MA Rodger provides the link for;
Not found.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_USC00035508_14_0_1/station.txt
This link, if followed, tells the story that MA Rodger is unable to convey;
Heatwave of July 1936
Overview
The “Dust Bowl” years of 1930-36 brought some of the hottest summers on record to the United States, especially across the Plains, Upper Midwest and Great Lake States. For the Upper Mississippi River Valley, the first few weeks of July 1936 provided the hottest temperatures of that period, including many all-time record highs (see tab below).
The string of hot, dry days was also deadly. Nationally, around 5000 deaths were associated with the heat wave.
In La Crosse, WI, there were 14 consecutive days (July 5th-18th) where the high temperature was 90 degrees or greater, and 9 days that were at or above 100°F. Six record July temperatures set during this time still stand, including the hottest day on record with 108°F on the 14th. The average high temperature for La Crosse during this stretch of extreme heat was 101°F, and the mean temperature for the month finished at 79.5°F – 2nd highest on record. https://www.weather.gov/arx/heat_jul36
Since this link is to a government site that strays from the narrative of this site that is that all bad things that happen now in the world is due to too much atmospheric CO₂, it will never be read by MA Rodger because he will never see it. That is how Real Climate’s science works: If it strays from the desired narrative, then censor it.
“Where all think alike, no one thinks very much”. Walter Lippmann
Nice (in your words) *”story”*. Zero science.
Again: Single extreme values convey very little distributional or scientific information of any kind and thus have extremely limited power to make any scientific point pro or con about anything whatsoever.
Deluded idiots and cranks through ignorance and propagandists through design love single extreme values for this reason. You’ve yet again just provided evidence on this point.
“Since this link is to a government site that strays from the narrative of this site that is that all bad things that happen now in the world is due to too much atmospheric CO₂,…” – J Doug Swallow
No. By the Great Depression atmospheric CO2 was well above 300 ppm, and you’ve provided no reason for how the heat records of the Great Depression would even be possible without it. By the Great Depression, farming practices had changed radically from what they had been in the past. Especially in the wheat belt through the central United States. Two significant anthropogenic factors were present, and you’re arguing they had nothing to do with the heat records of the time.
You don’t know that. Have you even considered it?
JCH says; “Two significant anthropogenic factors were present, and you’re arguing they had nothing to do with the heat records of the time”. JCH can explain how these heat records were set before there was an increase in CO₂.
You don’t know that. Have you even considered it?
What part did you alarmist devil in the sky, CO₂, play in these deadly heat waves that occurred 125 and 110 years ago?
The deadly 1896 and 1911 New England heat waves
On May 10, 1896 most of the Eastern US was over 90 degrees. New Bedford, Massachusetts was 96 degrees, which was 43 degrees warmer than the previous day’s forecast high, but the worst was yet to come. A heat wave during July and August, 1896 was at that time the worst weather-related tragedy in American history. By the time it ended in mid-August, 1500 deaths from the Midwest to New York to New England had been recorded.
On Tuesday, August 11, 1896 the Boston Globe reported ten fatalities in the city from the heat, twenty the following day, and fifteen more on the 13th when the heat wave finally subsided.
Fifteen years later, the record for heat-related fatalities was broken. In June and July, 1911 an eleven-day heat wave recorded temperatures above 100 degrees Fahrenheit in which two thousand people died, some from drowning trying to cool off. On July 11, crowds gathered in the shade at Hartford City Hall watched the Thermograph fluctuate between 110 and 112 degrees.
https://historicipswich.org/2020/09/02/heat-waves/
JDS: What part did you alarmist devil in the sky, CO₂, play in these deadly heat waves that occurred 125 and 110 years ago?
BPL: For the Nth time, where N approaches infinity, no one EVER said heat waves (hurricanes, droughts, whatever) never happened before global warming. We did say they were LESS FREQUENT and OF LESSER INTENSITY. How many times do we have to say something before you stop accusing us of saying the exact opposite? Seriously, how dishonest are you?
It’s appalling how many people an urban heat wave can kill to those without access to air conditioning! August 1896 in Boston saw only one day where the heat got as high as third place, well behind more recent daily records. In Hartford CT, the official temperature reached 100 on July 10 and 97 on July 11, 1911. Temperatures for those two consecutive days were exceeded on June 30 and July 1 1964, July 2-3 1966, July 6-7 2010, and July 19-21 1991 – apparently without causing as many deaths. (for temperature records see http://threadex.rcc-acis.org/ )
Regarding the report about the Hartford thermograph: the official high for July 11 was 97. The crowd was in the shade, but perhaps the instrument wasn’t, or hadn’t been properly calibrated. In any case, the report seems to reflect a considerable concentration of the largest urban internal combustion byproduct of the era, horse exhaust.
Dr.J. D.Swallow:
….all bad things that happen now in the world is due to too much athospheric CO2….
NO, you are misconsceived.
It is due to
1, the american way of life
2, The Chineese wayn of life and
3, The Oil lead between Saudi Arabia and Pentagon!
This was true until recently and Al Gore saw it.
But quite recently the russian gas- leads soutrhstream andv Ukrainastream and Nordstream 1 and 2 comes to it and makes it even worse.
When shall you learn?
Al Gore was quite ingenious. He drove up the very Hollywood and took nstrangle grip on
1, The american way of life
2 The chineese way of life and
3, the oil lead between Saudi Arabia and Pentagon.
Strangle grip, beat that!
And set Guinness world record of conspiracy by that grip.
Q: when shall you learn how to beat that?
This is, basically, an ad hominem attack and a non-sequitur because it doesn’t address the issue of global warming.
John Pollack says; “I’ve heard of the Dust Bowl. I haven’t heard why you listed Georgia, South Dakota, and Washington states as having record lows coming after their record highs – when they came BEFORE the highs even in the data set you chose!”
I have no idea what John Pollack is trying to maintain with that comment other than he thinks that 1940 comes before 1983, 1936 comes before 2006 & that 2021 comes before 1968.
Georgia Maximum Temperature 112°F August 20, 1983 Greenville 2 NNW 093915 E1
July 24, 1952 Louisville 095314 E1
Georgia Minimum Temperature -17°F January 27, 1940 CCC Fire Camp F-16 (nr. Beatum) EA
South Dakota Maximum Temperature 120°F July 15, 2006 Fort Pierre 393076 N1
July 5, 1936 Gann Valley 393217 N1
South Dakota Minimum Temperature -58°F February 17, 1936 McIntosh 395381 E
Washington Maximum Temperature 120°F June 29, 2021 Hanford DOE Mesonet H100F NSA
Washington Minimum Temperature -48°F December 30, 1968 Mazama 455133 E2
December 30, 1968 Winthrop 459376 E2
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records
I don’t think that 2021 comes before 1968. But maybe you do, since you listed Washington as one of the states where the record high came before the record low in your June 13 111am posting. You made the same error with Georgia, North Dakota, and South Dakota. You haven’t explained why.
I don’t see a need to explain why correct data is correct, but I’m interested in why you would post a false summary of correct data.
John Pollack says “I don’t think that 2021 comes before 1968” and that was a misstatement on my part, obviously. As far as the rest of your remarks about the records for Georgia, North Dakota, and South Dakota goes, when I formulated my account of the state’s records what I was using is what NOAA had published in the link that I had used.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records
While you are wondering about my post in such detail, please produce any empirical evidence that your devil in the sky, CO₂, has the ability to cause the Earth’s climate to change or CO₂ can cause the Earth’s temperature to increase in abnormal ways. If more CO₂ causes the Earth’s temperature to rise, then explain why this nearly 109 year old record still stands.
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), California.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00093.1
All of these world records for cold were set AFTER 1913 and John Pollack can try to make a case about that fact.
The Coldest Recorded Temperatures In The World
Rank Temperature (°C ) Location Date
1 -89.2 Vostok Station, Antarctica 1983-07-21
2 -82.8 Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station, South Pole 1982-06-23
3 -82.5 Dome A 2005–07
4 -67.8 Verkhoyansk and Oymyakon, both in Sakha Republic, Russia 1892-02-07, 1933-02-06
5 -66.1 North Ice, Greenland 1954-01-09
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-coldest-temperatures-ever-recorded-on-earth.html
J Doug Swallow stated “As far as the rest of your remarks.about the records for Georgia, North Dakota, and South Dakota goes, when I formulated my account of the states records, what I was using is what NOAA had published in the link that I had used.” Yet, your account was formulated incorrectly, based on the exact link that you referred to. In particular, you included Washington and the other three states as examples of state record high temperatures coming BEFORE record lows, when the opposite was true. You have not been able to explain why you did this.
I am not inclined to select from any of the very large body of empirical evidence that carbon dioxide changes the Earth’s climate, since I have seen how you are unable to accept the most basic empirical evidence (the time sequence of dated records) without reversing or distorting it.
Yes, I will make a case of of your misuse of whatever evidence might be contained in record lows. Indeed, all the lows that you listed came after 1913, except for the earlier date in example 4. You managed to get the date sequence right in this instance. However, examples 1,2,3, and 5 were recorded in the middle of winter in the interior of ice sheets. These places weren’t inhabited at that season in 1913, or for over 40 years thereafter. There was nobody around to read a thermometer then. Thus, there is no way to tell if it had been even colder in those places prior to 1913, which would have established an earlier record. It’s a false comparison.
JDS: please produce any empirical evidence that your devil in the sky, CO₂, has the ability to cause the Earth’s climate to change or CO₂ can cause the Earth’s temperature to increase
BPL: Whatever we produce, you will ignore it. That has always been your m.o. in the past. Your question is dishonest.
Wow. This maxes must come after mins ASSUMPTION you keep spewing out proves either that you know nothing about probability or that you know something, at least, and are willing to use your “knowledge” for propaganda rather than and even minimal bit of scientific understanding.
There is precisely ZERO observational, theoretic, scientific or modeled evidence that in any series–even slowly trending rising or falling ones–that such occurs. (Actually, mathematically,it is strictly not a provable statement unless the trend is infinitely up or down and therefore undefined.)
All a (positive) trend in a temp series does is bias the probabilities of new maxes/mins in any particular series such that you are somewhat more likely to see a new max sooner and a new min later (though NOT in relation to each other). Your “reasoning” here is basically a variant of the Gamblers Fallacy where a paucity or plethora of past independent values somehow directly influence present values. Hint: Gamblers employing the Gambler’s Fallacy usually lose.. Even when the underlying data are autocorrelated,
This is easily verified in R, Python or any other language in about 10 lines of programming.
More clean, renewable energy – mobility solutions:
1. Ferromobile a French EV road-rail vehicle:
https://youtu.be/vR9PQYtDJ3M
2. Solar pavement combined with EV charging stations:
https://platiosolar.com/solutions/e-mobility/
3. Solar powered trains:
https://www.railway-technology.com/analysis/solar-powered-trains/
Let’s adopt them, let’s displace the fossil economy, before it’s too late. It”s not the imagination and talent of doers we miss, it’s the will to change, as there are too many biopaths (anti-biopshere) and sociopaths in decision-making positions. And too many idle chatters among those who understand we are in a climate emergency, but prefer debate to action.
The Antrarctic Sea Ice has been showing a bit of ‘behaviour’ of late.
From 1979 when satellite data became available, the Antarctic SIE has shown very little trend, this ‘flatness’ punctuated by a couple of icier years 2013-15 followed by a few meltier years 2016-20. Since autumn last year, the Antarctic SIE has been again running meltier, gaining record levels of melt-for-the-time-of-year for a week in Feb this year which happened to coincide with the annual SIE minimum (& thus was even picked up by the popular press). It has been since continuing significantly meltier than average although not record-breaking (bar one day last week).
One point with this continuing meltiness is that this wobble now exceeds in size any of the pre-2013 melty wobbles. The up-to-date JAXA SIE anomaly is plotted out in Graph 3 here.) And just to provide some emphasis for this ‘exceedance’, the JAXA Antarctic SIE has now dropped rather strongly below the previous time-of-year records set by 2017 & 2018, strong enough to even show on the more-smoothed NSIDC chArctic graphics.
Without any useful predictive models of what to expect (that I know of), this may be the start of something. Or it may not be.
MA Rodger says; “Without any useful predictive models of what to expect (that I know of), this may be the start of something. Or it may not be”.
Is it possible that since the South Pole posted the most severe cold season on record in 2021 present an indication of what the future might be in Antarctica for its sea ice?
October 2, 2021 at 8:45 a.m. EDT
The record-breaking average temperature recorded at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station – where the geographic South Pole is located – between April and September was -61.1°C (-78°F), the lowest since records began in 1957. Italian journalist Stefano Di Battista first reported the figures, noting this was -2.5 °C (-4.5 °F) lower than the average for winter months in the preceding 30 years.
The numbers were confirmed by Dr Richard Cullather at NASA’s Global Modeling and Assimilation Office to The Washington Post. Dr Amy Butler, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA, told the Post the colder season was likely due to the stronger polar vortex, which appeared to have contributed to the unexpected cold around the South Pole.
https://www.iflscience.com/the-south-pole-just-experienced-its-coldest-winter-on-record-61199
J Doug Swallow,
You ask if it is possible that the recent winter temperature record at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station may be predictive of Antarctic SIE trends.
The answer is an emphatic no. For some reason that I find difficult to usefully explain to you, there isn’t presently much sea ice to be found at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station.
Actually, I’m going to speculate that there is a possible link between the SP cold and the SIE trend, though not the one JDS is likely trying to suggest. His post included this bit:
If that’s true, and should the condition persist into the melt season, it probably means *warmer* waters over much of the area where Antarctic SI forms seasonally, and hence *less* SI. Which would mean a continuation of the recent trend of declining Antarctic SIE.
Kevin McKinney says some remark about; “Dr Amy Butler, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA, told the Post the colder season was likely due to the stronger polar vortex, which appeared to have contributed to the unexpected cold around the South Pole”.
I wonder if Kevin McKinney has the ability to recognize that there is a trend when one considers this record that was set in 2010.
“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/
Sorry, JDS, you need a tad more than that for an actual trend.
MA Rodger says; “You ask if it is possible that the recent winter temperature record at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station may be predictive of Antarctic SIE trends. The answer is an emphatic no”. Why wouldn’t record low temperatures have an effect on the Antarctic sea ice, is the question for you to answer.
Ninety two years ago, Mawson was sailing along the Antarctic coast. In 2013, global warming nutcases trying to retrace Mawson’s route were hoping an icebreaker comes and saves them.
Sir DOUGLAS MAWSON’S second expedition on SCOTT’S Discovery to Antarctic waters south of the Indian Ocean and Australia is by this time already near the coast which he skirted and explored in the Summer of 1929-30. He identified Enderby and Kemp Lands, first seen by British explorers a hundred years before.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0D11F73F5C117A93CAAB1789D95F448385F9
Antarctic trap: Stranded ship awaiting Australian rescue after Chinese, French turn away December 29, 2013 10:17 The Akademik Shokalskiy, with 74 scientists, tourists and crew members on board, has been on a privately-funded research expedition to Antarctica to retrace the footsteps of an Australian geologist, who explored the Antarctic a century ago. http://rt.com/news/ship-stuck-antarctic-rescue-935/
Perhaps MA Rodger can tell me what the conditions were in 2013 at a place that he seems to not believe have any effect on the Antarctic sea ice today, Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station.
J Doug Swallow,
Perhaps I can tell you 2013 was the second warmest year on record at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station (1957-to-date) averaging -47.4ºC but what relevance that has for the price of cheese or indeed why you can’t look it up for yourself escapes me.
Barton Paul Levenson says; “We did say they were LESS FREQUENT and OF LESSER INTENSITY. How many times do we have to say something before you stop accusing us of saying the exact opposite? Seriously, how dishonest are you?”
What does the one who says ‘We’ constantly that must mean that Barton Paul Levenson goes around with a mouse in his pocket, to now say that before his hoax of anthropogenic climate change came about that heat waves (hurricanes, droughts, whatever) were LESS FREQUENT and OF LESSER INTENSITY. As usual for him and his mouse, he is not telling the truth about these weather events.
“Average number of deaths by decade
In the chart we show global deaths from natural disasters since 1900, but rather than reporting annual deaths, we show the annual average by decade. The data for this chart can be found in the table presented here.
As we see, over the course of the 20th century there was a significant decline in global deaths from natural disasters. In the early 1900s, the annual average was often in the range of 400,000 to 500,000 deaths. In the second half of the century and into the early 2000s, we have seen a significant decline to less than 100,000 – at least five times lower than these peaks.
This decline is even more impressive when we consider the rate of population growth over this period. When we correct for population – showing this data in terms of death rates (measured per 100,000 people) – then we see a more than 10-fold decline over the past century. This chart can be viewed here.
https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters#what-share-of-deaths-are-from-natural-disasters
Barton Paul Levenson should pay special attention to Figure 3. U.S. Annual Heat Wave Index, 1895–2020, to see that according to the EPA, heat waves in the US have been in a sharp decline since 1936 while CO₂ has been increasing.
This indicator describes trends in multi-day extreme heat events across the United States.
• Figure 3. U.S. Annual Heat Wave Index, 1895–2020
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heat-waves#%20
Does the phrase “confounding variable” mean anything to you, JDS?
‘Cause you do seem a tad “confounded.”
Kevin McKinney says; “Does the phrase “confounding variable” mean anything to you, JDS?
‘Cause you do seem a tad “confounded.” ” It would be great if Kevin McKinney could possibly elucidate how what he writes to me can be applied to what the EPA graph shows that from 1936 to the present date, there were no heat waves similar to the one that the nation experienced in 1936. I look forward to your explanation of how that can be considered to be “confounding variable”.
Heatwave of July 1936
The “Dust Bowl” years of 1930-36 brought some of the hottest summers on record to the United States, especially across the Plains, Upper Midwest and Great Lake States. https://www.weather.gov/arx/heat_jul36
Easy, JD, and thanks for asking. “Over the course of the the 20th century” there was indeed a drastic decline in deaths due to heat.
The “confounding variable?” An economic and technological explosion unparalleled in human history.
As to the US records from the 1930s, have a look at the *global* record. The rest of the world had quite a different weather experience in those days.
MA Rodger says on 25 JUN 2022, this in a comment to me; “J Doug Swallow, You ask if it is possible that the recent winter temperature record at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station may be predictive of Antarctic SIE trends.
The answer is an emphatic no. For some reason that I find difficult to usefully explain to you, there isn’t presently much sea ice to be found at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station”. Then MA Rodger says on 26 JUN 2022: “J Doug Swallow, Perhaps I can tell you 2013 was the second warmest year on record at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station (1957-to-date) averaging -47.4ºC but what relevance that has for the price of cheese or indeed why you can’t look it up for yourself escapes me”. How is it then that when I post the record lows for 2021—“October 2, 2021 at 8:45 a.m. EDT, The record-breaking average temperature recorded at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station – where the geographic South Pole is located – between April and September was -61.1°C (-78°F), the lowest since records began in 1957”, that is then seen by MA Rodger as having no relevance to the sea ice extent of Antarctica?
“On board the Akademic Shokalskiy are scientists from the University of New South Wales, a number of tourists who paid to be part of the historical expedition, many of them Australian, as well as a journalist from the Guardian, who described how the ship became trapped in heavy ice.
“We had run into trouble two miles from the Antarctic shore and can clearly see the ice caps. All around us is a flat landscape of ice, stretching out for 18 nautical miles. The sight is not unlike the images sent by Curiosity Rover from Mars, only in white,” Alok Jha wrote on his blog on December 27.
https://www.rt.com/news/ship-stuck-antarctic-rescue-935/
The whole point of this exercise is to show how different the ice conditions were in Antarctica 110 years ago, as this photograph should show even MA Rodger, if he was to even look at it.
A photoprint of Commonwealth Bay, taken during the Australasian Antarctic Expedition in 1912.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Bay#/media/File:F._Bickerton_looking_out_over_seas_near_Commonwealth_Bay.jpg
Frankly, I have no grasp of what this imbecile J Doug Swallow is prattling on about. If anybody feels they do, it may be worth them explaining although my take on it is that J Doug Swallow is just prattling.
As far as the temperature record at the South Pole having some correlation with Antarctic SIE, a very selective approach could provide a very rough correlation in that the increase in SIE 2013-16 did occur during a longer-lasting warming trend at the S Pole 2000-20 and the recent couple of years have seen plunging S Pole temperatures and plunging Antarctic SIE. Such a correlation would fit with speculation from <a href="https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/06/unforced-variations-june-2022/#comment-804631"Kevin McKinney up-thread.
But such an interpretation ignores far too much to be taken as a serious correlation. Firstly it ignores the cold S Pole temperature in the late 1990s which is not reflected by any low SIE levels and secondly it ignores the warmest S Pole temperatures 2017-19 which coincide with the meltiest SIE on record rather than an iciest SIE predicted by the rough-&-selective correlation.
I’m not all that attached to my little speculation above, but recall that the idea was not that SP invariably anti-correlated, but rather both could be driven, albeit in opposite directions, by the strength of the Southern Polar Vortex.
So, to really test the idea one way or the other, you’d need to look at some sort of metric for the SPV. It seems highly likely that not all variations in SIE or polar temp are driven by SPV uniquely.
Kevin McKinney,
I guessed there was no great attachment to your speculation although it at least made sense to speculate that if the temperature at the South Pole is held low by the Vortex trapping the cold air, that cold would be less able to cool the air over near-by oceans and spread the Antarctic SIE.
Mind, if the Vortex itself were invoked, I’m not sure what particular data you’d use to measure Vortex strength.
I’m not sure, either, though none of the data you link, MAR, seems quite on point–largely, I suppose, because that collection is aimed at the stratosphere, not surface temps. But it did lead me to look into what data might be out there, in one study or another.
Unfortunately, this paper is paywalled, but the abstract reads thus:
So, if you’ve got access to an academic library, have at it!
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2021GL092582
“How Do Weakening of the Stratospheric Polar Vortex in the Southern Hemisphere Affect Regional Antarctic Sea Ice Extent?”
Shaoyin Wang, Jiping Liu, Xiao Cheng, Tobias Kerzenmacher, Yongyun Hu, Fengming Hui, Peter Braesicke
GRL (2021)
Update: The body of the paper may be paywalled, but the data availability statement isn’t!
So, turns out there’s a “southern hemisphere annular mode index” (SAM) which is apparently curated by Dr. Gareth J. Marshall:
https://legacy.bas.ac.uk/met/gjma/sam.html
I suppose I should note that the effect on SIE found by Wang et al isn’t really congruent with what I had suggested, in that they find that a weaker SAM leads to *more* ice in a relatively northerly location–the Peninsula–and less in a more southerly are (the Ross Sea). I expected to find the opposite!–well, ‘sort of opposite,’ anyway.
It is interesting to note just how markedly (if irregularly) the SAM has been strengthening over the decades:
http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/public/icd/gjma/newsam.ipcc.pdf
And it is true, as you say, that the Antarctic SIE per se doesn’t look a lot like the SAM curve:
https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
Kevin McKinney,
If you turn that ‘Southern hemisphere Annular Mode index’ upside-down, it does at an inter-annual level show an interesting ‘Grand Old Duke of York’ type correlation (ie “when they were up they were up, and when they were down they were down”) with the Amundsen Scott South Pole temperature record.
Where any attempt at correlation breaks down entirely is within the longer-term trends since 2000 with the 60-month averages 2003-15 for the ASSPtemp diverging strongly (continuing an upward trend) while in the same 2003-15 period the -veSAM continuing its long term drop.
Perhaps it should be noted that this is roughly the same period in which Antarctic SIE took on a strong positive trend (or at least a big big upward wobble that ended in 2015).
And since 2015, the -veSAM has been rising strongly while ASSPtemp has also been rising but less strongly. And through this period Antarctic SIE has been mainly dropped well below the 1979-2000 levels.
Mind, all this a very rough-&-ready account. The most recent years shows both 60-month ASSPtemp & -veSAM in what is so-far strong downward wobbles, althugh not in sync with the present downward SEI wobble.
The NSIDC webpage you linked-to complete with its ‘Compare Anomalies’ & ‘Compare Trends’ links provides interesting maps of SIE trend and anomaly. But making sense of these SIE trends for the various parts of Antarctic and the various seasons would not be a trivial task. Myself I’m inclined to stick with the pan-Antarctic numbers and wait-&-see where they take us.
I like the new policies, especially the one comment per day limit. It seems, however, that they have already slipped pretty substantially. I don’t think you can rely on the honor system. The most toxic commenters will certainly not police themselves.
As an example, you have Ol’ Swaller. Three comments each on the 18th, the 24th and the 25th. Two each on the 13th, 15th and 22nd. Are they of such high quality that they merit an exemption?
This would have gone in FR, if we still had such a thread, but I think it’s worth noting that yet again something is being done which we have been solemnly assured to be impossible:
https://electrek.co/2022/06/27/tesla-megapacks-replace-hawaii-last-remaining-coal-plant/
So, complete retirement of coal, check; time abritrage, check; frequency regulation, check; and black-start, check. (However, Hawaii is still all-too-dependent upon expensive imported petroleum for electric generation, at about 60% of generation in 2020, per EIA–although that was down from ~70% in 2014.)
UAH TLT has been posted for June with an anomaly of +0.06ºC, down on the last three months (March +0.15ºC, April +0.26ºC, May +0.17ºC) but above the chill of Jans +0.03ºC and Feb’s +0.00ºC.
June 2022 sits as the =12th warmest June on the UAH TLT record, behind 1998 (+0.44ºC), 2019, 2020, 2016, then 1991, 2015 & 2010 (all +0.18ºC) and warmer than Junes 2002, 2014, 2017 & 2013. June 2022 equals June 2018.
June 2022 is =142nd in the all-month UAH TLT rankings.
With the year now half gone, the drop in a single month anomaly doesn’t make so much difference to the start-of-year rankings, 2022 dropping from =7th Jan-May to 8th Jan-June
…….. Jan-Jun Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.50ºC … … … +0.39ºC … … … 1st
1998 .. +0.46ºC … … … +0.35ºC … … … 3rd
2020 .. +0.39ºC … … … +0.36ºC … … … 2nd
2010 .. +0.29ºC … … … +0.19ºC … … … 6th
2019 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.30ºC … … … 4th
2017 .. +0.22ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 5th
2002 .. +0.13ºC … … … +0.08ºC … … … 10th
2022 .. +0.11ºC
2018 .. +0.10ºC … … … +0.09ºC … … … 9th
2015 .. +0.09ºC … … … +0.14ºC … … … 7th
2007 .. +0.08ºC … … … +0.02ºC … … … 14th
2005 .. +0.08ºC … … … +0.06ºC … … … 11th
2021 .. +0.06ºC … … … +0.13ºC … … … 8th
RE. Temperature records
Any discussion relative to regional temperature records both hot and cold somehow showing that there is no global warming is completely inane and a simple disinformation distraction meant to sow doubt.
Evidence for a warming planet goes way beyond surface temperatures and is so compelling that most halfway intelligent climate deniers even admit that the earth is warming. To do otherwise immediately eliminates any possible remaining credibility that the denialist may have.
Some of the signs of a warming planet in addition to the surface temperature record:
Global glacier ice loss is accelerating
Decreases in arctic sea ice minimums per satellite imagery
Accelerating sea level rise as measured by satellites
Accelerating increases in ocean heat content as measured by the ARGO buoy system
Increasing atmospheric humidity levels
Winter snow cover is reduced and is melting earlier per satellite imagery
Growing seasons are lengthening
Species are migrating poleward and upward