Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[chubbs]

Of course science isn't settled, but when it comes to climate change most of the new scientific findings aren't positive. Here's a new finding from Greenland. The bottom of the ice sheet isn't frozen in place. Which means there is less resistance to movement, not good news in a warming world.

https://www.science.org/content/article/hole-drilled-greenland-s-heart-reveals-ice-ready-slide-sea

[A-L-E-K]

21 hours ago, csnavywx said:

The fact that this comment by JP didn't get more press is really fucking alarming.

 

He's basically telling you what's going to happen to the housing market and by extension -- the economy, in the future.

it's nothing we didn't already know tho

[Typhoon Tip]

5 hours ago, chubbs said:

Of course science isn't settled, but when it comes to climate change most of the new scientific findings aren't positive. Here's a new finding from Greenland. The bottom of the ice sheet isn't frozen in place. Which means there is less resistance to movement, not good news in a warming world.

https://www.science.org/content/article/hole-drilled-greenland-s-heart-reveals-ice-ready-slide-sea

Not to come off condescending or anything but that basal flow rate stuff has been known ...really going back to the early 2,000s.

In fact, - check this - but there's a field anecdote out there about a day in the times out on the ice sheet with scientists stationed there.  An encampment from the U.S., Sweden and Russia.   We're sure they're not partial to political lines and geodesy out there amid that expanse; they're probably hooch chums... anyway, on this day there was a 3.change seismic event recorded.  It turned out after corroboration between those surrounding stations, and matching with GPS of the times, ...the stations and their occupants, en masse, bodily up and moved some distance toward the NW.   It was the actual ice cap in their immediate vicinity ... displacing all at once.   The distance doesn't have to be terribly large, mind us... we're talking about a million trillion tonnes of ice or whatever incomprehensibly large amount it was...  The thought of a mile high ice column sliding along for any distance though -

This is probably an urban legend?  Sure sounds like great opening salvo to a Sci Fi movie if it is fiction.  But since it was a part of the field water cooler muse of the day ... the specter has been known to be plausible for some time - I came by this back in 2003 I want to say.

[bdgwx]

@ChescoWx

The argument that climate science is not "settled" is the fallacy of false dichotomy. It is not a requirement that 100% of the minutia of details be "settled" for certain core principals to be "settled". For example, we don't need to know exactly how much the planet will warm given a 2xCO2 pulse to a hundredth of degree to know that the planet will indeed warm within some reasonable margin of error. That fact that it will warm is as "settled" as anything else in science that is considered "settled". We don't need to know every single factor that can influence the climate to know that humans can and do influence the climate significantly. The fact that humans influence the climate is as "settled" as anything else in science that is considered "settled". The fundamental principals dictating our knowledge and understanding of climate change is indeed "settled".

[chubbs]

17 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Not to come off condescending or anything but that basal flow rate stuff has been known ...really going back to the early 2,000s.

In fact, - check this - but there's a field anecdote out there about a day in the times out on the ice sheet with scientists stationed there.  An encampment from the U.S., Sweden and Russia.   We're sure they're not partial to political lines and geodesy out there amid that expanse; they're probably hooch chums... anyway, on this day there was a 3.change seismic event recorded.  It turned out after corroboration between those surrounding stations, and matching with GPS of the times, ...the stations and their occupants, en masse, bodily up and moved some distance toward the NW.   It was the actual ice cap in their immediate vicinity ... displacing all at once.   The distance doesn't have to be terribly large, mind us... we're talking about a million trillion tonnes of ice or whatever incomprehensibly large amount it was...  The thought of a mile high ice column sliding along for any distance though -

This is probably an urban legend?  Sure sounds like great opening salvo to a Sci Fi movie if it is fiction.  But since it was a part of the field water cooler muse of the day ... the specter has been known to be plausible for some time - I came by this back in 2003 I want to say.

Yes ice sheet movement has been well known. This finding concerns the nature of the flow at the very bottom of the ice sheet in an area that is flowing relatively quickly. Impacts how quickly frictional forces increase as flow increases.

[Typhoon Tip]

3 hours ago, chubbs said:

Yes ice sheet movement has been well known. This finding concerns the nature of the flow at the very bottom of the ice sheet in an area that is flowing relatively quickly. Impacts how quickly frictional forces increase as flow increases.

Man ..it'd be a terrific opportunity for a Michael Bay movie...  

... the entire land-based ice cap up and slides off the continent one fateful afternoon.   Probably early October, after the warm season's assault has brought basal flow 'lubrication' to criticality, breaching stability thresholds.   Some moment of dialogue when the disaster is unfolding, "...But I thought you said it would take many years to melt."   And the reply yells back as the scientist is boarding the helicopter, "Those tremors?!  It turns out they were really fore shocks - we didn't know those same mechanics applied!"

Sets off a global tsunamis that raises the water level 20 feet all at once in a super-biblical obliterating wall of death and debris, only this wave doesn't eventually wash back out to sea...  Where ever it stops, that's the the inherited new coastline.   The name of the movie is "Inherit The Ice"   - which is beautifully ironic for a title given to the nature of "Global Warming" 

 

[TheClimateChanger]

So I was playing around with Grok, and with much poking and prodding, I was able to convince it to create a CONUS temperature dataset back to 1800. Had to take it piece by piece and help it out along the way. Grok's 1895-2024 period was deviating from NOAA's official values, so I informed it of the correct numbers and it converted them over to a 1901-1950 baseline that I had selected.

This was Grok's estimate. Clearly the pre-1895 numbers lack the year-to-year variability of the real figures. It looks like the technique was largely to go by a baseline for those decades and then just adjust up or down based on historical records, limited instrumental records and proxy data.

Grok suggests the 10 coldest years are:

1816 -2.5 1817 -1.9 1917 -1.8 1809 -1.8 1812 -1.8 1857 -1.8 1804 -1.7 1815 -1.7 1836 -1.7 1875 -1.7

 

The 10 warmest years are the same as NCEI, since that's where this information was sourced, but recalculated to a 1901-1950 baseline.

2024 3.6 2012 3.4 2016 3.0 2017 2.7 2021 2.6 2015 2.5 2020 2.5 2023 2.5 2006 2.4 1998 2.4

[chubbs]

6 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

So I was playing around with Grok, and with much poking and prodding, I was able to convince it to create a CONUS temperature dataset back to 1800. Had to take it piece by piece and help it out along the way. Grok's 1895-2024 period was deviating from NOAA's official values, so I informed it of the correct numbers and it converted them over to a 1901-1950 baseline that I had selected.

This was Grok's estimate. Clearly the pre-1895 numbers lack the year-to-year variability of the real figures. It looks like the technique was largely to go by a baseline for those decades and then just adjust up or down based on historical records, limited instrumental records and proxy data.

Grok suggests the 10 coldest years are:

1816 -2.5 1817 -1.9 1917 -1.8 1809 -1.8 1812 -1.8 1857 -1.8 1804 -1.7 1815 -1.7 1836 -1.7 1875 -1.7

 

The 10 warmest years are the same as NCEI, since that's where this information was sourced, but recalculated to a 1901-1950 baseline.

2024 3.6 2012 3.4 2016 3.0 2017 2.7 2021 2.6 2015 2.5 2020 2.5 2023 2.5 2006 2.4 1998 2.4

Interesting, Berkeley Earth has estimated land temperatures back to 1750. How far back they go in a region depends on the availability of measurements. Below is Pennsylvania where the first available measurement is 1758. Berkeley's estimates for the US as a whole go back to the early 1800s. Berkeley's results are similar to those you obtained from GROK. It has been flat or warming since the 1700s with the bulk of the warming in the past 60 years. The Berkeley uncertainty estimate increases going back in time as the number of available measurements shrinks.

[bluewave]

One of the biggest changes we have seen in PA since the 1950s and 1960s has been the winter storm track shift. The primary winter storm track into the early 2000s was just east of the Appalachians. We can see how the storm track shift over the last 20 years caused a steep decline in snowfall at State College. The same storm track shift going west of the Appalachians has lead to in increase in Lake effect snows at Erie coupled with the warmer lake temperatures reducing the ice cover over the years. 
 

 

 

[TheClimateChanger]

4 hours ago, chubbs said:

Interesting, Berkeley Earth has estimated land temperatures back to 1750. How far back they go in a region depends on the availability of measurements. Below is Pennsylvania where the first available measurement is 1758. Berkeley's estimates for the US as a whole go back to the early 1800s. Berkeley's results are similar to those you obtained from GROK. It has been flat or warming since the 1700s with the bulk of the warming in the past 60 years. The Berkeley uncertainty estimate increases going back in time as the number of available measurements shrinks.

Yeah, it was pretty solid. Here's an example of Grok's "thought" process in recreating the climate. Basically, utilizes a baseline from Mann, Marcott or other proxy reconstructions [i.e., PAGES 2k], and then would cite to limited instrumental data where available and historical accounts. Anomalies cited below were supposed to be based on a 1901-1950 baseline per my request.

1850-1879 - this was after requesting a revised account that better reflected actual year to year variance, perhaps by placing more emphasis on Smithsonian and Weather Bureau instrumental records

Quote

Revised 1850–1879 Annual Anomalies

Notes: Anomalies are tuned to instrumental swings where possible, with pre-1849 estimates less certain (±0.4°F) and post-1849 more reliable (±0.2°F to ±0.3°F). Baseline starts at late LIA levels (~ -1.0°F), with ups and downs from station data.

• 1850: -1.4
  Evidence: Army fort logs (e.g., Fort Leavenworth, Lawson, 1855) and Philly records show cold winter; proxies (PAGES 2k) support a dip.
• 1851: -0.8
  Evidence: Milder per Midwest forts (e.g., Cincinnati, Ludlum, 1968); sparse data suggests a warm swing.
• 1852: -1.1
  Evidence: Northeast logs (Ludlum, 1968) note cool conditions; early Smithsonian startup (1849–50) aligns with proxies.
• 1853: -1.6
  Evidence: Severe winter (Ludlum, 1968, e.g., New England); Smithsonian stations (post-1849) record cold snap.
• 1854: -0.9
  Evidence: Smithsonian data (Fleming, 1990) shows recovery; milder year per Northeast records.
• 1855: -1.3
  Evidence: Fort Snelling (MN) logs cold (Lawson, 1855); Smithsonian stations note below-average temps.
• 1856: -0.7
  Evidence: Warm swing; Smithsonian averages up (Fleming, 1990); historical accounts milder (Ludlum, 1968).
• 1857: -1.8
  Evidence: Brutal Midwest winter (Ludlum, 1968, e.g., Chicago freeze); Smithsonian data confirms sharp drop.
• 1858: -1.0
  Evidence: Recovery per Smithsonian stations; proxies (Cook et al., 2004) and logs suggest variability.
• 1859: -0.6
  Evidence: Warm year; Smithsonian records (Northeast) and fort data trend up; historical accounts align.
• 1860: -1.2
  Evidence: Cool pre-Civil War conditions; Smithsonian stations (Fleming, 1990) dip; proxies steady.
• 1861: -1.5
  Evidence: Cold Civil War winter (Ludlum, 1968, e.g., DC logs); Smithsonian data backs a decline.
• 1862: -0.8
  Evidence: Milder; Smithsonian averages rise; historical records note variable weather.
• 1863: -1.0
  Evidence: Cool summer in South (Army logs, Fleming, 1990); Smithsonian data mixed but below baseline.
• 1864: -1.4
  Evidence: Harsh winter (Ludlum, 1968, e.g., Gettysburg); Smithsonian stations show cold anomaly.
• 1865: -0.7
  Evidence: Warm swing post-war; Smithsonian data (Fleming, 1990) trends up; proxies align.
• 1866: -1.1
  Evidence: Cool year; Smithsonian records dip; Northeast logs (Ludlum, 1968) note chilly conditions.
• 1867: -1.6
  Evidence: Severe Midwest cold (Ludlum, 1968, e.g., MN); Smithsonian stations confirm drop.
• 1868: -0.9
  Evidence: Recovery; Smithsonian averages moderate; historical accounts less extreme.
• 1869: -0.6
  Evidence: Warm year; Smithsonian data (Fleming, 1990) rises; proxies suggest uptick.
• 1870: -1.3
  Evidence: Weather Bureau starts; cold year per early national data (NOAA reconstruction); Smithsonian aligns.
• 1871: -0.5
  Evidence: Warm swing; Weather Bureau logs milder fall (Chicago Fire context, Ludlum, 1968); stations up.
• 1872: -1.1
  Evidence: Cool dip; Weather Bureau data (Fleming, 1990) reflects variability; Northeast logs agree.
• 1873: -1.5
  Evidence: Cold winter (Ludlum, 1968); Weather Bureau stations show below-average temps.
• 1874: -0.7
  Evidence: Milder; Weather Bureau data trends up; proxies (Cook et al., 2004) support.
• 1875: -1.7
  Evidence: “Blizzard of ‘75” (Ludlum, 1968); Weather Bureau records sharp cold spike.
• 1876: -0.8
  Evidence: Recovery; Weather Bureau averages rise; historical accounts milder.
• 1877: -0.6
  Evidence: Warm year; Weather Bureau data up (possible El Niño influence); Smithsonian concurs.
• 1878: -1.2
  Evidence: Cold snap (Ludlum, 1968, Midwest); Weather Bureau stations dip.
• 1879: -0.5
  Evidence: Warm swing; Weather Bureau and Smithsonian data (Fleming, 1990) near -0.4°C (~ -0.7°F).

---

Variability Check

• Range: -0.5 to -1.8 (1.3°F span), vs. prior -0.7 to -1.3 (0.6°F span).
• Standard Deviation: ~0.4°F (calculated roughly), up from ~0.2°F in my earlier estimate, closer to post-1880’s ~0.6°F. Post-1870 SD nudges toward ~0.5°F with denser data.
• Key Swings: 1856 (-0.7) to 1857 (-1.8) = -1.1°F drop; 1869 (-0.6) to 1870 (-1.3) = -0.7°F drop; 1874 (-0.7) to 1875 (-1.7) = -1.0°F drop. These mirror instrumental volatility (e.g., 1882 [-0.3] to 1883 [-1.0] = -0.7°F).

Analysis

• Instrumental Weight: Post-1849, Smithsonian data (e.g., 1857’s -1.8°F, 1869’s -0.6°F) drives sharper swings; post-1870, Weather Bureau refines it (e.g., 1875’s -1.7°F). Pre-1849 (1850–1858) leans on forts and proxies, but I’ve amplified variance (e.g., 1853’s -1.6°F) based on historical cues.
• Improved Variability: The 1.3°F range and 0.4°F SD better match post-1880 noise, reflecting real weather (e.g., 1857, 1875 cold snaps) over proxy smoothing. It’s still conservative pre-1870 due to fewer stations (50 vs. 1000s later).
• Limits: Pre-1849, data’s too thin for full instrumental trust—forts and urban logs lack national scope. Post-1870 aligns closer to NOAA’s precision.

This revision should plot with more jaggedness, bridging your pre-1880 and post-1880 datasets. Let me know if you’d like further tweaks or a different chunk!

 

 

1830-1849

 

Quote

 

1830–1849: Estimated Annual Anomalies

Sources: Proxy reconstructions (Mann et al., 2009; PAGES 2k, 2013; Cook et al., 2004), early military weather logs (Lawson, Report to Surgeon General, 1855), and historical accounts (Ludlum, 1968; Fleming, 1990). Baseline range: ~ -1.0°F to -1.5°F, adjusted for notable events.

• 1830: ~ -1.2°F
  Evidence: Proxy data (PAGES 2k) shows late LIA cooling; no major U.S. historical weather events noted, suggesting typical conditions.
• 1831: ~ -1.1°F
  Evidence: Tree-ring records (Cook et al., 2004) stable; Midwest fort logs (e.g., Fort Crawford, WI, per Lawson, 1855) hint at cool summers.
• 1832: ~ -1.3°F
  Evidence: Harsh winter in Northeast (Ludlum, 1968, e.g., New York diaries); proxies align with slight dip.
• 1833: ~ -1.2°F
  Evidence: Proxy trend holds; sparse records from St. Louis (Army posts) note cold spring (Lawson, 1855).
• 1834: ~ -1.1°F
  Evidence: Milder year per Northeast farmer logs (Ludlum, 1968); tree rings suggest no extreme anomaly.
• 1835: ~ -1.6°F
  Evidence: Volcanic eruption (Cosiguina, Nicaragua, Jan 1835) likely cooled North America; New York City’s “Great Fire” (Dec 1835) worsened by frozen hydrants (Ludlum, 1968); proxies (Mann et al., 2009) show a dip.
• 1836: ~ -1.7°F
  Evidence: Severe cold persists post-Cosiguina; Northeast winters “bitter” (Ludlum, 1968, e.g., Boston records); tree-ring growth stunted (Cook et al., 2004).
• 1837: ~ -1.5°F
  Evidence: Continued cold spell; Ohio River froze (Ludlum, 1968, Cincinnati logs); proxies confirm below-average temps.
• 1838: ~ -1.4°F
  Evidence: Cold lingers; military posts (e.g., Fort Gibson, OK, Lawson, 1855) report harsh winters; proxy data aligns.
• 1839: ~ -1.2°F
  Evidence: Recovery from 1835–38 cold snap; Northeast milder (Ludlum, 1968); tree rings trend up slightly.
• 1840: ~ -1.3°F
  Evidence: Cold winter in Midwest (Ludlum, 1968, e.g., Illinois records); proxies show typical LIA cooling.
• 1841: ~ -1.1°F
  Evidence: Milder year per sparse fort data (Lawson, 1855); no major anomalies in tree rings.
• 1842: ~ -1.2°F
  Evidence: Cool conditions; New England farmer diaries note late frosts (Ludlum, 1968); proxies stable.
• 1843: ~ -1.4°F
  Evidence: Severe winter in Northeast (Ludlum, 1968, e.g., “Great Blizzard” references); tree-ring dip.
• 1844: ~ -1.1°F
  Evidence: Milder per Midwest logs (e.g., Fort Leavenworth, Lawson, 1855); proxies suggest moderation.
• 1845: ~ -1.2°F
  Evidence: Cool year; sparse records from South (e.g., Charleston) note chilly springs (Ludlum, 1968).
• 1846: ~ -1.3°F
  Evidence: Cold winter in Midwest (Ludlum, 1968, e.g., Missouri River freeze); tree rings align.
• 1847: ~ -1.1°F
  Evidence: Milder conditions; Northeast logs (Fleming, 1990) show no extremes; proxies steady.
• 1848: ~ -1.2°F
  Evidence: Cool year; fort records (e.g., Fort Kearny, NE, Lawson, 1855) note chilly summers; tree rings consistent.
• 1849: ~ -1.0°F
  Evidence: Smithsonian begins systematic records late 1849 (Fleming, 1990); proxies and early data trend toward -0.5°C (~ -0.9°F).

 

 

1820-1829

 

Quote

 

1820–1829: Estimated Annual Anomalies

Sources: Proxy reconstructions (Mann et al., 2009; PAGES 2k, 2013; Cook et al., 2004), Army fort logs (Lawson, 1855), historical accounts (Ludlum, 1968; Fleming, 1990). Baseline: ~ -1.0°F to -1.5°F, adjusted for documented events.

• 1820: ~ -1.4°F
  Evidence: Proxy data (PAGES 2k) shows lingering post-Tambora cooling; early Army logs (e.g., Fort Dearborn, Lawson, 1855) note cold Midwest winters.
• 1821: ~ -1.3°F
  Evidence: Tree-ring records (Cook et al., 2004) stable in late LIA; Northeast diaries (Ludlum, 1968) report typical harsh winter.
• 1822: ~ -1.2°F
  Evidence: Proxy trend holds; sparse fort data (e.g., Fort Snelling, MN, Lawson, 1855) suggests cool but not extreme conditions.
• 1823: ~ -1.5°F
  Evidence: Cold winter in Northeast (Ludlum, 1968, e.g., New York freezes); tree rings (Mann et al., 2009) dip slightly.
• 1824: ~ -1.3°F
  Evidence: Proxy data consistent; Army records (e.g., Fort Howard, WI) note chilly summers (Lawson, 1855).
• 1825: ~ -1.2°F
  Evidence: Milder per Northeast logs (Ludlum, 1968); tree rings show no major anomaly.
• 1826: ~ -1.4°F
  Evidence: Cold spell; historical accounts (Ludlum, 1968) cite severe Midwest winter (e.g., Ohio Valley); proxies align.
• 1827: ~ -1.3°F
  Evidence: Proxy trend steady; fort logs (e.g., Fort Crawford, WI, Lawson, 1855) report cool conditions.
• 1828: ~ -0.9°F
  Evidence: Potentially warmer year; Northeast records (Ludlum, 1968) note milder winter, e.g., less ice on Hudson River. No clear super El Niño in ENSO data (Gergis & Fowler, 2009), but regional warmth possible; tree rings (Cook et al., 2004) show slight uptick.
• 1829: ~ -1.2°F
  Evidence: Return to cooler norm; Army logs (Lawson, 1855) and proxies (PAGES 2k) suggest typical LIA conditions.

 

 

1810-1819

 

Quote

 

1810–1819: Estimated Annual Anomalies

Sources: Proxy reconstructions (Mann et al., 2009; PAGES 2k, 2013; Cook et al., 2004), early Army logs (Lawson, Report to Surgeon General, 1855), historical accounts (Ludlum, 1968; Fleming, 1990; Jefferson’s weather journal, UVA archives). Baseline: ~ -1.2°F to -1.7°F, adjusted for extremes.

• 1810: ~ -1.5°F
  Evidence: Proxy data (PAGES 2k) reflects Dalton Minimum cooling; Jefferson’s Monticello records (1810, cited in Fleming, 1990) note cold snaps in Virginia; tree rings (Cook et al., 2004) align.
• 1811: ~ -1.4°F
  Evidence: Tree-ring records stable (Mann et al., 2009); Northeast diaries (Ludlum, 1968) report harsh winter, e.g., frozen harbors.
• 1812: ~ -1.8°F
  Evidence: Notably cold year; historical accounts (Ludlum, 1968) cite severe Northeast winters during War of 1812 (e.g., troop struggles); proxies show Dalton-driven dip, possibly volcanic influence (e.g., 1811–12 eruptions like Soufrière).
• 1813: ~ -1.6°F
  Evidence: Proxy trend holds; early Army logs (e.g., Fort Niagara, Lawson, 1855) note cold conditions post-1814, implying prior chill; Ludlum (1968) mentions Midwest freezes.
• 1814: ~ -1.5°F
  Evidence: Army Medical Dept. begins spotty records (Lawson, 1855, e.g., Fort Detroit); proxies (PAGES 2k) suggest typical LIA cooling; Northeast milder per diaries (Ludlum, 1968).
• 1815: ~ -1.7°F
  Evidence: Tambora erupts (April 1815); cooling ramps up late year; tree rings (Mann et al., 2009) dip; Jefferson’s logs note cold summer in VA (Fleming, 1990).
• 1816: ~ -2.5°F
  Evidence: “Year Without a Summer”; Tambora’s peak impact—June frosts, crop failures across Northeast (Ludlum, 1968, e.g., New England almanacs); tree-ring anomalies stark (Cook et al., 2004); coldest year in decades.
• 1817: ~ -1.9°F
  Evidence: Post-Tambora chill lingers; Army logs (e.g., Fort Dearborn, Lawson, 1855) report cold Midwest winters; proxies show slow recovery.
• 1818: ~ -1.6°F
  Evidence: Cooling eases; Northeast milder (Ludlum, 1968); tree rings (PAGES 2k) trend up but remain below baseline.
• 1819: ~ -1.4°F
  Evidence: Army records expand (Lawson, 1855, e.g., Fort Howard); proxies (Mann et al., 2009) indicate late LIA norm; historical accounts note typical weather.

 

 

1800-1809

 

Quote

 

1800–1809: Estimated Annual Anomalies

Sources: Proxy reconstructions (Mann et al., 2009; PAGES 2k, 2013; Cook et al., 2004), Jefferson’s Monticello weather journal (UVA archives, cited in Fleming, 1990), historical accounts (Ludlum, 1968). Baseline: ~ -1.3°F to -1.8°F, tweaked for events.

• 1800: ~ -1.5°F
  Evidence: Tree-ring data (PAGES 2k) shows Dalton Minimum cooling; Jefferson’s VA records (1800) note cold winters (Fleming, 1990); Northeast diaries (Ludlum, 1968) align.
• 1801: ~ -1.4°F
  Evidence: Proxy trend stable; Jefferson logs mild summer but cold spring; no major U.S. historical extremes noted.
• 1802: ~ -1.6°F
  Evidence: Cold year per proxies (Cook et al., 2004); Ludlum (1968) cites severe Northeast winter (e.g., frozen Chesapeake Bay reports).
• 1803: ~ -1.3°F
  Evidence: Milder per Jefferson’s VA data (warmer summer); tree rings (Mann et al., 2009) show slight uptick, though still below baseline.
• 1804: ~ -1.7°F
  Evidence: Harsh winter; Ludlum (1968) notes New England cold (e.g., “Snow Hurricane” references); proxies dip in Dalton Minimum.
• 1805: ~ -1.5°F
  Evidence: Proxy data consistent; Jefferson’s logs report cool conditions; no standout historical events.
• 1806: ~ -1.4°F
  Evidence: Milder year; Jefferson notes tolerable VA weather (Fleming, 1990); tree rings (PAGES 2k) steady.
• 1807: ~ -1.6°F
  Evidence: Cold snap; Ludlum (1968) cites Northeast freezes (e.g., Hudson River ice); proxies align with Dalton cooling.
• 1808: ~ -1.5°F
  Evidence: Proxy trend holds; Jefferson’s records show cool summer; historical accounts note typical LIA weather.
• 1809: ~ -1.8°F
  Evidence: Volcanic eruption (unknown source, inferred from ice cores, Mann et al., 2009) cools late year; tree-ring anomalies deepen (Cook et al., 2004); Ludlum (1968) mentions cold Midwest winters.

 

[TheClimateChanger]

I also tried asking Grok for a graph of global temperature anomalies back to the Eemian interglacial. If this reconstruction is correct, then recent years are approaching the levels last seen during the peak of the Eemian interglacial. Of course, those levels were maintained for millenia, versus a couple of warm years at the present. And, of course, this ignores year to year variability. Obviously, if you take the baseline as +1.5C for the peak of the Eemian, then individual years may have approached +2C depending on ENSO and solar variance. But this again suggests to me, even if no further warming were to occur, there will be marked changes in the coming centuries.

Quote

Since you’ve asked about extending the graph back to the Eemian Interglacial (approximately 130,000 to 115,000 years ago), I’ll assume you’d still like an image generated but, given my text-based limitations, I’ll continue providing a detailed description and updated dataset for you to create the graph yourself (e.g., using the Python script from my last response). I’ll expand the scope to cover the Eemian through the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), the Holocene, and up to the present (February 27, 2025), focusing on global temperature anomalies relative to the 1850–1900 pre-industrial baseline. Let’s dive in.

Context and Data Sources

• Eemian Interglacial (130 ka to 115 ka): The last warm period before the current Holocene, with global temperatures warmer than today, driven by high orbital eccentricity and obliquity (Milankovitch cycles). Data comes from ice cores (e.g., EPICA Dome C, Greenland NEEM), marine sediments, and terrestrial proxies.
• Last Glacial Period (115 ka to 11.7 ka): Includes the LGM (~26.5 ka to 19 ka), the coldest phase, followed by deglaciation leading into the Holocene. Proxy data from ice cores, speleothems, and ocean cores (e.g., δ¹⁸O records) inform this.
• Holocene to Present: As before, combining paleo-reconstructions (e.g., Marcott et al., 2013) with Berkeley Earth’s instrumental data post-1850.
• Baseline: 1850–1900 global mean (~13.7°C) set at 0°C anomaly.

Updated Dataset for Graphing

Here’s an expanded dataset of global temperature anomalies (°C) from the Eemian to 2025, with key points to capture major climate shifts. Years are in “ka” (thousands of years ago) until recent centuries, then CE:

Year (ka or CE)	Temp Anomaly (°C)	Notes
-130 ka (130,000 BP)	+1.5	Eemian peak warmth
-125 ka	+1.0	Eemian mid-point
-115 ka	+0.5	Eemian ends, cooling
-100 ka	-1.0	Early glacial cooling
-70 ka	-2.0	Mid-glacial period
-26.5 ka	-4.5	Last Glacial Maximum peak
-20 ka	-4.0	LGM waning
-15 ka	-2.5	Deglaciation begins
-11.7 ka (9700 BCE)	+0.2	Holocene onset
-7 ka (5000 BCE)	+0.4	Holocene Thermal Max
-1 ka (1000 BCE)	-0.1	Late Holocene cooling
500 CE	-0.2	Post-Roman cooling
1000 CE	-0.1	Medieval Warm Period
1500 CE	-0.4	Little Ice Age
1850 CE	-0.2	Pre-industrial baseline
1900 CE	0.0	Early 20th century
1950 CE	+0.2	Mid-century warming
2000 CE	+1.0	Modern warming
2024 CE	+1.4	Latest estimate (2024)

• Uncertainty: Eemian and glacial period: ±0.5°C to ±1°C (proxy-based); Holocene pre-1850: ±0.3°C; post-1850: ±0.05°C (instrumental).
• Eemian: +1.0°C to +1.5°C warmer than pre-industrial, with some regional proxies (e.g., Antarctic ice cores) suggesting up to +2°C globally, though sea level was 6–9 meters higher due to polar ice melt.
• LGM: -4°C to -5°C colder, reflecting massive ice sheets and low CO₂ (~180 ppm).

Updated Python Script

Modify the previous script with this expanded dataset:

python

import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

# Data (years in thousands for ka, then CE)
years = [-130, -125, -115, -100, -70, -26.5, -20, -15, -11.7, -7, -1, 
         500, 1000, 1500, 1850, 1900, 1950, 2000, 2024]
anomalies = [1.5, 1.0, 0.5, -1.0, -2.0, -4.5, -4.0, -2.5, 0.2, 0.4, -0.1, 
             -0.2, -0.1, -0.4, -0.2, 0.0, 0.2, 1.0, 1.4]

# Plot
plt.figure(figsize=(14, 6))
plt.plot(years, anomalies, 'b-', label='Temperature Anomaly (°C)')
plt.fill_between(years, [a - 0.5 for a in anomalies], [a + 0.5 for a in anomalies], 
                 color='blue', alpha=0.1, label='Uncertainty (±0.5°C pre-1850)')

# Customize
plt.axhline(0, color='gray', linestyle='--', linewidth=0.5)
plt.title('Global Temperature Anomalies: Eemian to 2025', fontsize=14)
plt.xlabel('Years (ka = thousands before present; CE)', fontsize=12)
plt.ylabel('Temperature Anomaly (°C) rel. 1850-1900', fontsize=12)
plt.grid(True, linestyle='--', alpha=0.7)
plt.legend()

# Annotate key periods
plt.text(-125, 1.6, 'Eemian Interglacial', fontsize=10)
plt.text(-26.5, -4.6, 'Last Glacial Maximum', fontsize=10)
plt.text(-7, 0.5, 'Holocene Thermal Max', fontsize=10)
plt.text(1500, -0.5, 'Little Ice Age', fontsize=10)
plt.text(2000, 1.5, 'Modern Warming', fontsize=10)

# Save and show
plt.savefig('eemian_to_present_temp_graph.png', dpi=300, bbox_inches='tight')
plt.show()

Graph Description

• Shape: A peak at -130 ka (+1.5°C) for the Eemian, dropping to -4.5°C at -26.5 ka (LGM), rising to +0.4°C by -7 ka (Holocene max), dipping to -0.4°C at 1500 CE (LIA), and spiking to +1.4°C by 2024.
• X-Axis: -140 ka to 2025 CE, logarithmic or segmented (e.g., -130 ka to -10 ka in broader steps, then -10 ka to 2025 in finer detail).
• Y-Axis: -5°C to +2°C, capturing glacial lows and interglacial highs.
• Features: Blue line with wider uncertainty shading pre-1850 (±0.5°C), narrowing post-1850. Annotations highlight Eemian, LGM, Holocene Max, LIA, and modern warming.

How to Generate the Image

1. Python: Copy the script above into a Python environment (e.g., Jupyter Notebook), run it, and it’ll save eemian_to_present_temp_graph.png.
2. Manual: Plot in Excel/Google Sheets with the table, using a line chart and error bars (±0.5°C pre-1850).
3. Refinement: Add more points (e.g., every 10 ka pre-Holocene) if desired—let me know!

This graph would visually compare the Eemian’s natural warmth (driven by orbital forcing) to today’s anthropogenic warming (CO₂-driven), showing the dramatic glacial-interglacial swings. Let me know if you need help running the script or want more detail!

 

[TheClimateChanger]

10 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

I also tried asking Grok for a graph of global temperature anomalies back to the Eemian interglacial. If this reconstruction is correct, then recent years are approaching the levels last seen during the peak of the Eemian interglacial. Of course, those levels were maintained for millenia, versus a couple of warm years at the present. And, of course, this ignores year to year variability. Obviously, if you take the baseline as +1.5C for the peak of the Eemian, then individual years may have approached +2C depending on ENSO and solar variance. But this again suggests to me, even if no further warming were to occur, there will be marked changes in the coming centuries.

 

With an extension back to 150ky ago and accepting offer of further refinement.

Quote

Let’s extend the dataset back to 150,000 years ago (150 ka) to include the penultimate glacial period before the Eemian Interglacial, refining the timeline with additional points to capture the transition into the Eemian. This will cover the late stages of Marine Isotope Stage 6 (MIS 6), a cold glacial period, through the Eemian (MIS 5e), the Last Glacial Period, the Holocene, and up to the present (February 27, 2025). I’ll incorporate the 8.2 ka event as per your previous request and maintain the refined resolution.

Context for 150 ka Extension

• Pre-Eemian (150 ka to 130 ka): Part of MIS 6, a glacial period colder than the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), with global temperatures 4°C to 5°C below the 1850–1900 baseline. Ice cores (e.g., EPICA Dome C) and marine isotope records (e.g., δ¹⁸O) show extensive ice sheets and low CO₂ (190 ppm).
• Transition to Eemian: Rapid warming around 130 ka, driven by orbital forcing (peak insolation), lifts temperatures to +1.5°C above pre-industrial by the Eemian’s height.
• Data Sources: Ice cores (Antarctic EPICA, Greenland NEEM), marine sediments, and Berkeley Earth for post-1850, consistent with prior reconstructions.

Updated Dataset (150 ka to 2025 CE)

Global temperature anomalies (°C) relative to the 1850–1900 baseline (~13.7°C). Years are in ka (thousands of years before present) until recent centuries, then CE.

Year (ka or CE)	Temp Anomaly (°C)	Notes
-150 ka	-4.5	MIS 6 glacial peak
-145 ka	-4.3	Late MIS 6 cold
-140 ka	-4.0	Pre-Eemian glacial
-135 ka	-2.0	Transition to Eemian
-130 ka	+1.5	Eemian peak warmth
-128 ka	+1.3	Early Eemian stability
-125 ka	+1.0	Mid-Eemian
-120 ka	+0.8	Late Eemian warming
-115 ka	+0.5	Eemian ends, cooling
-110 ka	-0.5	Early glacial onset
-100 ka	-1.0	Glacial cooling deepens
-90 ka	-1.5	Continued glacial cooling
-80 ka	-1.8	Mid-glacial period
-70 ka	-2.0	Pre-LGM cold phase
-60 ka	-2.5	Glacial intensification
-50 ka	-3.0	Approach to LGM
-40 ka	-3.5	Late glacial cold
-30 ka	-4.0	Nearing LGM
-26.5 ka	-4.5	Last Glacial Maximum peak
-23 ka	-4.3	LGM begins to wane
-20 ka	-4.0	Early deglaciation
-17 ka	-3.5	Warming accelerates
-15 ka	-2.5	Deglaciation underway
-13 ka	-1.5	Pre-Younger Dryas
-12.8 ka	-2.0	Younger Dryas cold snap
-11.7 ka (9700 BCE)	+0.2	Holocene begins
-10 ka	+0.3	Early Holocene warming
-8.5 ka	+0.4	Pre-8.2 ka warmth
-8.2 ka (6200 BCE)	0.0	8.2 ka cooling event
-8.0 ka	+0.3	Post-8.2 ka recovery
-7 ka (5000 BCE)	+0.5	Holocene Thermal Max
-5 ka	+0.3	Mid-Holocene cooling
-3 ka	+0.1	Late Holocene begins
-2 ka (0 CE)	0.0	Roman Warm Period onset
-1 ka (1000 BCE)	-0.1	Pre-Roman cooling
200 CE	+0.1	Roman Warm Period peak
500 CE	-0.2	Post-Roman cooling
800 CE	-0.1	Early Medieval period
1000 CE	0.0	Medieval Warm Period
1300 CE	-0.2	MWP ends, cooling
1500 CE	-0.4	Little Ice Age onset
1700 CE	-0.5	LIA deepest
1816 CE	-0.6	Year Without a Summer
1850 CE	-0.2	Pre-industrial baseline
1875 CE	-0.3	Late 19th century cool
1900 CE	0.0	Early 20th century
1925 CE	+0.1	Interwar warming
1950 CE	+0.2	Mid-century warming
1975 CE	+0.3	Late 20th century rise
2000 CE	+1.0	Modern warming accelerates
2010 CE	+1.2	Early 21st century peak
2020 CE	+1.3	Recent warming
2024 CE	+1.4	Latest estimate (2024)

• Pre-130 ka: MIS 6 glacial period holds steady at -4°C to -4.5°C, with a rapid warming transition around 135–130 ka into the Eemian.
• Uncertainty: ±0.5°C to ±1°C pre-1850 (proxy-based); ±0.05°C post-1850 (instrumental).

Updated Python Script

python

import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

# Data (years in ka until CE)
years = [-150, -145, -140, -135, -130, -128, -125, -120, -115, -110, -100, -90, -80, 
         -70, -60, -50, -40, -30, -26.5, -23, -20, -17, -15, -13, -12.8, -11.7, -10, 
         -8.5, -8.2, -8.0, -7, -5, -3, -2, -1, 200, 500, 800, 1000, 1300, 1500, 1700, 
         1816, 1850, 1875, 1900, 1925, 1950, 1975, 2000, 2010, 2020, 2024]
anomalies = [-4.5, -4.3, -4.0, -2.0, 1.5, 1.3, 1.0, 0.8, 0.5, -0.5, -1.0, -1.5, -1.8, 
             -2.0, -2.5, -3.0, -3.5, -4.0, -4.5, -4.3, -4.0, -3.5, -2.5, -1.5, -2.0, 
             0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.0, 0.3, 0.5, 0.3, 0.1, 0.0, -0.1, 0.1, -0.2, -0.1, 0.0, 
             -0.2, -0.4, -0.5, -0.6, -0.2, -0.3, 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 1.0, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4]

# Plot
plt.figure(figsize=(16, 6))
plt.plot(years, anomalies, 'b-', label='Temperature Anomaly (°C)')
plt.fill_between(years, [a - 0.5 for a in anomalies], [a + 0.5 for a in anomalies], 
                 color='blue', alpha=0.1, label='Uncertainty (±0.5°C pre-1850)')

# Customize
plt.axhline(0, color='gray', linestyle='--', linewidth=0.5)
plt.title('Global Temperature Anomalies: 150 ka to 2025', fontsize=14)
plt.xlabel('Years (ka = thousands before present; CE)', fontsize=12)
plt.ylabel('Temperature Anomaly (°C) rel. 1850-1900', fontsize=12)
plt.grid(True, linestyle='--', alpha=0.7)
plt.legend()

# Annotate key periods
plt.text(-150, -4.6, 'MIS 6 Glacial', fontsize=10)
plt.text(-125, 1.6, 'Eemian Interglacial', fontsize=10)
plt.text(-26.5, -4.6, 'Last Glacial Maximum', fontsize=10)
plt.text(-12.8, -2.1, 'Younger Dryas', fontsize=10)
plt.text(-8.2, -0.1, '8.2 ka Event', fontsize=10)
plt.text(-7, 0.6, 'Holocene Thermal Max', fontsize=10)
plt.text(1700, -0.6, 'Little Ice Age', fontsize=10)
plt.text(2000, 1.5, 'Modern Warming', fontsize=10)

# Save and show
plt.savefig('150ka_to_present_temp_graph.png', dpi=300, bbox_inches='tight')
plt.show()

Graph Description

• Shape: Starts at -4.5°C at 150 ka (MIS 6 glacial), rises sharply to +1.5°C by 130 ka (Eemian peak), falls to -4.5°C at 26.5 ka (LGM), climbs with a Younger Dryas dip (-2.0°C at 12.8 ka), peaks at +0.5°C at 7 ka (Holocene max) with an 8.2 ka drop (0.0°C), dips to -0.6°C at 1816 CE (LIA), and spikes to +1.4°C by 2024.
• X-Axis: -150 ka to 2024 CE, with denser points during transitions (e.g., MIS 6 to Eemian, LGM to Holocene, recent centuries).
• Y-Axis: -5°C to +2°C, accommodating glacial lows and interglacial highs.
• Features: Blue line with uncertainty shading (±0.5°C pre-1850), annotations for MIS 6, Eemian, LGM, Younger Dryas, 8.2 ka event, Holocene max, LIA, and modern warming.

How to Generate

1. Python: Copy the script into a Python environment (e.g., Jupyter Notebook), run it, and it’ll save 150ka_to_present_temp_graph.png.
2. Manual: Plot the table in Excel/Google Sheets with a line chart and error bars (±0.5°C pre-1850).
3. Further Refinement: If you want more points (e.g., every 5 ka pre-115 ka or yearly post-2000), let me know!

This extended version now spans 150,000 years, highlighting the MIS 6 glacial cold, the Eemian warmth, and all subsequent shifts with the 8.2 ka event included. Let me know if you need help running it or want additional detail!

 

[TheClimateChanger]

2 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

With an extension back to 150ky ago and accepting offer of further refinement.

 

Looks like it mixed up these two. The dates belonging to the events and temperatures are correct but the time before the present and the narrative are in the wrong spot. 0 CE is -1ka and 1000 BCE is -2ka.

-2 ka (0 CE)	0.0	Roman Warm Period onset
-1 ka (1000 BCE)	-0.1	Pre-Roman cooling

[TheClimateChanger]

Here are Grok's thoughts on the remainder of the 21st century, and a peak beyond:

Quote

Predicting future global temperature changes based on the 150,000-year record we’ve constructed involves extrapolating from historical patterns, current trends, and scientific projections. The dataset—from the MIS 6 glacial (-150 ka) through the Eemian, Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), Holocene, and up to February 27, 2025—shows natural variability driven by orbital forcing (Milankovitch cycles), volcanic activity, and abrupt events (e.g., 8.2 ka), overlaid with the recent anthropogenic spike from greenhouse gases. Here’s an analysis of how temperatures might evolve, grounded in this context and informed by climate models like those in the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6, 2021) and Berkeley Earth’s data trends.

Historical Context and Current Trajectory

1. Natural Variability:
   • Eemian (130–115 ka): Peaked at +1.5°C above pre-industrial (1850–1900 baseline) due to high insolation, with no human influence. CO₂ was ~280 ppm.
   • LGM (26.5 ka): Dropped to -4.5°C below baseline, with CO₂ at ~180 ppm and massive ice sheets.
   • Holocene: Stabilized between -0.6°C (Little Ice Age) and +0.5°C (Holocene Thermal Max), with CO₂ at 260–280 ppm until industrialization.
   • Abrupt Events: Younger Dryas (-12.8 ka, -2.0°C) and 8.2 ka (0.0°C) show rapid shifts from freshwater pulses, but recovery followed within centuries.
2. Modern Era (1850–2025):
   • 1850: -0.2°C (pre-industrial baseline).
   • 2024: +1.4°C, driven by CO₂ at ~423 ppm (2024 NOAA estimate), methane, and other greenhouse gases, far exceeding natural interglacial peaks like the Eemian.
   • Rate: ~0.2°C/decade since 1980, unprecedented in the 150 ka record for speed and magnitude outside deglacial transitions.

Future Temperature Scenarios

Future temperatures depend on human emissions, policy, and natural feedbacks. I’ll outline three scenarios based on IPCC AR6 Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and CMIP6 models, contextualized against our historical data:

1. Low Emissions (SSP1-2.6): Sustainability

• Assumption: Global CO₂ peaks by 2040, declines to ~350 ppm by 2100 via aggressive mitigation (net-zero by 2050).
• Projection:
  • 2030: ~+1.6°C (inertia from current emissions).
  • 2050: ~+1.7°C (peak warming).
  • 2100: ~+1.4°C (stabilizes as CO₂ drops).
• Historical Analog: Similar to Eemian peak (+1.5°C), but sustained by human drivers rather than orbital forcing.
• Likelihood: Requires immediate, coordinated global action (e.g., Paris Agreement on steroids). Current policies lag this trajectory.

2. Middle Emissions (SSP2-4.5): Business as Usual

• Assumption: CO₂ rises to ~600 ppm by 2100, with moderate mitigation (current pledges implemented).
• Projection:
  • 2030: ~+1.7°C.
  • 2050: ~+2.1°C.
  • 2100: ~+2.7°C (still rising slowly).
• Historical Analog: Exceeds any sustained temperature in the 150 ka record; closest to brief Eemian peaks but with no natural precedent for such high CO₂.
• Likelihood: Aligns with current trends and policies as of 2025, though tipping points (e.g., permafrost thaw) could push it higher.

3. High Emissions (SSP5-8.5): Fossil Fuel Reliance

• Assumption: CO₂ exceeds 1000 ppm by 2100, with minimal mitigation and high fossil fuel use.
• Projection:
  • 2030: ~+1.8°C.
  • 2050: ~+2.4°C.
  • 2100: ~+4.4°C (continues rising).
• Historical Analog: No direct match in 150 ka; exceeds Eemian by 3°C and approaches early Eocene warmth (+5–8°C, 50 Ma ago) on longer timescales.
• Likelihood: Less likely given renewable energy shifts, but possible if mitigation fails and feedbacks amplify (e.g., methane release).

Key Factors Influencing Future Trends

1. Greenhouse Gases: CO₂’s long atmospheric lifetime (~100+ years) locks in warming; methane’s short-term potency (20-year GWP ~84) could spike near-term temperatures.
2. Feedbacks:
   • Positive: Ice-albedo loss, permafrost thawing, and forest dieback could add 0.5–1°C by 2100 in high-emission scenarios.
   • Negative: Carbon uptake by oceans and vegetation may temper warming slightly, though saturation limits this.
3. Tipping Points: AMOC collapse (like 8.2 ka) could regionally cool Europe but warm the tropics, with unclear global net effects; Greenland/Antarctic ice melt raises sea levels but not temperature directly.
4. Natural Cycles: Milankovitch forcing predicts slow cooling over millennia, but anthropogenic warming overwhelms this for centuries ahead.

My Assessment

Based on the 150 ka record and current data:

• Near-Term (2025–2050): Temperatures will likely rise to +1.6°C to +2.0°C, regardless of immediate action, due to committed warming from past emissions. This exceeds the Eemian peak and all Holocene variability.
• Long-Term (2050–2100): The trajectory hinges on emissions:
  • SSP1-2.6 (+1.4°C by 2100) is optimistic but feasible with radical policy shifts now.
  • SSP2-4.5 (+2.7°C) seems most plausible given 2025 trends—unprecedented in our record but not catastrophic yet.
  • SSP5-8.5 (+4.4°C) would push us into uncharted territory, risking nonlinear feedbacks.
• Beyond 2100: Without net-negative emissions (e.g., carbon capture), warming persists for centuries, unlike natural interglacial declines. High scenarios could see +5°C by 2200, rivaling ancient hothouse climates.

Visualizing on the Graph

If we extended our Python plot:

• X-Axis: Add 2025–2100.
• Y-Axis: Expand to +5°C.
• Curves: Plot SSP1-2.6 (peaks ~+1.7°C, drops to +1.4°C), SSP2-4.5 (rises to +2.7°C), SSP5-8.5 (soars to +4.4°C), showing divergence post-2050.

Conclusion

Temperatures will likely exceed the Eemian (+1.5°C) within decades, with no historical precedent for the speed or CO₂-driven nature of this change. The 150 ka record suggests natural systems recover from abrupt shifts (e.g., 8.2 ka), but anthropogenic forcing creates a new paradigm. I’d bet on +2°C to +3°C by 2100 unless emissions drop sharply, a range pushing ecological and societal limits but not yet paleo-extreme. Want me to refine this with a specific scenario plotted or dig into feedbacks further?

 

[TheClimateChanger]

Here are Grok's thoughts on Tony Heller:

Quote

Here’s my take on Tony Heller’s (@tonyclimate) claim that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is "manipulating" temperature data to exaggerate global warming. You’ve called him a "lying scoundrel," and while I’ll weigh the evidence objectively, I’ll address whether his accusations hold up or fall apart.

 

What Heller Means by "Manipulation"

 

Heller, a well-known climate change skeptic, argues that NOAA adjusts temperature data to fabricate or inflate warming trends, often implying it’s a deliberate act of fraud with political motives. But in climate science, "manipulation" isn’t the right word—adjustments are standard, transparent, and necessary. Raw temperature data from weather stations, ships, and buoys often contain inconsistencies due to:

• Measurement changes: Switching from manual bucket measurements to automated sensors on ships.
• Station moves: Relocating a station (e.g., from urban to rural areas) can alter readings.
• Time biases: Recording temperatures at different times of day (afternoon vs. morning) affects the numbers.

These adjustments ensure the data reflects actual climate trends, not artifacts of how or where it was collected. Without them, the record would be a mess.

 

Heller’s Core Claim

 

Heller often points to specific examples, like U.S. temperature records, claiming NOAA’s adjustments turn a cooling trend into a warming one. He’s cherry-picking here—focusing on a tiny slice of data (the U.S. is just 2% of Earth’s surface) while ignoring the global picture. Studies show that when NOAA applies adjustments globally, they slightly reduce the warming trend, not amplify it. So, his narrative that adjustments "produce warming" doesn’t match the evidence.

 

The Evidence Against Heller

 

Multiple independent datasets tell a consistent story:

• NOAA’s record aligns with NASA, the UK Met Office, Berkeley Earth, and Japan’s Meteorological Agency—all showing a clear warming trend.
• Berkeley Earth, started by skeptics, used different methods and still confirmed NOAA’s findings.
• Satellite data, which doesn’t rely on surface station adjustments, also shows atmospheric warming.

If NOAA were faking data, how do you explain this global convergence? It’s not just one agency—it’s a mountain of evidence from diverse sources.

 

Adjustments: Cooling the Past or Warming the Present?

 

Heller often says NOAA "cools the past" and "warms the present" to create a trend. Not true. Globally, adjustments have a net cooling effect on historical data. For example, in the U.S., NOAA corrects for a bias where older stations recorded afternoon temperatures (hotter) and newer ones record mornings (cooler). This fix is logical and has been validated—even by some skeptic analyses. Without adjustments, the raw data would actually show more warming.

 

The 2015 NOAA Study Controversy

 

Heller’s attacked a 2015 NOAA study that debunked the "global warming hiatus" (a supposed slowdown from 1998–2013). He claimed it was rushed for political gain. But independent studies later backed it up using buoy and satellite data, showing no hiatus—just steady warming. Heller’s accusation here is noise, not substance.

 

Heller’s Credibility

 

Heller’s a geologist, not a climate scientist. That doesn’t disqualify him outright, but climate data analysis is a specialized field, and he lacks the formal training of NOAA’s peer-reviewed experts. His rhetoric often slides into conspiracy territory—hinting at a grand plot among thousands of scientists worldwide. That’s a stretch that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

 

My Verdict

 

Heller’s right to question data transparency—science thrives on skepticism. But his claim that NOAA manipulates data to "produce warming" is misleading and unsupported. The adjustments are standard, documented, and often reduce the warming trend. The warming is real, backed by independent datasets, and driven by human activity—not NOAA trickery.

 

Is he a "lying scoundrel"? I’ll let the evidence speak: his accusations don’t align with the facts, and his cherry-picking and conspiratorial tone undermine his case. The scientific consensus stands solid—NOAA’s not cooking the books.

 

[TheClimateChanger]

3 hours ago, bluewave said:

One of the biggest changes we have seen in PA since the 1950s and 1960s has been the winter storm track shift. The primary winter storm track into the early 2000s was just east of the Appalachians. We can see how the storm track shift over the last 20 years caused a steep decline in snowfall at State College. The same storm track shift going west of the Appalachians has lead to in increase in Lake effect snows at Erie coupled with the warmer lake temperatures reducing the ice cover over the years. 
 

 

 

I believe we are reaching a level of warming where even lake effect snow is starting to decrease. If you notice from the Erie data, prior to this year, the 6 previous years were all below trend, and 8 of the previous 9 years were below trend. When you see values consistently above or below trend at the end of the period being considered, that's a strong signal that the linear trend is not capturing all of the variance in the data.

Last year's tally of 24.8 inches was less than all years but 1932-33, 1918-19 & 1897-98. The values shown here for 1942-43 & 1943-44 are incorrect and missing substantial data, the correct values can be found from the raw observations on NCEI's IPS. The "missing data" for 1918-19 & 1897-98 are simply warm-season observations where no snowfall was reported [because none fell] and the algorithm returns that as a missing data. The figures align with the raw observations.

Given the "flaky" history of snowfall measurements which tend to produce underestimated tallies prior to 1950, it was possibly the least snowy season in that entire period, if corrections were to be applied for non-climatic biases.

Source: Snowfall measurement: a flaky history | NCAR & UCAR News

 

 

[TheClimateChanger]

The data from Cleveland supports my hypothesis. Since 1950, snowfall is largely flat on a linear trend; however, a LOESS curve regression captures a lot of the inner workings of the data. Showing in fact, there was marked increase in seasonal snowfall peaking in the early 21st century, followed by a sharp drop over the past 15 years.

So my thinking is snowfall will decline in coming decades as warming continues, particularly in the southern lakes [where the winter climate is milder]. Places with colder climates, e.g. the Tug Hill, northern lower Michigan and the U.P. of Michigan may be somewhat immunized from these changes for some time.

If we limit the analysis at Cleveland to data collected at the airport [which tends to be somewhat snowier than downtown, due to elevation], and which dates back to around 1940, we can see most of the least snowy winters since that time have occurred in recent years. As an aside, it's interesting that 1947-48 was a low snowfall season at Cleveland, that was a banner year for Southern New England.

[Typhoon Tip]

4 hours ago, bluewave said:

One of the biggest changes we have seen in PA since the 1950s and 1960s has been the winter storm track shift neutering of general intelligence. The primary winter storm track into the early 2000s was just east of the Appalachians. We can see how the storm track IQs have shifted over the last 20 years caused a steep decline in snowfall at in people one can even bear to listen to despite State College. The same storm track shift going west of the Appalachians has lead to in increase in Lake effect snows at Erie dipshit abstinence to objective reality coupled with the warmer lake temperatures reducing the ice cover over the years. 
 

 

 

 

 

[bdgwx]

2 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Here are Grok's thoughts on Tony Heller:

Speaking of Tony Heller...his anti-science viewpoint is so extreme that even the Watts Up with That blog, which is already one of the most anti-science blogs out there, banned him.

[LibertyBell]

15 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

I believe we are reaching a level of warming where even lake effect snow is starting to decrease. If you notice from the Erie data, prior to this year, the 6 previous years were all below trend, and 8 of the previous 9 years were below trend. When you see values consistently above or below trend at the end of the period being considered, that's a strong signal that the linear trend is not capturing all of the variance in the data.

Last year's tally of 24.8 inches was less than all years but 1932-33, 1918-19 & 1897-98. The values shown here for 1942-43 & 1943-44 are incorrect and missing substantial data, the correct values can be found from the raw observations on NCEI's IPS. The "missing data" for 1918-19 & 1897-98 are simply warm-season observations where no snowfall was reported [because none fell] and the algorithm returns that as a missing data. The figures align with the raw observations.

Given the "flaky" history of snowfall measurements which tend to produce underestimated tallies prior to 1950, it was possibly the least snowy season in that entire period, if corrections were to be applied for non-climatic biases.

Source: Snowfall measurement: a flaky history | NCAR & UCAR News

 

 

Lake effect snow is very dependent on wind direction.  For lake effect cities that have a significant amount of snow from synoptic events (like Buffalo) snowfall is going down, but for a city that gets a larger percentage of snow from lake effect (because of predominant wind direction), like Erie, snowfall is going up.

 

[LibertyBell]

19 hours ago, bluewave said:

One of the biggest changes we have seen in PA since the 1950s and 1960s has been the winter storm track shift. The primary winter storm track into the early 2000s was just east of the Appalachians. We can see how the storm track shift over the last 20 years caused a steep decline in snowfall at State College. The same storm track shift going west of the Appalachians has lead to in increase in Lake effect snows at Erie coupled with the warmer lake temperatures reducing the ice cover over the years. 
 

 

 

Yes snowfall at Erie is going up while it's going down at Buffalo.  Perhaps we have seen a predominant wind direction shift too?

 

[Typhoon Tip]

On 2/24/2025 at 3:57 PM, ChescoWx said:

Saw this earlier from 11 years ago today one of the all time best quotes about the climate myth of "settled science" from Charles Krauthammer "If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing?.... But whoring is whoring and the gods must be appeased." 

This op ed above is moronic by an idiot who happens to have articulation skills.