Global Average Temperature 2024

[donsutherland1]

25 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Yes I see the projected monthly temperature for January at NYC has warmed well above 30.0..... the projection was as low as 29.4 just last week.

At the time, the guidance suggested that the closing days of January would be much colder than they will be. The guidance had the air mass originating in northern Russia, which appears on course to verify. But my hypothesis is that the guidance didn't adequately consider that the air mass was actually producing record warmth in that area and wouldn't be exceptionally cold. As the event drew closer, the guidance adjusted temperatures, but remained essentially unchanged with regard to the origin of the air mass. That's why I believe the initial runs didn't adequately consider that the air mass was an unusually warm one from that part of the world.

[LibertyBell]

Just now, donsutherland1 said:

At the time, the guidance suggested that the closing days of January would be much colder than they will be. The guidance had the air mass originating in northern Russia, which appears on course to verify. But my hypothesis is that the guidance didn't adequately consider that the air mass was actually producing record warmth in that area and wouldn't be exceptionally cold. As the event drew closer, the guidance adjusted temperatures, but remained essentially unchanged with regard to the origin of the air mass. That's why I believe the initial runs didn't adequately consider that the air mass was an unusually warm one from that part of the world.

Was this also involved with why that storm suddenly sped up and ruined our historically dry January, Don?  In another thread I noted, it's like getting ready to eat a delicious cake and a pesky fly comes and lands on it and ruins it.

[donsutherland1]

5 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Was this also involved with why that storm suddenly sped up and ruined our historically dry January, Don?  In another thread I noted, it's like getting ready to eat a delicious cake and a pesky fly comes and lands on it and ruins it.

I don't think so. Models are often off by the timing until events draw closer. I don't have a hypothesis to explain the timing difference, as numerous variables are involved. It's not as as straight-forward as, in this case, the modeling of the air mass appears to have been.

[donsutherland1]

On 1/26/2025 at 7:27 AM, bluewave said:

New study finds that cloud feedbacks amplify the warming more than previously thought.

https://cpo.noaa.gov/scientists-find-cloud-feedbacks-amplify-warming-more-than-previously-thought/

Scientists find cloud feedbacks amplify warming more than previously thought 

 

Clouds play an important role in how much the Earth warms when greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide increase. However, scientists have struggled to determine whether low-level clouds in the tropics slow down or speed up global warming, creating uncertainty in climate predictions. A new study published in Nature and funded by the Climate Program Office’s Modeling, Analysis, Predictions, and Projections (MAPP) program adds to the growing evidence that cloud feedback is very likely to amplify warming in the climate system, rather than reduce it. 

The study found that the impact of clouds in the tropical Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, two areas where low clouds are especially important, is much stronger than scientists previously thought — 71% higher. It also ruled out the possibility that tropical low clouds could have a cooling effect to offset warming. These findings narrow the uncertainty around one of the biggest unknowns in climate science and enable more accurate predictions of how much warming we might expect. This work was possible thanks to new techniques that balanced conflicting data from different regions, giving clearer answers.

The results show that Earth’s climate is likely more sensitive to rising carbon dioxide levels than many models have suggested. A stronger positive cloud feedback means faster and higher levels of warming. It also highlights the need to improve how climate models represent clouds, especially in tropical areas, to prepare better for the challenges of a changing climate. The investigators will extend the value of this study by developing and delivering a piece of software to NOAA that will diagnose issues with low cloud feedback in new versions of NOAA’s modeling systems. This will lead to improvements in NOAA models’ ability to capture appropriate levels of cloud feedback, and improvements in processes that lead to weather and climate prediction skill.

In the early 2000s, climate scientists could not say with confidence whether clouds would mitigate or amplify climate change. Some hypothesized that clouds might work to oppose a significant portion of human-caused warming by reflecting more incoming solar energy back out to space, while others hypothesized that particular changes in clouds might magnify warming by trapping more energy in the atmosphere. In 2001, NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics climate model was one of only three that simulated the type of significant positive cloud feedback we now know is likely happening. The MAPP and Climate Variability & Predictability (CVP) programs are advancing cloud representation in climate models through ongoing funded projects. By studying tropical cloud processes and precipitation and improving how they are represented across scales, these efforts are strengthening predictions and providing a clearer picture of our climate future.

Read the study »

I believe the recent cloud-related evidence essentially eliminates the lingering notions that cloud feedbacks would be negative, reaffirms research done by Tierney et al., and that cloud feedbacks can lead to higher climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2. Moreover, cloud feedbacks seem to be a more robust explanation than aerosol reduction for the modest but real increase in the rate of warming that has been observed. It's uncertain how cloud feedbacks have contributed to the persistence of the warmth since the onset of La Niña. January 2025 will very likely become the warmest January on record globally despite the ongoing La Niña event.

[bluewave]

43 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

I believe the recent cloud-related evidence essentially eliminates the lingering notions that cloud feedbacks would be negative, reaffirms research done by Tierney et al., and that cloud feedbacks can lead to higher climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2. Moreover, cloud feedbacks seem to be a more robust explanation than aerosol reduction for the modest but real increase in the rate of warming that has been observed. It's uncertain how cloud feedbacks have contributed to the persistence of the warmth since the onset of La Niña. January 2025 will very likely become the warmest January on record globally despite the ongoing La Niña event.

Would be great to know exactly what the trigger was for the rapid acceleration in global temperatures back in 2023. Since it occurred much sooner than past El Niños that were much stronger and has lingered beyond anything in the past into a La Niña. It may very well be that we have just have experienced some type of nonlinear or threshold event on a global scale. 
 

 

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

I believe the recent cloud-related evidence essentially eliminates the lingering notions that cloud feedbacks would be negative, reaffirms research done by Tierney et al., and that cloud feedbacks can lead to higher climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2. Moreover, cloud feedbacks seem to be a more robust explanation than aerosol reduction for the modest but real increase in the rate of warming that has been observed. It's uncertain how cloud feedbacks have contributed to the persistence of the warmth since the onset of La Niña. January 2025 will very likely become the warmest January on record globally despite the ongoing La Niña event.

Maybe that paper about our warming patterns resembling what happened to Venus might be accurate after all.  Venus is clouded over all the time and their greenhouse warming is extreme.

 

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

Would be great to know exactly what the trigger was for the rapid acceleration in global temperatures back in 2023. Since it occurred much sooner than past El Niños that were much stronger and has lingered beyond anything in the past into a La Niña. It may very well be that we have just have experienced some type of nonlinear or threshold event on a global scale. 
 

 

That Hunga Tonga volcano with the expulsion of water vapor into the atmosphere? Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas.

[paulm]

6 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

That Hunga Tonga volcano with the expulsion of water vapor into the atmosphere? Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas.

Paper published last summer argued that the net effect of that eruption was to cool the globe slightly overall, and that the impact from the volcano is now negligible.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024JD041296

Quote

The Hunga climate forcing has decreased to near zero by the end of 2023.

[GaWx]

5 hours ago, chubbs said:

Here's a map of  Jan temperature anomalies through Jan 25 (JRA reanalysis). Very cold in SE quadrant of US, but there are several very warm areas scattered around the planet to balance. For northern hemisphere land, Eurasia and Canada more than offset a cold US.

The JRA record for Jan is 0.64 set last year, currently 0.71 and likely to be broken this year. Very unusual to break a winter monthly average temperature record in a La Nina, not sure it has ever happened before.

 The Euro Weeklies have been amazingly accurate this winter several weeks out! This 500 mb map below was released on Dec 15th for Jan 6-12, which was at the release time 22-28 days in the future. One can see that the coldest anomalies on the entire globe were targeting the E US even 3-4 weeks out, which verified well. The cold on these and the 2m maps intensified as the period got closer. The Euro did similarly well for the subsequent two weeks (Jan 13-19 and Jan 20-26) well in advance concentrating the coldest on the planet in the E US.

  For Feb they’ve been harping on a much milder pattern in the E US especially south of New England (canonical La Niña Feb pattern) thanks to a -PNA/+AO/+NAO (near opposite of Jan). Based on the Euro’s impressive accuracy weeks in advance and La Niña climo, I see no reason to bet against a much warmer pattern, especially MidAtlantic/Ohio Valley south.

 This Euro 2m temp map is for Feb 3-9: much warmer than Jan especially most of E US and much colder SW Canada and NE Canada/Greenland:

 

 This one is for Feb 10-16: similar

[Typhoon Tip]

1 hour ago, GaWx said:

 The Euro Weeklies have been amazingly accurate this winter several weeks out! This 500 mb map below was released on Dec 15th for Jan 6-12, which was at the release time 22-28 days in the future. One can see that the coldest anomalies on the entire globe were targeting the E US even 3-4 weeks out, which verified well. The cold on these and the 2m maps intensified as the period got closer. The Euro did similarly well for the subsequent two weeks (Jan 13-19 and Jan 20-26) well in advance concentrating the coldest on the planet in the E US.

...
  For Feb they’ve been harping on a much milder pattern in the E US especially south of New England (canonical La Niña Feb pattern) thanks to a -PNA/+AO/+NAO (near opposite of Jan). Based on the Euro’s impressive accuracy weeks in advance and La Niña climo, I see no reason to bet against a much warmer pattern, especially MidAtlantic/Ohio Valley south.

 This Euro 2m temp map is for Feb 3-9: much warmer than Jan especially most of E US and much colder SW Canada and NE Canada/Greenland:
...

 This one is for Feb 10-16: similar

...

 No shit.  huh - I wondered about that, whether or not the eastern continental N/A were among the cooler regions of N/Hemi (relative to normal...) during these central weeks of winter.  Without even seeing this - source/veracity notwithstanding ... - I had a strong hunch this would turn out true, base in no smaller part on the fact that the global means are still honkin' high. I figured it couldn't be like this very many other places - both couldn't be true.   

I wanna also say, this isn't the first time I've noticed this type of "picking on N/A" result since 1998.  It's interesting... I think it's because the base-line perennial pattern features a western N/A "bulge" due to sorting out the westerlies flow; as it's forced to rise over the western cordillera it turns N creating a topographic ridge.

It's subtle though, but when footing that under weather patterning, that gives a constructive feed-back ... Basically what I am getting at is that we are sort of situated favorably to claim one of the cool offset locations.  Doesn't mean it will be that way every year, but some percentage of years in a set of 20 of them ... I bet we get 3 or 4 of them like this. 

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[TheClimateChanger]

Here is a live simulcast of the Zoom discussion on these findings:

 

[Typhoon Tip]

Can we start the 2025 ?

[TheClimateChanger]

UAH is in and shows a pretty steep decline, albeit still a warm month. Not sure how much stock to place in their estimates. All adjustments ever made always seem to be downward!

Their estimate for USA48 was -1.06C, making this the coldest January for USA48 since 2008.

[TheClimateChanger]

Just now, TheClimateChanger said:

Their estimate for USA48 was -1.06C, making this the coldest January for USA48 since 2008.

 

On this point, I think it's worth noting that much hullabaloo has been made about this allegedly being the coldest January since 1988. We will have to wait and see what the NCEI numbers are, but UAH does not agree. Also, January 1988 is only the 24th coldest on record for the CONUS, so it's not notable at all. 

Even if this were to turn out to be the coldest January since 1988 for the CONUS, it's important to place this finding in perspective. From 1895-1988 - a period of 94 years - 24 years would have been colder than this January. In a typical 20th century climate, this means, on average, more than 1 out of every 4 Januarys would be expected to be colder than this one. And it's worth pointing out that the 20th century, from which this data is drawn, is widely regarded as being the warmest century in North America since the arrival of Europeans. While somewhat colder than the mean, this January was not atypically cold for the CONUS as a whole.

[TheClimateChanger]

3 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

On this point, I think it's worth noting that much hullabaloo has been made about this allegedly being the coldest January since 1988. We will have to wait and see what the NCEI numbers are, but UAH does not agree. Also, January 1988 is only the 24th coldest on record for the CONUS, so it's not notable at all. 

Even if this were to turn out to be the coldest January since 1988 for the CONUS, it's important to place this finding in perspective. From 1895-1988 - a period of 94 years - 24 years would have been colder than this January. In a typical 20th century climate, this means, on average, more than 1 out of every 4 Januarys would be expected to be colder than this one. And it's worth pointing out that the 20th century, from which this data is drawn, is widely regarded as being the warmest century in North America since the arrival of Europeans. While somewhat colder than the mean, this January was not atypically cold for the CONUS as a whole.

Maybe it's just me, but this seems emblematic of a bigger problem I see when it comes to cold temperatures and snowfall. There seems to be a push to exaggerate the importance of cold temperatures and/or snowfall, even when, from a historical perspective, they are normal conditions.

Even model projections! I see people posting very long-range model projections of snow - 16 days, or even longer periods of 30+ days -  and saying they've never seen such amounts of snow! I feel like I'm in bizarro world. Models do this all the time. Hell, there have been numerous periods where more snow than shown in those "unbelievable" projections actually fell!  Not saying they are going to be right, but there have been, like, actual periods that were actually snowier than most of these maps I'm seeing. 

 

[TheClimateChanger]

19 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Maybe it's just me, but this seems emblematic of a bigger problem I see when it comes to cold temperatures and snowfall. There seems to be a push to exaggerate the importance of cold temperatures and/or snowfall, even when, from a historical perspective, they are normal conditions.

Even model projections! I see people posting very long-range model projections of snow - 16 days, or even longer periods of 30+ days -  and saying they've never seen such amounts of snow! I feel like I'm in bizarro world. Models do this all the time. Hell, there have been numerous periods where more snow than shown in those "unbelievable" projections actually fell!  Not saying they are going to be right, but there have been, like, actual periods that were actually snowier than most of these maps I'm seeing. 

 

A couple of examples, not even pointing to deniers, who deliberately do this. I saw a Univision meteorologist make a post on X showing a large chunk of the eastern United States as having a top 5 coldest January, including locations like Indianapolis and Miami. While the post did not label it as such, these appear to have been 21st century rankings. In fact, it was only the 36th coldest January on record at Indianapolis [and tied with 1962]. At Miami, it was the 43rd coldest January on record. It was, indeed, the 4th coldest January on record at Miami and Indianapolis, since 2000. Put in proper perspective, from 1896-1987, there were 39 colder Januarys at Miami!  From 1875-1994, there were 33 Januarys as cold or colder than this one!  That's a recurrence interval of only a bit fewer than 1 out of 2 years at Miami, and around 1 out of every 3.6 years at Indy, for those time periods [which encompass the late 19th century and the vast majority of the 20th century]. Not at all notable based on historical data.

Another example... I saw the NWS Pittsburgh office share this on X. While it claims the data dates to 1871, in fact, snowfall depth data at Pittsburgh is only available since 1948. This means there have been 26 stretches with snowcover as long or longer than the stretch that recently ended during the preceding 77 years. That's more than 1 in every 3 years, so actually pretty typical. And, in fact, in not for the recent dearth of snow cover, the true incidence would be somewhat more frequent than implied by the full data. Also, some of those years in the 1970s & 1980s literally saw months of nonstop snowpack. It's also worth pointing out that snowfall observations are now taken in a shady, suburban office, which would be much more conducive to retention of snowpack than an open airfield with lots of tarmac. This suggests that there probably would have been even more streaks of a similar length if observations were taken at the same site. I don't know who needs to hear this, but there are supposed to be periods where snow lingers for weeks in a Pittsburgh winter. It's not at all unusual or noteworthy.

 

[TheClimateChanger]

What I think is going on, and I don't say this lightly, is the climate has warmed so much already that typical weather events now seem unusual. Possibly even among people who accept the reality of global warming. I frequently see people claiming - without evidence, I might add - that global warming is actually leading to colder winter extremes, and wavier jet streams, and other similar nonsense. It's like these people have never looked at any historical weather records in their life. This is natural variability leading to regional cooling amidst a much, much warmer global climate. In colder past climates, there has been far colder weather. And snow was much more frequent along the Gulf of America (formerly known as the Gulf of Mexico) coast in the past than it is today.

[chubbs]

3 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

What I think is going on, and I don't say this lightly, is the climate has warmed so much already that typical weather events now seem unusual. Possibly even among people who accept the reality of global warming. I frequently see people claiming - without evidence, I might add - that global warming is actually leading to colder winter extremes, and wavier jet streams, and other similar nonsense. It's like these people have never looked at any historical weather records in their life. This is natural variability leading to regional cooling amidst a much, much warmer global climate. In colder past climates, there has been far colder weather. And snow was much more frequent along the Gulf of America (formerly known as the Gulf of Mexico) coast in the past than it is today.

For the winter-to-date (12/1 to 2/3) the lower 48 is close to normal.

[chubbs]

January observed temperature anomalies relative to a 1950-80 base. No temperature bias adjustment because the global average isn't impacted significantly. A record in this series by 0.04C.

https://moyhu.blogspot.com/

[dseagull]

19 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

What I think is going on, and I don't say this lightly, is the climate has warmed so much already that typical weather events now seem unusual. Possibly even among people who accept the reality of global warming. I frequently see people claiming - without evidence, I might add - that global warming is actually leading to colder winter extremes, and wavier jet streams, and other similar nonsense. It's like these people have never looked at any historical weather records in their life. This is natural variability leading to regional cooling amidst a much, much warmer global climate. In colder past climates, there has been far colder weather. And snow was much more frequent along the Gulf of America (formerly known as the Gulf of Mexico) coast in the past than it is today.

Mob mentality, laziness, and social media retardation... Its the age we live in, rather than looking at actual records.   

Having said that, there is a rapidly growing segment of the population that have been inappropriately lumped in under the "denier" category.  I know this, because I am often categorized as such.  

I have always acknowledged the actual historical data, always noted that humans and industrialization do infact account for said anthropogenic climate change, and also see no harm in studying if/how we can slow our contribution to an ever-changing natural climate shift. 

Assuming all of this is true amongst this segment of the population, they cannot be called deniers of climate change, rather skeptics that we can significantly reverse-course without the result being far worse than the climate shift itself.   Those of us who either work in scientific fields or whom have done proper research in academia are not suggesting we turn a blind eye without taking action.  

I believe that the vast majority of actual "deniers" are the sheep of our planet.  The mob mentality is how they are wired, and they have a longing to belong to a group which has counter-ideologies, regardless of fact.  Those in the scientific community have a duty to approach this conundrum carefully, and not to politicize the issue.   That has become increased difficult in the bizarre divided world we now exist in.  

 

As I type this, Trump's DOGE is inside the walls of NOAA headquarters.  While they may state that they are there to reduce waste and compress the size and scope of of spending and mission, they are really just cleaning out counter-ideologies.   What they fail to see is that MOST of the scientific community is/was not always dishonest and attempting to push an agenda.  Yes, extremist views absolutely exist within the scientific community, and I admittedly disagree with many aspects of NOAA fisheries and climate science data.  This is the wrong way to go about the process of returning to sanity.  This will only hurt the scientific community and create further divide. 

I don't know how this ends, but this ideological blitzkrieg is good for no inhabitants of our country or the planet.  The pendulum is swinging wayyyy too fast, and wayyyy too far.  I say this as both a member of a scientific profession and as an independent with conservatives leanings.  We need to return to sanity and unity, or this doesn't end well.  

 

I didn't know where to post this, but I had to get it off my chest.  Had I chosen to accept a scholarship to Penn State many many years ago to pursue a career in meteorology or earth sciences, I may have been waking up in an even more unsettled mindframe this morning.  Pray (if its something you do,) that we don't wind up reversing course on scientific achievements and advancements.

[TheClimateChanger]

4 hours ago, dseagull said:

Mob mentality, laziness, and social media retardation... Its the age we live in, rather than looking at actual records.   

Having said that, there is a rapidly growing segment of the population that have been inappropriately lumped in under the "denier" category.  I know this, because I am often categorized as such.  

I have always acknowledged the actual historical data, always noted that humans and industrialization do infact account for said anthropogenic climate change, and also see no harm in studying if/how we can slow our contribution to an ever-changing natural climate shift. 

Assuming all of this is true amongst this segment of the population, they cannot be called deniers of climate change, rather skeptics that we can significantly reverse-course without the result being far worse than the climate shift itself.   Those of us who either work in scientific fields or whom have done proper research in academia are not suggesting we turn a blind eye without taking action.  

I believe that the vast majority of actual "deniers" are the sheep of our planet.  The mob mentality is how they are wired, and they have a longing to belong to a group which has counter-ideologies, regardless of fact.  Those in the scientific community have a duty to approach this conundrum carefully, and not to politicize the issue.   That has become increased difficult in the bizarre divided world we now exist in.  

 

As I type this, Trump's DOGE is inside the walls of NOAA headquarters.  While they may state that they are there to reduce waste and compress the size and scope of of spending and mission, they are really just cleaning out counter-ideologies.   What they fail to see is that MOST of the scientific community is/was not always dishonest and attempting to push an agenda.  Yes, extremist views absolutely exist within the scientific community, and I admittedly disagree with many aspects of NOAA fisheries and climate science data.  This is the wrong way to go about the process of returning to sanity.  This will only hurt the scientific community and create further divide. 

I don't know how this ends, but this ideological blitzkrieg is good for no inhabitants of our country or the planet.  The pendulum is swinging wayyyy too fast, and wayyyy too far.  I say this as both a member of a scientific profession and as an independent with conservatives leanings.  We need to return to sanity and unity, or this doesn't end well.  

 

I didn't know where to post this, but I had to get it off my chest.  Had I chosen to accept a scholarship to Penn State many many years ago to pursue a career in meteorology or earth sciences, I may have been waking up in an even more unsettled mindframe this morning.  Pray (if its something you do,) that we don't wind up reversing course on scientific achievements and advancements.

I think we need to trust the process. There's no evidence of Elon deleting data, or any of these salacious claims. But I'm going to disagree, former heads of NOAA/NWS and employee scientists spent decades DOWNPLAYING climate change and making false or misleading statements about human impacts. They need to be held accountable for their actions.  Even today, NOAA continues to publish misleading US climate statistics. If the data were properly homogenized and adjusted for non-climatic biases, the warming trend in the US would probably be twice the published rate (or even more). Many of the published state and national temperature records were not observed in a manner consistent with current observational standards. 

Regarding climate, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence of carbon dioxide's role in climate change - whether natural or through manmade emissions of the gas. If anything, I guess I would characterize myself as more of a "natural variability" skeptic. Yes, there's natural variability as I acknowledge but it seems to have minimal impact on the trend. In fact, most reasonable reconstructions seem to suggest a very gradual, long-term cooling trend from the Holocene Thermal Maximum which occurred from between 6-8k years ago. There seems to be little evidence of a significant Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period, or Little Ice Age, except for the fact that the latter is indeed, likely, the coldest period since the recovery from the Younger Dryas. But this is more indicative of the gradual cooling trend that had largely been in motion since the Holocene Thermal Maximum. IMHO, it is likely that this cooling trend would have persisted resulting in the commencement of a new glacial period in the next 10-20k years, or sooner.

If we go back further in time, past the Holocene Thermal Maximum, we reach the Younger Dryas around 11.7k years before the present and lasting for about 1,000 years. Further back in time is a brief "warmer" interlude between the Younger Dryas and the core of the last glacial period, which reached its maximum extent around 20-25k years before the present. However, this glacial period commenced around 120-125k years before the present. During the Pleistocene, which commenced 2.58 million years before the present, there have been repeated glacial advances and retreats. Some of these interglacial periods were perhaps warmer than the present by some degree, but that's about it. We are firmly on course for a Pliocene climate and will way overshoot that. This ought to be undeniable.

[TheClimateChanger]

6 hours ago, dseagull said:

Mob mentality, laziness, and social media retardation... Its the age we live in, rather than looking at actual records.   

Having said that, there is a rapidly growing segment of the population that have been inappropriately lumped in under the "denier" category.  I know this, because I am often categorized as such.  

I have always acknowledged the actual historical data, always noted that humans and industrialization do infact account for said anthropogenic climate change, and also see no harm in studying if/how we can slow our contribution to an ever-changing natural climate shift. 

Assuming all of this is true amongst this segment of the population, they cannot be called deniers of climate change, rather skeptics that we can significantly reverse-course without the result being far worse than the climate shift itself.   Those of us who either work in scientific fields or whom have done proper research in academia are not suggesting we turn a blind eye without taking action.  

I believe that the vast majority of actual "deniers" are the sheep of our planet.  The mob mentality is how they are wired, and they have a longing to belong to a group which has counter-ideologies, regardless of fact.  Those in the scientific community have a duty to approach this conundrum carefully, and not to politicize the issue.   That has become increased difficult in the bizarre divided world we now exist in.  

 

As I type this, Trump's DOGE is inside the walls of NOAA headquarters.  While they may state that they are there to reduce waste and compress the size and scope of of spending and mission, they are really just cleaning out counter-ideologies.   What they fail to see is that MOST of the scientific community is/was not always dishonest and attempting to push an agenda.  Yes, extremist views absolutely exist within the scientific community, and I admittedly disagree with many aspects of NOAA fisheries and climate science data.  This is the wrong way to go about the process of returning to sanity.  This will only hurt the scientific community and create further divide. 

I don't know how this ends, but this ideological blitzkrieg is good for no inhabitants of our country or the planet.  The pendulum is swinging wayyyy too fast, and wayyyy too far.  I say this as both a member of a scientific profession and as an independent with conservatives leanings.  We need to return to sanity and unity, or this doesn't end well.  

 

I didn't know where to post this, but I had to get it off my chest.  Had I chosen to accept a scholarship to Penn State many many years ago to pursue a career in meteorology or earth sciences, I may have been waking up in an even more unsettled mindframe this morning.  Pray (if its something you do,) that we don't wind up reversing course on scientific achievements and advancements.

As a follow-up, this is why I have grown increasingly skeptical of natural variation. 

(1) The Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and Roman Warm Periods were made up between the 1950s & 1970s. Prior to this time, the overwhelming view was that there had been little significant variation during the historical time (i.e., since roughly 1-2k years before Christ). Of particular note, the scientists living during the so-called Little Ice Age did not believe they were living in a little ice age. In fact, considering the same evidence offered in support of these variations, they did NOT find any compelling reason to conclude a significant change in climate had occurred.  More importantly, and this is a big point, the modern GLOBAL reconstructions appear to be largely consistent with the prior view. There appears to be little evidence to support the contention that any of these periods were significant deviations from a general long-term cooling trend.

Comically, the so-called "Roman Warm Period" was previously theorized to be a "Roman Cold Period." This older line of belief stemmed from the observation that the height of global development was in northwest Europe and had shifted north with time from the Mediterranean. Thus, there was a belief that the Roman era was somewhat colder (or at least wetter) with a suppressed storm track that would have led to more favorable conditions for widespread agriculture. Conversely, in this theorized colder regime, the conditions in the north and west of Europe would have been colder and less suitable for agriculture, industry and civilizational development. Now, we're simply told by grifters that society always advances during periods of warmth, and warmth is good. I mean, really? While I don't have reason to doubt the current view, which of these two claims about the development of ancient Rome intuitively makes more sense?

(2) The Maunder Minimum, and the concept of grand solar minima, was made up in 1976. For hundreds of years, nobody suggested there was a multi-decadal period with little or no sunspots or solar activity. Scientists from the 1800s and early 1900s, who had previously looked at the same record, concluded that the records before about the middle of the 18th century were incomplete and had worked tirelessly to create an accurate reconstruction of solar activity that extended back to the invention of the telescope. Dr. Rupert Wolf's efforts were thrown by the wayside, in favor of this shocking claim of no sunspot activity. We now have approximately about 275 years of reliable sunspot records, and there has never been a grand solar minimum observed. My question to proponents of the grand solar minimum is - how much longer do we need to observe the sun without a grand solar minimum before we start to question whether there really is such a thing (or, at least, in the sense that the terminology is commonly used today).

Dr. Eddy, who described the Maunder Minimum, had deep ties to the U.S. military, and was not highly regarded by his peers at the time. His ties to the U.S. military certainly provide a compelling reason to create a new history of the sun/earth's climate. And, since the United States dominates this field, this is the only view you get to hear.

Here is a fairly recent Russian paper with a different conclusion:

The Maunder Minimum Is Not as Grand as It Seemed to Be, Zolotova and Ponyavin, 2015. Link: THE MAUNDER MINIMUM IS NOT AS GRAND AS IT SEEMED TO BE - IOPscience

(3) The supposed link between solar minima and cooling temperatures. The exact opposite was believed for hundreds of years. They even quantified the change in temperature during the solar cycle. So, it seems hard to believe that this would have been incorrect?  If you look it up, you might see the suggestion that this was because the scientists incorrectly believed that the dark spots resulted in less TSI. But this is incorrect, it was known that total solar irradiance was somewhat higher, which they considered to be a conundrum, which was resolved by the theory that, in essence, EEPs emitted from the sun could deplete stratospheric ozone, promote changes in cloudiness/storminess by acting as cloud condensation nuclei, and could impact atmospheric and oceanic circulations in ways that would promote arctic outbreaks into the middle latitudes. Today, all of these are now said to be linked to galactic cosmic rays which are said to occur with much greater frequency during solar minimum. If you look up old climate texts, you can actually see where it was previously theorized that something akin to a "grand solar maximum" could potentially lead to a new Ice Age. Make it make sense.

[TheClimateChanger]

Instead, it seems to me that biggest drivers of earth's climate, after carbon dioxide, are Milankovitch cycles. These can explain the relative warmth of the Holocene Thermal Maximum and can also explain the gradual cooling trend that has been ongoing for the past several thousand years. In the absence of warming, a new glacial period would likely naturally occur in thousands of years.

[dseagull]

6 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Instead, it seems to me that biggest drivers of earth's climate, after carbon dioxide, are Milankovitch cycles. These can explain the relative warmth of the Holocene Thermal Maximum and can also explain the gradual cooling trend that has been ongoing for the past several thousand years. In the absence of warming, a new glacial period would likely naturally occur in thousands of years.

I think you and I may share very similar viewpoints.   For what it's worth, I have the opinion that both the interpretation of history and human psychology alike, play larger roles in the system at play than most people possess the capability of comprehending.  

[LibertyBell]

6 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Instead, it seems to me that biggest drivers of earth's climate, after carbon dioxide, are Milankovitch cycles. These can explain the relative warmth of the Holocene Thermal Maximum and can also explain the gradual cooling trend that has been ongoing for the past several thousand years. In the absence of warming, a new glacial period would likely naturally occur in thousands of years.

These cycles (and periodic mass extinctions) are determined by the sun's orbit around the center of the Milky Way.

[Typhoon Tip]

"The world warmed to yet another monthly heat record in January, despite an abnormally chilly United States, a cooling La Niña and predictions of a slightly less hot 2025, according to the European climate service Copernicus."

https://phys.org/news/2025-02-la-nina-eases-earth.html

[nflwxman]

Been several years since I've posted here, but between the recent trends in global temperature, and increased rate of growth in levels of CO2 measured, it's clear we are not in for a good 2030 - 2045 as a species.

Mass migration that climate scientists predicted is already happening and clearly causing the geopolitical stresses. Amazing that the media has not acknowledged the truth of that prediction from nearly 20 years ago.

[GaWx]

2 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

"The world warmed to yet another monthly heat record in January, despite an abnormally chilly United States, a cooling La Niña and predictions of a slightly less hot 2025, according to the European climate service Copernicus."

https://phys.org/news/2025-02-la-nina-eases-earth.html

 Indeed. Here’s Jan of 2025 using 1951-80 as the base: note how much of the US lower 48 was cold (well predicted several weeks in advance by Euro Weeklies by the way) and that it was the largest cold area on the globe: