Heating up down under

[Tuur]

We're talking about record breaking for ocean wind swept places like Sydney at this time of year. Not Bourke - our in central NSW close to the desert.

You completely missed the point: How long a baseline do records provide? If you buy one of those home weather recording stations and put it up, every single day it records will set a new record because there's no baseline. When there is a baseline, it's surprisingly short. When reporters for Eye Witless News breathlessly inform us that a day's weather has broken all previous records, they don't point out just how short those records are in the first place. It's looking at that short baseline as the norm when we have no assurance of any such thing.

 

[Servus]

Which do you consider the best rendition of the question?

After what you said to me, you should be able to deliver a straightforward concise answer to @Fervent's question in your own words.

 

[Servus]

I never claimed to be a scientist, let alone a climatologist.
But unlike you - I try to read and respect the peer-reviewed answers.

You "seriously doubt either one of us could supply the supposed correct answer" because someone somewhere said something you liked better. Correct?

But here's NASA's projections for the USA

• Northeast. Heat waves, heavy downpours, and sea level rise pose increasing challenges to many aspects of life in the Northeast. Infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries, and ecosystems will be increasingly compromised. Farmers can explore new crop options, but these adaptations are not cost- or risk-free. Moreover, adaptive capacity, which varies throughout the region, could be overwhelmed by a changing climate. Many states and cities are beginning to incorporate climate change into their planning.
• Northwest. Changes in the timing of peak flows in rivers and streams are reducing water supplies and worsening competing demands for water. Sea level rise, erosion, flooding, risks to infrastructure, and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire incidence and severity, heat waves, insect outbreaks, and tree diseases are causing widespread forest die-off.
• Southeast. Sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to the region’s economy and environment. Extreme heat will affect health, energy, agriculture, and more. Decreased water availability will have economic and environmental impacts.
• Midwest. Extreme heat, heavy downpours, and flooding will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also worsen a range of risks to the Great Lakes.
• Southwest. Climate change has caused increased heat, drought, and insect outbreaks. In turn, these changes have made wildfires more numerous and severe. The warming climate has also caused a decline in water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, and triggered heat-related health impacts in cities. In coastal areas, flooding and erosion are additional concerns.

Effects - NASA Science

Global climate change is not a future problem. Changes to Earth’s climate driven by increased human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are already

science.nasa.gov

That cut and paste doesn't cut it. After what you said to me, you should be able to deliver a straightforward concise answer to @Fervent's question in your own words.

 

[Tuur]

The key is to avoid a temperature tipping point where the climate behaves like the physics of balancing a chair on one leg.

Uh-huh.

The problem with such a tipping point is that, given the natural history of the earth, those conditions have existed before at some point. Such is more akin to a wobbling gyroscope than a balanced chair flopping over. The latter is the idea that the word "tipping point" conveys and is misleading.

 

[eclipsenow]

... glaciation period? To the Medieval Warm Period?

If you knew anything about it you wouldn't have to ask. But the currently estimated safe zone, based on current climate sensitivity studies, is below 350 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere.

Hate to tell you, but "restoration" is a goal as elusive as attempting to braid ropes from sand without first making glass fiber out of it, all because climate is in flux, even before humans.

That metaphor more accurately describes trying to help climate deniers realise everything they are parroting has been said 100 million times before, but they think they're the first!


Take for example this thread. Go up and see how previous comments by another denier in the thread have implied that the climate has changed before... Therefore... Something! It disproves something somewhere to someone!


"The climate has changed before" is only in the top five climate denier songbook! Right when the denier thinks they are making a slam dunk, they've actually scored a home goal!
They just confirmed to everyone who knows even the tiniest bit about climate change that they know nothing.

That's a climate has changed before naturally does not discredit climate science, so much as provide the baseline from which they analyse how much we are turbocharging today's warming, and how dangerous that is GIVEN what climatologists KNOW from the natural climate forcings.

 

[eclipsenow]

That cut and paste doesn't cut it. After what you said to me, you should be able to deliver a straightforward concise answer to @Fervent's question in your own words.

Oh you didn't get it? I was addressing your old charge that somehow democrats are the ones that have exaggerated climate science.

That was NASA. What's your beef with them? Someone somewhere said something about them? That's not going to cut it today buddy.

And you never explained why you feel Johan cannot summarise the work of his climate team?

 

[eclipsenow]

It's always been happening now.

No it hasn't. Not for millions of years. Today's temperatures are completely unusual given the other natural forcings are all sort of in equilibrium.

See if you actually read any IPCC you would see they devote chapters and chapters to summarising thousands of climate papers analysing the paleo climate data.

As I said above, the climate has changed before. And they know why. And they know that those natural forcings are not at play here.

Indeed the paleo climate science analysing how the climate has changed before tells an alarming story of how our CO2 could actually be pushing the Earth into a new climate state, kind of like a switch going off.

It's almost like the earth is on a seesaw, and we are tipping it and tipping it and tipping it and suddenly it's going to roll from one condition to the other.

But you summarise unbelievably detailed scientific papers and try to condense them all into a message that is so superficial it does not really bear replying to.

But you keep doing it. Again and again with the same boring trite accusation.

Until you can get specific and tell us which forcing you believe is in play right now, that might overwhelm the CO2 we are contributing to the atmosphere, I can't take you seriously. It's like you are trolling us.

But there's always also been a supposed point of no return that keeps getting pushed back.

Watch Johan.

It's not my fault that you're this ignorant of the climate science, I'm trying to help. But when you repeat stuff that is 100% incorrect, and you do so from a place of complete ignorance, and you seem to be smugly repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating the same silly thing... it's not my fault how when you finally learn the truth you're going to realise how utterly embarrassing this whole incident is.

It's one of those things where you'll be doing the dishes in a year also then WINCE as you remember this moment.

Just stop right now and watch the Johan video.

You will see that the point of no return keeps getting CLOSER as the climate sensitivity becomes clearer from ever greater analysis and fine-tuning of the paleo climate data.

As I have said many times to no effect, the fact that the climate has changed before is well understood by the climate community. And the climate is behaving well outside the norms of the last few million years!

 

[sjastro]

Uh-huh.

The problem with such a tipping point is that, given the natural history of the earth, those conditions have existed before at some point. Such is more akin to a wobbling gyroscope than a balanced chair flopping over. The latter is the idea that the word "tipping point" conveys and is misleading.

That is not how it works.
Using the chair analogy, a chair balanced on one leg will react strongly to the slightest change, it is in an unstable equilibrium.
Currently the climate is in a metastable equilibrium it can still react positively to cooling such as reducing CO2 emissions.

A chair balanced on four legs will be far less responsive to slight changes compared if balanced on only one leg.
The climate has the added complication if it exceeds the tipping point and falls into a more stable equilibrium the change effects become asymmetrical, warming effects are amplified and cooling effects are dampened.

Feedback	Amplifies Warming	Amplifies Cooling?	Notes
Ice–albedo feedback	Strong: melting ice lowers reflectivity → more absorption → more melt	Weak: regrowing ice increases reflectivity, but requires large sustained cooling first	Asymmetric — warming triggers it easily; cooling reverses it sluggishly
Water vapor feedback	Strong: warmer air holds more water → more greenhouse trapping	Weak: drier air reduces trapping, but condensation releases latent heat, resisting further cooling	Asymmetric due to latent heat
Carbon cycle feedbacks	Warming releases CO₂ and CH₄ from soils and oceans	Cooling can absorb CO₂, but slowly (centuries–millennia)	Very asymmetric timescales
Cloud feedbacks	Complex — can amplify warming depending on cloud type	May slightly amplify cooling, but less efficiently	Strong regional dependence

 

[BCP1928]

How bad do you want it? Bad enough for people to freeze in the dark?

More stonewalling. Who is going to freeze in the dark?

A "modernized" electric grid: that consists of what? I can pretty much guarantee that the grid in 2025 is not the grid that existed in 1925.

Parts of it are.

What exactly is this "modernization" that you want?

Is that what the problem is? Are you so fond of our current electrical grid that you don't want to see it updated?

 

[Servus]

Oh you didn't get it? I was addressing your old charge that somehow democrats are the ones that have exaggerated climate science.

That was NASA. What's your beef with them? Someone somewhere said something about them? That's not going to cut it today buddy.

And you never explained why you feel Johan cannot summarise the work of his climate team?

Strike three, you're out. Since you can't answer @Fervent's question, you should apologize to me.

 

[Servus]

No it hasn't. Not for millions of years. Today's temperatures are completely unusual given the other natural forcings are all sort of in equilibrium.

See if you actually read any IPCC you would see they devote chapters and chapters to summarising thousands of climate papers analysing the paleo climate data.

As I said above, the climate has changed before. And they know why. And they know that those natural forcings are not at play here.

Indeed the paleo climate science analysing how the climate has changed before tells an alarming story of how our CO2 could actually be pushing the Earth into a new climate state, kind of like a switch going off.

It's almost like the earth is on a seesaw, and we are tipping it and tipping it and tipping it and suddenly it's going to roll from one condition to the other.

But you summarise unbelievably detailed scientific papers and try to condense them all into a message that is so superficial it does not really bear replying to.

But you keep doing it. Again and again with the same boring trite accusation.

Until you can get specific and tell us which forcing you believe is in play right now, that might overwhelm the CO2 we are contributing to the atmosphere, I can't take you seriously. It's like you are trolling us.


Watch Johan.

It's not my fault that you're this ignorant of the climate science, I'm trying to help. But when you repeat stuff that is 100% incorrect, and you do so from a place of complete ignorance, and you seem to be smugly repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating the same silly thing... it's not my fault how when you finally learn the truth you're going to realise how utterly embarrassing this whole incident is.

It's one of those things where you'll be doing the dishes in a year also then WINCE as you remember this moment.

Just stop right now and watch the Johan video.

You will see that the point of no return keeps getting CLOSER as the climate sensitivity becomes clearer from ever greater analysis and fine-tuning of the paleo climate data.

As I have said many times to no effect, the fact that the climate has changed before is well understood by the climate community. And the climate is behaving well outside the norms of the last few million years!

Yeah, I'm not nearly as preoccupied with this as some folks are.

 

[JosephZ]

If you do want to go there, will observe that while local snowfalls are rare, have seen more measurable accumulations in the last half of my life than the first. Then there's the period of mild winters that led to the widespread planting of lupine as a cover crop and locals not buying heaters as an option on vehicles. Then back-to-back hard winters practically wiped out the seed stock in the US, and that ended that.

When you look at long-term averages, the mild/harsh winters and periods of higher or lower than average snowfall aren't as pronounced. What is notable, though, is how the average snowfall in most parts of the country has been decreasing over the years and temperatures warming.

This is an experiment that anyone can do for the temperatures and snowfall averages in their area of the country. Just go to weather.gov and access your local NWS office page and click on "Climate and Past Weather."

From there you will have the option to choose from several cities and find the averages for temperatures and precipitation for any time period you want. I did a comparison of the average temperature and snowfall for Greensboro, NC, and Roanoke, VA, since I'm located between the two. NOAA uses a 30-year period to come up with its average. The current period being used is 1991-2020. I did the same but used the current 30-year period, 1996-2025, and went back from there. I could only go back 70 years because the data is incomplete after that. Below are the results I got.

Greensboro Average Temperature:

1956-85 -- 57.6°
1966-95 -- 58.0°
1976-05 -- 58.2°
1986-15 -- 59.1°
1996-25 -- 59.7°

Average Temperature Increase of 2.1°


Greensboro Average Snowfall:

1956-85 -- 10.5"
1966-95 -- 8.9"
1976-05 -- 8.3"
1986-15 -- 7.4"
1996-25 -- 7.3"

Greensboro has seen a 30.5% decrease in average annual snowfall


Roanoke Average Temperature:

1956-85 -- 55.9°
1966-95 -- 56.0°
1976-05 -- 56.8°
1986-15 -- 57.2°
1996-25 -- 58.1°

Average Temperature Increase of 2.2°

Roanoke Average Snowfall:

1956-85 -- 26.3"
1966-95 -- 22.5"
1976-05 -- 17.9"
1986-15 -- 16.0"
1996-25 -- 13.8"

Roanoke has seen a 47.5% decrease in average annual snowfall

I know this is only very a short period of time considering the age of the planet, but it does show just how much warmer temperatures have gotten and how much snowfall has decreased in my area during my lifetime.

Washington, DC, has records that are complete going back to 1888. For the 50-year period 1888-1938, the average annual temperature was 55.5° and the average snowfall was 21.9". The period between 1939 and 1974 had an average temperature of 57.2° and an average snowfall of 17.3". The past 50 years, 1975 to 2025, have had an average temperature of 58.9° and an average snowfall of just 14.3". That's an increase of 3.4° in temperature and a 34.7% decrease in snowfall for Washington, DC, since 1888.

 

[Tuur]

When you look at long-term averages, the mild/harsh winters and periods of higher or lower than average snowfall aren't as pronounced. What is notable, though, is how the average snowfall in most parts of the country has been decreasing over the years and temperatures warming.

And yet observing more snowfall with accumulation in the last half of my life as compared to the first isn't seen as significant.

 

[Tuur]

Is that what the problem is? Are you so fond of our current electrical grid that you don't want to see it updated?

Oh my word. You maintain that the grid needs updating; think it's unchanged since 1925; and when pressed on how it needs to be updated ask "Don't you want to see it updated?" It's using "updated" as a buzzword with no meaning at all. Without specifics, that's all it is: a buzzword.

Want to call that "stonewalling," too?" Have at it.

What you may not realize is I am someone who's been involved in updating the grid; have been for over forty years. So, tell me: How do you want the grid updated?

BTW: most of the grid wasn't in existence 100 years ago, so claims that most is that old just don't hold. As I type this, I'm thinking of a 500 KV line constructed in my lifetime.

 

[Tuur]

That metaphor more accurately describes trying to help climate deniers realise everything they are parroting has been said 100 million times before, but they think they're the first!

Just call us heretics or infidels. Given that this is being treated like a religion, it's more accurate. That said, when it comes to AGW, I'm an agnostic.

 

[Tuur]

That is not how it works.

I think it does because it's in a constant flux going all the way back to before Snowball Earth. "Tipping point" implies permanence that doesn't exist. If tomorrow we woke up and found the world starting a series of volcanic eruptions like those that created the Deccan Traps, that would cause a fluctuation greater than any possible by humanity. And yet the conditions caused by the eruptions that caused the Deccan Traps didn't cause permanent change. Nor did the conditions that caused Snowball Earth. It's all in constant flux.

Even if AGW turned out to be true, humanity isn't going to mess around and break off the thermostat of the planet. Even if AGW is true and causes conditions that lasts for centuries, it will not be permanent. That's what I resent about the term "tipping point." It conveys an idea that is no way true if we think on geologic time scales. It might not even be true if we think in terms of centuries.

 

[JosephZ]

And yet observing more snowfall with accumulation in the last half of my life as compared to the first isn't seen as significant.

Not when looking at the big picture. If you take the time to check the data for a few of the closest reporting weather stations in your area like I did for mine, you might be surprised by what you find. Every state in the southern half of the country has seen declines in annual snowfall since 1970, with many seeing declines of more than 50%. There may be a handful of cities or towns in these states that have seen an increase, but again, it's about the big picture.

 

[sjastro]

I think it does because it's in a constant flux going all the way back to before Snowball Earth. "Tipping point" implies permanence that doesn't exist. If tomorrow we woke up and found the world starting a series of volcanic eruptions like those that created the Deccan Traps, that would cause a fluctuation greater than any possible by humanity. And yet the conditions caused by the eruptions that caused the Deccan Traps didn't cause permanent change. Nor did the conditions that caused Snowball Earth. It's all in constant flux.

Even if AGW turned out to be true, humanity isn't going to mess around and break off the thermostat of the planet. Even if AGW is true and causes conditions that lasts for centuries, it will not be permanent. That's what I resent about the term "tipping point." It conveys an idea that is no way true if we think on geologic time scales. It might not even be true if we think in terms of centuries.

Reaching a tipping point doesn't mean the effects are permanent. It means climate inertia increases making it more resistant to respond to positive changes such as cooling if we were to suddenly stop putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It may take centuries before the cooling effects are seen.

Since we are not at the tipping point yet, the climate is more responsive to changes making it possible to at least stop AGW if positive action in reducing greenhouse gases is taken.

 

[eclipsenow]

That is not how it works.
Using the chair analogy, a chair balanced on one leg will react strongly to the slightest change, it is in an unstable equilibrium.
Currently the climate is in a metastable equilibrium it can still react positively to cooling such as reducing CO2 emissions.

A chair balanced on four legs will be far less responsive to slight changes compared if balanced on only one leg.
The climate has the added complication if it exceeds the tipping point and falls into a more stable equilibrium the change effects become asymmetrical, warming effects are amplified and cooling effects are dampened.

Feedback	Amplifies Warming	Amplifies Cooling?	Notes
Ice–albedo feedback	Strong: melting ice lowers reflectivity → more absorption → more melt	Weak: regrowing ice increases reflectivity, but requires large sustained cooling first	Asymmetric — warming triggers it easily; cooling reverses it sluggishly
Water vapor feedback	Strong: warmer air holds more water → more greenhouse trapping	Weak: drier air reduces trapping, but condensation releases latent heat, resisting further cooling	Asymmetric due to latent heat
Carbon cycle feedbacks	Warming releases CO₂ and CH₄ from soils and oceans	Cooling can absorb CO₂, but slowly (centuries–millennia)	Very asymmetric timescales
Cloud feedbacks	Complex — can amplify warming depending on cloud type	May slightly amplify cooling, but less efficiently	Strong regional dependence

Exactly! And the worrying part is that there are maybe 16 systems like this that are large enough to be called a feedback loop in their own right, and some of them trigger earlier than others. Some might only trigger at over 2.5 or 3 degrees of warming - and others even more. BUT some might trigger very soon - at maybe 1.5 or 1.8 degrees.

The obvious question then becomes are the earlier ones large enough to warm the earth till the next one triggers, and so on, falling like dominos in a row?

Is that what you meant by 'falls into a more stable equilibrium'?

I've set this Johan talk to the relevant moment - the graphics are fun.

 

[eclipsenow]

Yeah, I'm not nearly as preoccupied with this as some folks are.

Yet you are happy to sneer away at climate science, repeating TRITE little ditties instead of manning up and doing some reading. How did you put it...?

But there's always also been a supposed point of no return that keeps getting pushed back.

That is exactly, 100% wrong.

The following graph summarises IPCC findings and how they have changed over the last few decades.
Red is the danger zone. You can see it creeping forward, not backwards.

Back in 2001 we thought the danger zone kicked in at 4 or 5 degrees. Goodness how I wish we had that much time. That would give us maybe another 40 years.

Then just 9 years later, a whole BUNCH of paleoclimate studies came in warning heavily against even 2 degrees of warming.
The red crept forward, not back.

Now the IPCC summary is 1.5 degrees, and we cross that in just 10 years!

The climate denier sits there as an armchair warrior, typing "The climate's changed before, y'all!" and SLAPS the arm of their armchair in self-congratulatory defiance.

Yet the IPCC know all this - and the paleoclimate data presents an ever MORE fragile, MORE urgent Climate Sensitivity story.

As Johan says, "Buckle up!"​

Question for you Servus: Are you going to repeat the myth: "But there's always also been a supposed point of no return that keeps getting pushed back." Your Profile says you are a Christian. Does this mean you are interested in living truthfully, and respecting the truth and not bearing false witness to things?​