a “dagger through the heart of climate-change religion”

ozso said:

It's your leaders telling you to believe the world is coming to an end If you don't vote for them.

Click to expand...

Now you're listening to denier hysteria. The world won't come to an end; it's going to be a tougher place for a lot of people. There will even be some winners like sub-Saharan Africa, which is becoming wetter as a result of warming.

ozso said:

"The climate is going to kill you all unless something is done about it, and we're the only ones who will do something about it" - DNC.

Click to expand...

If you honestly think that's what climatologists say, we've located your difficulty.

The Barbarian said:

Now you're listening to denier hysteria. The world won't come to an end; it's going to be a tougher place for a lot of people. There will even be some winners like sub-Saharan Africa, which is becoming wetter as a result of warming.

Click to expand...

No, I'm listening to climate change alarmists. The 'well it's not really that the world is ending, but it gonna be rough' scenario is fairly new. Probably because they realized how crazy that sounded.

The Barbarian said:

If you honestly think that's what climatologists say, we've located your difficulty.

Click to expand...

No, that's basically what the DNC says.

Now you're listening to denier hysteria. The world won't come to an end; it's going to be a tougher place for a lot of people. There will even be some winners like sub-Saharan Africa, which is becoming wetter as a result of warming.

ozso said:

No, I'm listening to climate change alarmists.

Click to expand...

If that's what they call climate deniers, these days. You should listen to climatologists and the data instead of deniers. People who understand how climate changes don't say anything like the things you're saying.

ozso said:

The 'well it's not really that the world is ending, but it gonna be rough' scenario is fairly new.

Click to expand...

"Word is ending" was never part of climate change theory. And "gonna be rought" goes back to about the 1970s. I was learning about that stuff back then. Again, you're letting the wrong people tell you fairy tales. "The world is ending" is the stuff we see from deniers, perhaps out of ignorance about what climatologists actually know about it.

Or maybe it's dishonesty, possibly because they realize how crazy it sounds.

ozso said:

that's basically what the DNC says.

Click to expand...

Hmm...
At all levels of government, take urgent action on the climate and environmental emergencies.

• Develop and implement a science-based national climate action plan that employs aggressive use of executive actions, establishment of new structures and practices, and bold legislation.
• Achieve 100% clean renewable energy, zero emissions, and an end to fossil fuel production, with ambitious short and long-term emissions and renewable energy targets: near-zero emissions by 2040; 100% clean renewable energy by 2030 in electricity generation, buildings, and transportation; and 100% zero-carbon new building infrastructure by 2025.
• Commit to the spending necessary to address the climate emergency: $10-$16 trillion in federal expenditures over the next decade.

Put communities and working families above fossil fuel corporations by ensuring a just transition and building a green economy with millions of new, family-sustaining jobs.

• Establish a federal Just Transition Task Force to develop a program supporting communities and workers impacted by the climate crisis and the transition to renewables, and fund the program.
• Direct massive investments to renewable energy infrastructure, creating millions of jobs, and end all incentives and subsidies of the fossil fuel industry, including passing the ReWIND Act.
• Support the growth of sustainable, regenerative agriculture powered by 100% clean energy.

Support the growth of healthy, just, sustainable green communities and address the disproportionate environmental and climate harms to frontline and vulnerable communities.

• Elevate the EPA to a federal department; make the EPA Office of Environmental Justice permanent.
• Require health impact assessments and climate equity screenings for major federal government actions.
• Direct 40% of climate and environment investments to frontline and vulnerable communities.
• Rescind all Trump-era rollbacks on environmental protections.
• Protect and conserve 30% of all U.S. lands and oceans by 2030 and 50% by 2050.

Deniers lied to you about that, too. Or maybe they know no more than you do, and just used their imaginations. Does it matter?

The Barbarian said:

I told you why.
Notice that several independent agencies came up with data that very closely agree.

In science, that's very strong confirmation.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. I'm not convinced we can accurately take the temperature of the entire planet. How many Medieval professors agreed with Claudius Galanus' works on human anatomy?

The specific problem is the accuracy of satellite measurements. Basically they're looking at change in the difference between two points with the assumption that this is consistent. Most worrying is the statement that they take into account heat islands. That's a tip-off that we're not seeing straight data. Unlike reading a thermometer, they are making a series of assumptions that they believe are valid in order to calculate global temperatures. From experience, the more factors put in to make something work, the greater the chances one will thrown the whole thing off.

Now, if you want to accept the pronouncement of these agencies as valid, do so. But I have more confidence in a thermometer that's read directly.

This gets into the entire point. That graph shows that there are less days over 100 degrees Fahrenheit there than there were years earlier. Meanwhile, "several independent authorities" tell us that there is an increasing trend in temperatures. That same trend should show up in the number of days each year over 100 degrees Fahrenheit, but that's not what we see. Even if one year is cooler at that location, the overall trend should match, but it doesn't. And frankly, while I was aware we'd had some summers that weren't quite as hot as others, I anticipated there would be more days over 100 degrees Fahrenheit now than previously, and thought this year so far would really show that. That's why I ran that query in the first place, to see how many days we had over 100 degrees Fahrenheit. but the data doesn't show what I thought it would.

The question is why. If year after year is announced as the hottest on record, why aren't we seeing the same thing? That's a very real question.. And if the data I posted is too troubling, disregard it completely.

The Barbarian said:

Here's a graph of minor and major hurricanes for the US:
View attachment 368025
As you probably know, climatologists did not predict more hurricanes, but they did predict that we'd see more major hurricanes and those with increasing strength. Which is what the data show.


I grew up in Iowa. We had pecan trees. There are people who grow them there for a living. However, actual recordings of increased hurricane strength nicely matches the increase in Atlantic and Gulf temperatures. And of course, hurricane strength is a function of the water temperature.

Click to expand...

About a century and a half isn't much of a baseline, which gets us to pecans. When I saw those groves leveled, one was by a two-story house that was standing when the last one of about that strength came through, and it was standing now. That got me thinking that it would have weathered the storm I dimly remembered accounts of from in the late 19th Century. So my first question was how did that grove weather that storm. A little research turned up both that pecan groves were set out locally in the early 20th Century and that they don't handle high winds all that well. The last was a huge "Doh!" as I've seen them blown over in places after high winds, including near Valdosta, Georgia, after one hurricane came through. But pecans do well locally, so how was this not in their natural range? My idea - and to be clear it's nothing more than that - is it's because hurricanes have come through with enough frequency that they leveled any mature trees that might have sprung up. That suggest this have been going on for a lot longer than about a century and a half, and were strong enough to drop pecan trees.

Tuur said:

Not necessarily. I'm not convinced we can accurately take the temperature of the entire planet.

Click to expand...

Just the trophosphere. Ground level to roughly ten miles up. Not hard to do. Sampling stations around the world. Monitor every day. Keep records.

Tuur said:

The specific problem is the accuracy of satellite measurements.

Click to expand...

We use ground stations. And much more:

Over the past 140 years, we’ve literally gone from making some temperature measurements by hand to using sophisticated satellite technology. Today’s temperature data come from many sources, including more than 32,000 land weather stations, weather balloons, radar, ships and buoys, satellites, and volunteer weather watchers.

The Raw Truth on Global Temperature Records - NASA Science

Ensuring the accuracy of Earth’s long-term global and regional surface temperature records is a challenging, constantly evolving undertaking.

science.nasa.gov

Tuur said:

Most worrying is the statement that they take into account heat islands. That's a tip-off that we're not seeing straight data.

Click to expand...

For example, if an urban area grows up around a ground station, the effects of the "heat island" is factored in. Otherwise, we'd get data showing that warming is greater than it actually is. If somewhere, a city shut down around a station, one would have to factor in that change to account for the spurious cooling. But the latter case doesn't seem to happen much. Corrections to the data actually favor deniers

Tuur said:

Unlike reading a thermometer, they are making a series of assumptions that they believe are valid in order to calculate global temperatures.

Click to expand...

In precise work, we make sure that a sensor in a medium is getting a good sample of the actual temperature within the enclosure. It's not new, and engineers are very good at making sure it works accurately.

Tuur said:

From experience, the more factors put in to make something work, the greater the chances one will thrown the whole thing off.

Click to expand...

Which is why it's useful to look at the results from a number of independent agencies, each using their own methodology. I posted the graph, showing how closely they agree (very). In any theory, a number of independent confirmations is solid evidence that the theory works.

Tuur said:

That same trend should show up in the number of days each year over 100 degrees Fahrenheit, but that's not what we see.

Click to expand...

Weather will always be variable. I showed that comparison, too. From day to day, and year to year, you'll see slightly different results, but the trend line is much more stable where there is real change in climate.

Tuur said:

The question is why. If year after year is announced as the hottest on record, why aren't we seeing the same thing?

Click to expand...

We see a lot of "hottest on record", but it doesn't always happen. The year 2023, for example, wasn't the hottest on record. But with the trend line going up, it happens a lot.

Tuur said:

And if the data I posted is too troubling, disregard it completely.

Click to expand...

It just doesn't measure global temperatures. The actual global data shows a steady increase in the number of extremely hot days, as does the data for the United States. You didn't identify the area for your data. If we knew, it would be possible to match up the actual temperature change for your dataset. Do you know what area? If you just link the site, I can probably find out for you.

Tuur said:

About a century and a half isn't much of a baseline, which gets us to pecans.

Click to expand...

One hundred and fifty samples, is pretty good data for most things, particularly when the trend is that obvious.

Tuur said:

My idea - and to be clear it's nothing more than that - is it's because hurricanes have come through with enough frequency that they leveled any mature trees that might have sprung up. That suggest this have been going on for a lot longer than about a century and a half, and were strong enough to drop pecan trees.

Click to expand...

Well, it's an interesting idea, but while pecan trees are "self pruning", their trunks don't snap off that easily. Older trees can be uprooted, though. My understanding is that trees 50 to 100 years old are mostly at risk. Pecan trees become commercially productive at 20 to 25 years.

The Barbarian said:

Turns out, objective evidence is more reliable than personal recall.

Click to expand...

Let's try something. I'll be doing this as a sort of stream-of-thought:

First, to get a dataset, I went here:

Datasets | Climate Data Online (CDO) | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Next, I selected the daily summary with a date from 1/1/1950 to 8/3/2025 and for the place selected Seattle, Washington. A number of weather stations pop up on a map, and on the left it shows a column with the station name and period of data. Scrolling down, found that there's data from the Seattle Tacoma Airport that runs from 1/1/1948 to present. Clicked on that, changed the period I wanted to 1/1/1948 through the present, chose just the daily high and low, selected CSV format, and put it in the cart. Note: There's no charge, this is just the system they use, Going to the cart and selecting the data, I input an email. I was first emailed a notices that my data was being prepared and I would be notified when it was ready. Don't think it was even a minute before I had a second email with a link download the data. Once downloaded, I opened it in LibreOffice Calc.

What we're looking for is annual maximum temperature. Since all we're wanting is the date, I made a column called Year and used the year function on the date to extract that. What do you know: The last data is for July 30, 2025. Close enough.

Next I made another column to one side called Year, and populated it with the years 1948 through 2025. Beside it I made a column called Maxtemp. Now I...

Okay, going to have to do something a little different. I could transpose the year field, but just put in the first three in a row and dragged it across to 2025. Next copied "YEAR" above each year. This is going to be my criteria. Now, under the year row, I do a DMAX for the maximum temperature (TMAX) using the cell containing "YEAR" and the year as the criteria. Success! Now I "lock down" the database range but not the criteria, and copy under the year row. That worked. Now I have the max temp for each year. To make a chart I copied the values of the annual max temp row beneath the function row, then transposed the values to the column "YEAR" I already set up.

Now I select the data, insert a chart from it, neaten it up a wee bit, insert a linear trend line, and make it red. Might as well put in the line equation and correlation, too.

Here is the result:



So yes, Seattle is in an upward trend for highs and...

Opps, your post was of that average summer temperature. To do that would have to have a month column and change criteria. Do-able, but more effort than I want to put in to it and for that might be easier to dump it in a database and make a short chain of queries. The highs at the airport are in an upward trend.

That actually helps your argument more than the average temperature. With paved runways, it likely doesn't get as cold as the surrounding area, and the heat island effect would affect that more than the high temperatures. As to possible heat island effect, it depends on how much the airport has expanded over the years.

The Barbarian said:

Well, it's an interesting idea, but while pecan trees are "self pruning", their trunks don't snap off that easily. Older trees can be uprooted, though. My understanding is that trees 50 to 100 years old are mostly at risk. Pecan trees become commercially productive at 20 to 25 years.

Click to expand...

High winds uproot them. A tornado can twist them off, but a tornado can do that to any tree. Have been told, so it's only anecdotal, that production on old trees slacks off, but don't know. Do know that one grove owner opted not to reset and to turn it into a field. Unfortunately, that has turned into an ongoing project, raising the question of whether he or she is putting more money in it that can be earned in a lifetime. I'm assuming they went this route because of the time it takes a pecan to produce.

As to 150 years being a long enough baseline, for weather I don't think so, mostly because the hurricane pattern n the coast of the the southern US varied from the 19th century through the 20th. In the 19th, coastal Georgia got hammered hard. 20th century, not so much. So which is the norm? My guess is we don't know.

Tuur said:

As to 150 years being a long enough baseline, for weather I don't think so, mostly because the hurricane pattern n the coast of the the southern US varied from the 19th century through the 20th. In the 19th, coastal Georgia got hammered hard. 20th century, not so much. So which is the norm? My guess is we don't know.

Click to expand...

The point is, hurricanes don't always landfall in the same place, and don't follow the same paths. So damage (which was once used as a measure of hurricanes) is a poor guide to actual power of those storms.

Tuur said:

What we're looking for is annual maximum temperature.

Click to expand...

Actually, for climate, we're looking for average annual temperature. Otherwise, outliers will give misleading results.

Tuur said:

Opps, your post was of that average summer temperature. To do that would have to have a month column and change criteria. Do-able, but more effort than I want to put in to it and for that might be easier to dump it in a database and make a short chain of queries. The highs at the airport are in an upward trend.

That actually helps your argument more than the average temperature. With paved runways, it likely doesn't get as cold as the surrounding area, and the heat island effect would affect that more than the high temperatures. As to possible heat island effect, it depends on how much the airport has expanded over the years.

Click to expand...

Again, highs aren't a very good measure of average temperature. And using airports as a proxy for global temperatures is not going to give you very good results.

Now, that's significant.

The Barbarian said:

The point is, hurricanes don't always landfall in the same place, and don't follow the same paths. So damage (which was once used as a measure of hurricanes) is a poor guide to actual power of those storms.

Click to expand...

Damage used to be all anyone had to measure hurricane strength. The list from NOAA are recorded hurricanes, after it was possible to record wind speed and/or barometric pressure. Before that it was looking at damage. Trying to piece together path and strength of hurricanes that are mentioned in spotty records like logs or journals goes by damage because that's all anyone has. The interesting thing is that strength from such accounts tend to be revised upward.

FWIW, damage is still how tornado strength is measured.

The Barbarian said:

Again, highs aren't a very good measure of average temperature. And using airports as a proxy for global temperatures is not going to give you very good results.

Click to expand...

You're not getting my point with the Seattle Tacoma Airport data. The paved runways contribute to the heat island effect, but the heat island effect is more pronounced with the lows than with the highs, simply from pavement retaining heat. That would raise the average temperature compared to the surrounding area. But since the heat island effect is more pronounced with recorded lows, the recorded highs are closer to what it would be away from the pavement. In this case, an upward trend based on daily maximums is likely an upward trend in temperatures at the Seattle Tacoma Airport whereas an average would contain the heat island effect.

The point in all this was in grabbing a data set for Seattle and seeing if it matched data you found for Seattle. The airport had long enough timeline that made it perfect for that purpose.

The other point is that these datasets are out there, free to download, making it relatively trivial to double check some of these climate pronouncements rather than accepting them at face value. That's why I posted were I got the data and how easy it is to load in a spreadsheet and to do a quick test.

The ironic thing is that while you argue that data collected at airports is a poor proxy for global temperatures, I argue that these "global temperature" measurements are a poor proxy for actually reading thermometers.

Tuur said:

You're not getting my point with the Seattle Tacoma Airport data. The paved runways contribute to the heat island effect, but the heat island effect is more pronounced with the lows than with the highs, simply from pavement retaining heat. That would raise the average temperature compared to the surrounding area. But since the heat island effect is more pronounced with recorded lows, the recorded highs are closer to what it would be away from the pavement.

Click to expand...

Given that concrete has a much lower specific heat than water, that seems extremely doubtful. The highs and lows would be greater than for other areas, for the same reason deserts have greater variation in temps. Lack of water means less thermal energy to lose, and more easily raised to higher temps. Temperature is not thermal energy.

Tuur said:

That's why I posted were I got the data and how easy it is to load in a spreadsheet and to do a quick test.

Click to expand...

Recording highs and lows is not the same thing as average temperature.
Apples and Prunes.

Tuur said:

The other point is that these datasets are out there, free to download, making it relatively trivial to double check some of these climate pronouncements rather than accepting them at face value.

Click to expand...

The NASA, HADCRUT, and other datasets are data. Those announcements are exactly what the data say.

The Barbarian said:

Given that concrete has a much lower specific heat than water, that seems extremely doubtful. The highs and lows would be greater than for other areas, for the same reason deserts have greater variation in temps. Lack of water means less thermal energy to lose, and more easily raised to higher temps. Temperature is not thermal energy.

Click to expand...

Okay, try this:

If you have a brick house, after dusk touch the brick on the sunward side. They'll still be warm. Touching pavement after dark is too risky to suggest, but note, after a very light rainfall, the next morning you can see where the afternoon shadows were by those spots being visibly damp while the rest appear dry. It's an effect I've thought about exploiting by rigging a sheet plastic greenhouse with black painted bricks or blocks inside so that they would help retain heat at night (thought that would only work after sunny days).

Tuur said:

Okay, try this:

If you have a brick house, after dusk touch the brick on the sunward side. They'll still be warm. Touching pavement after dark is too risky to suggest, but note, after a very light rainfall, the next morning you can see where the afternoon shadows were by those spots being visibly damp while the rest appear dry. It's an effect I've thought about exploiting by rigging a sheet plastic greenhouse with black painted bricks or blocks inside so that they would help retain heat at night (thought that would only work after sunny days).

Click to expand...

More to the point for climate, is the example of deserts. Blazing hot in the day, and extremely cold at night. Precisely because they are rock and sand, with little water. Painting bricks black will make them warmer, but they will still not hold as much thermal energy as water.

This is why maritime climates are more moderate in climate than the centers of continents. Oceans are cooler in summer and warmer in the winter because the higher specific heat of water keeps the temperatures more constant. Continental climates tend to be hotter in summers and colder in winters than maritime climates.

The Barbarian said:

More to the point for climate, is the example of deserts. Blazing hot in the day, and extremely cold at night. Precisely because they are rock and sand, with little water. Painting bricks black will make them warmer, but they will still not hold as much thermal energy as water.

This is why maritime climates are more moderate in climate than the centers of continents. Oceans are cooler in summer and warmer in the winter because the higher specific heat of water keeps the temperatures more constant. Continental climates tend to be hotter in summers and colder in winters than maritime climates.

Click to expand...

You're missing it. Have noticed in the South, where hot, humid, days are a fact of life, that there are bigger temperature swings in the summer during hot droughts when humidity is low than when the humidity is high. That's the difference moisture in the air makes. Note that even with a drought here we have considerable green plants, so cover, where it exists, is practically constant in the summer. The effect of moisture is one thing; heat island effect is another.

Brick is just a simple example of storing heat. Painting it black gets into the same reason that car radiators are black and nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Asphalt does the same thing. The wall of a brick house that's facing the sun gets warm and holds that heat longer without being painted black. Asphalt does the same. Concrete, too.

Look: I know you don't believe me, so simply observe. If your vehicle has an external thermometer, note the difference as you drive. Compare early morning temperature in town to temperature in the country. Observe the dry and damp spots the morning after a sunny day capped by light rain and notice the wet and dry patterns. Then notice how they correspond to late afternoon shadows. If you have a concrete driveway that's in the sun, after dusk in the summer put your hand on it and you'll feel the warmth.

Even those authorities you believe recognize the heat island effect, otherwise NASA wouldn't say it compensates for it. Accepting the existence of heat islands doesn't mean renouncing AGW.

Tuur said:

You're missing it. Have noticed in the South, where hot, humid, days are a fact of life, that there are bigger temperature swings in the summer during hot droughts when humidity is low than when the humidity is high.

Click to expand...

That's what I'm telling you. When it's dry, you can expect greater swings. That's why there's greater swings in temperatures in the deserts.

Tuur said:

Brick is just a simple example of storing heat.

Click to expand...

Just not as efficient as water.
Brick is about 900 J/kg-K
Water is about 4184/kg-K

Temperature is not thermal energy.

Tuur said:

Even those authorities you believe recognize the heat island effect

Click to expand...

It's not what you think it is...

Urban areas have buildings, roads, and other structures that absorb and store more solar radiation than natural landscapes like forests and water bodies.

Materials like asphalt and dark-colored roofs absorb more sunlight and convert it into heat, contributing to higher temperatures.

Pavement and buildings limit the cooling effect of plants through evapotranspiration, where water evaporates from leaves, removing heat from the surrounding air.
Urban canyons created by tall buildings can trap heat and restrict airflow, further increasing the heat island effect.

If you were correct, maritime lands would have greater swings in temperature than land in the center of large continents. But the opposite is true. Because of water's huge specific heat.

It is true that weather stations in which urban areas have grown up, have corrections for the increased temperatures in summer as a result of the factors I mentioned. This is not a plot to falsify data; it merely recognizes that such construction can mask the actual climate locally.

Here's you something to look for in just a few months:

When you have the first light snow, one not worth the DOT brining bridges, observe the difference between the highway and the bridge. Better yet, if you live near a bridge, observe what happens to the first few snowflakes on the highway and the bridge. Watch how it accumulates. There's a reason DOTs put "Bridge Ices Before Road" signs up.

Tuur said:

When you have the first light snow, one not worth the DOT brining bridges, observe the difference between the highway and the bridge. Better yet, if you live near a bridge, observe what happens to the first few snowflakes on the highway and the bridge. Watch how it accumulates. There's a reason DOTs put "Bridge Ices Before Road" signs up.

Click to expand...

Yep. Steel, concrete, and asphalt have lower specific heats than moist soil. And the soil has much greater mass.

Has anyone seen the Trump administration’s latest climate report? It highlights that cognitive decline in humans could occur at CO₂ levels above about 1,000 ppm, a threshold we’re not at yet, but might reach in roughly 100 to 150 years if current emission trends continue.

The report seems to suggest that this timeline means we still have plenty of time to act. But when you consider how long research, development, permitting, and scaling of clean energy infrastructure actually take, often decades, it’s clear that waiting until CO₂ levels reach those dangerous concentrations would be far too late.

Current atmospheric CO₂ is around 430 ppm and rising by roughly 2.5 to 3.5 ppm per year, which math shows puts us just about a single generation away from those harmful levels if emissions continue unchecked.

It’s concerning that the report’s tone might be interpreted as downplaying urgency, potentially giving political cover to continue fossil fuel expansion. Given the scale and speed of the climate challenge, we need policies that prioritize immediate action rather than deferring difficult decisions for decades.

A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse
Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate