Hottest Week on Record, Hottest June, Record hottest days, Record Low Antarctic sea ice

[Reasonably Sane]

I think you'd agree with this, so let me know

When glaciers melt/retreat in many places globally, there will definitely be some places that don't begin melting as much as quickly, because they are especially colder (generally) or at higher elevation (like the especially high elevation of Antarctic surfaces on average, where the high elevation adds dramatically to the surface cold -- Key physical features - Discovering Antarctica). So, if someone merely tried to find some area with little reduction in ice, that would be easy to do, and meaningless about whether or not more and more ice will melt globally (on the entire Earth as a whole).

Agree?

But, definitely sea ice is one of many places to monitor over time, just one of many, and of course there are 2 poles, so that any rational big picture will include areas around the world, and therefore what is happening in both the far north and far south as some parts among many parts.

Global sea ice has been decreasing notably in the Arctic in that over the last decade we have been very consistently lower than the previous 30 years before that, so that it begins to be clear there is a real change.

Big changes start with profound smaller changes, after all, so this isn't a trivial variation.

Don't make that mistake of thinking that man made serious climate change worries me ultimately in a way -- it doesn't worry me even the slightest bit ultimately because this entire world will be passing away, and we are only in a temporary place here.

But it's going to be devastating at times for people that think they need to rely on a stable place to live and live at low elevations near the sea, and increasingly nations like the U.S. and China will be to blame for not doing more quicker to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Sea Ice Today | National Snow and Ice Data Center

nsidc.org

My take in a single sentence: Half of north america used to be covered by a glacier and it's been, on average, getting warmer ever since. I'm not worried about it. At all.

I've always been a big fan of science. When it becomes a problem is when it gets politicized. And climate science is still in its infancy. We don't know what we don't know. Further study is great. It is what science is. But trying to control civilization because of half baked theories is, well, stupid. Simply put.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

The heat sink of the oceans is filling up fast, and already affecting industries like oyster farming by making the water more acidic.

Redirect Notice

And I had to get AC to survive our rising heat waves in the Puget Sound. These are the warning signs, and that is why people are sounding off. We are heading to the tipping point. There are lots of small changes happening, and they are pointing to bigger changes around the corner.

I spent 46 years in the Seattle area. There is no long term heat wave. I remember lots of snow in the 60's, and then it disappeared by the 80's, and then it came back. I used to joke with my friends in Chicago that Seattle's snow removal policy is, "don't worry, tomorrow's rain will wash it away." In the first decade of the 21st century that was not enough.

If you like the cold, stick around, it'll be back. It's cyclical.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

You lay people are not served well when you swallow the lies of certain vested interests. Even now the petrochemical industries are doing their level best to persuade us that there is nothing much to worry about.

Even on a Christian site science is not a matter of belief.

So true. It's a matter of research. I've been discussing this subject on the internet since 2004. I used to keep a list of articles on it that eventually went into the hundreds. But I stopped trying to convince people when I moved to rural Kentucky back in 2011, from my longtime home of Seattle (46 years). I've got my own 32 acre garden of Eden and am over an hour from any large city. I let them fret over this stuff while I enjoy my freedom from the lunacy. I only have to deal with it when I'm visiting family in Seattle, Chicago, Phoenix, and Mineapolis and, to a lesser degree, Louisville, to which one of my daughters moved a few years ago.

I discuss it now mainly for fun. It's kinda like arguing whether Zimmerman or Rittenhouse were guilty or not. My sources told me both were innocent and, well, the courts seemed to agree. Meanwhile, I've yet to see any climate alarmist prediction come true. So I "argue" it for fun.

 

[Paulos23]

I spent 46 years in the Seattle area. There is no long term heat wave. I remember lots of snow in the 60's, and then it disappeared by the 80's, and then it came back. I used to joke with my friends in Chicago that Seattle's snow removal policy is, "don't worry, tomorrow's rain will wash it away." In the first decade of the 21st century that was not enough.

If you like the cold, stick around, it'll be back. It's cyclical.

I have been in the Seattle area for 55 years. If you just focus on the snowy days you miss the bigger picture of the average temp over the year.

And you have missed the hard rains that we are getting now. The climate is changing.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

I have been in the Seattle area for 55 years. If you just focus on the snowy days you miss the bigger picture of the average temp over the year.

And you have missed the hard rains that we are getting now. The climate is changing.

I only focused on the snow to make a point here.

I remember getting an IT contract in early June (or July) back in 1996. It was a beautiful day without a cloud in the sky. I remember that I was on that contract for just over a month before I saw my first cloud. I remember thinking that yes, we do have long stretches of sunny weather and that was proof.

I'm not just focusing on that, but it was one of many, many observations about the weather. During the time I lived there we had dry summers and wet summers. We had cold winters and mild winters. It's all cyclicle and, in a way, kinda like the ocean. That is, if you sit on a beach and watch a lot of waves you'll notice that they are all the same size except every 7th or so is bigger than the rest, and then it takes another seven to get a big one, and another seven, etc.

i.e. there are cycles, and these cycles are within bigger cycles. It's why a couple of centuries of data really don't tell you anything. We've had mini ice ages and mini warm periods in the last thousand years.

Just think of them as the seventh wave.

 

[Paulos23]

I only focused on the snow to make a point here.

I remember getting an IT contract in early June (or July) back in 1996. It was a beautiful day without a cloud in the sky. I remember that I was on that contract for just over a month before I saw my first cloud. I remember thinking that yes, we do have long stretches of sunny weather and that was proof.

I'm not just focusing on that, but it was one of many, many observations about the weather. During the time I lived there we had dry summers and wet summers. We had cold winters and mild winters. It's all cyclicle and, in a way, kinda like the ocean. That is, if you sit on a beach and watch a lot of waves you'll notice that they are all the same size except every 7th or so is bigger than the rest, and then it takes another seven to get a big one, and another seven, etc.

i.e. there are cycles, and these cycles are within bigger cycles. It's why a couple of centuries of data really don't tell you anything. We've had mini ice ages and mini warm periods in the last thousand years.

Just think of them as the seventh wave.

It is easy to think it is just cycles until you line up the data over the years. The nights were warmer this summer than in my childhood, so I got AC. I can no longer cool the house with night fans anymore. And it keeps getting higher every year over the summer.

Seattle nights are getting hotter, and harder on our health

This August’s lows have reached a record high, according to a Seattle Times analysis of data provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

www.seattletimes.com

These don't seem drastic, but they add up.

 

[rambot]

My take in a single sentence: Half of north america used to be covered by a glacier and it's been, on average, getting warmer ever since. I'm not worried about it. At all.

I've always been a big fan of science.

Well, that's great!

When it becomes a problem is when it gets politicized.

You mean like when there was a huge hole in the ozone that was going to cause skin cancer rates to skyrocket and was a danger to humanity and all the developed countries around the world got together, created a plan, banned CFCs, everyone bought in, and stopped using CFCs and the ozone repaired itself?

Because that's an example of politicization.

The difference was that the oil and gas lobby (and the riches of gulf states) didn't care about CFCs and took no steps to obfuscate data and research. The fact is that "Big Refridgeration" simply doesn't have the resources or legislative pull

I mean, there is plenty of evidence that O&G companies have hid this knowledge.

And climate science is still in its infancy.

No, it's truly not. It's infancy was back in the early 1900s when people were ALREADY noticing the trends. The depth of knowledge is such that they are creating a lot of modelling; hard to be "in its infancy" if they have sufficient quantitative evidence to create computer models.

We don't know what we don't know.

We never do. But we know a fair bit.

Further study is great. It is what science is.

But there aren't many fields of study where scientists have said "Well, we have enough here. We don't have to study this anymore". That doesn't then mean the field is "in it's infancy". 120 years is a FAAAR thing from infancy.
I will acquiesce that framing climate science as "new" and "ignorant of so much" is a very convenient counter argument to policy creation.

But simply put, it is not a factual argument.

But trying to control civilization because of half baked theories is, well, stupid. Simply put.

I find it hard to believe that someone who has done as much research as you claim, would find climate science theory "half baked". That's assuming you did good research and not silly, selective, bad research.

 

[rambot]

i.e. there are cycles, and these cycles are within bigger cycles. It's why a couple of centuries of data really don't tell you anything. We've had mini ice ages and mini warm periods in the last thousand years.

A couple centuries data absolutely tells you something. But it tells you even MORE within the context of a few millenia. The temperature changes (1.4C) we see in the time frames we are talking about (140yrs) are unprecedented. And to dismiss this, then, "because it has been warmer in the past", is not really a logical or reasonable conclusion. Frankly, it's stupid.
If someone had child that aged 10x as fast as a regular kid and died of old age of 78 after 7 years, we wouldn't think "well, they lived a long healthy life", we'd think "something ain't right with this child because they grew old too fast".


But for someone with scads of research under their belt, that should be well obvious that these changes are unprecedented.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

It is easy to think it is just cycles until you line up the data over the years. The nights were warmer this summer than in my childhood, so I got AC. I can no longer cool the house with night fans anymore. And it keeps getting higher every year over the summer.

Seattle nights are getting hotter, and harder on our health

This August’s lows have reached a record high, according to a Seattle Times analysis of data provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

www.seattletimes.com

These don't seem drastic, but they add up.

Regarding the bolded, this is where we differ. You say "over the years". I say, "over the centuries and millennia." I compare modern climate alarmists to an animal that is born at 6:00 a.m. in Death valley and they think the world is heating up uncontrollably by 10:00 a.m. Evening's a comin'.

One difference between the alarmists and the bug is that the bug doesn't survive off grants.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Well, that's great!



You mean like when there was a huge hole in the ozone that was going to cause skin cancer rates to skyrocket and was a danger to humanity and all the developed countries around the world got together, created a plan, banned CFCs, everyone bought in, and stopped using CFCs and the ozone repaired itself?

Because that's an example of politicization.

The difference was that the oil and gas lobby (and the riches of gulf states) didn't care about CFCs and took no steps to obfuscate data and research. The fact is that "Big Refridgeration" simply doesn't have the resources or legislative pull

I mean, there is plenty of evidence that O&G companies have hid this knowledge.



No, it's truly not. It's infancy was back in the early 1900s when people were ALREADY noticing the trends. The depth of knowledge is such that they are creating a lot of modelling; hard to be "in its infancy" if they have sufficient quantitative evidence to create computer models.



We never do. But we know a fair bit.


But there aren't many fields of study where scientists have said "Well, we have enough here. We don't have to study this anymore". That doesn't then mean the field is "in it's infancy". 120 years is a FAAAR thing from infancy.
I will acquiesce that framing climate science as "new" and "ignorant of so much" is a very convenient counter argument to policy creation.

But simply put, it is not a factual argument.


I find it hard to believe that someone who has done as much research as you claim, would find climate science theory "half baked". That's assuming you did good research and not silly, selective, bad research.

Because knowledge is in its infancy, we don't always know what we don't know, though sometimes we at least know we don't know:

Rethinking CFCs: The Surprising Persistence of the Antarctic Ozone Hole​

FWIW, I DO think it was correct to get politically involved regarding lead in fuel. When there is a clear and present danger, laws do protect us. And that one was. i.e. I'm not against politicising the outcome of scientific research all the time. But the effects need to be able to be documentable, not simply be theories about a distant future.

Imagine them stymying the growth of NYC back in 1880 because of the fear of future piles of horse dung.

 

[Paulos23]

Regarding the bolded, this is where we differ. You say "over the years". I say, "over the centuries and millennia." I compare modern climate alarmists to an animal that is born at 6:00 a.m. in Death valley and they think the world is heating up uncontrollably by 10:00 a.m. Evening's a comin'.

One difference between the alarmists and the bug is that the bug doesn't survive off grants.

But, as @rambot has pointed out, the current change is faster than any historic warming in the distant past. It is slow for us, but our children and their children will be cursing us for raising the temperature of the planet and causing mass problems for them.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

The temperature changes (1.4C) we see in the time frames we are talking about (140yrs) are unprecedented.

I simply disagree. Now, once we get a few centuries of trustworthy data under our belts, I'd feel differently, except I'd have been dead for a couple of centuries at least.

Worry not, though. My opinion on this is irrelevant. I'm 70 and am not all that long for this world. I just get a bit frustrated by the lunacy surrounding me when I leave my little garden of eden. And it ain't just AGW. It's George Floyd nonsense, protests against Israel, men in women's sports nonsense, and on and on. I'm just an old guy complaining about the modern world. Each generation has their cross to bear. Fortunately this one ain't mine. I wish you kids luck. Seriously. And yes I have a lot of children and grandchildren. It's their cross too.

I've said my piece on this thread. You guys have fun. Let me know, when we meet in heaven, how it worked out.

 

[rambot]

Because knowledge is in its infancy, we don't always know what we don't know, though sometimes we at least know we don't know:

Rethinking CFCs: The Surprising Persistence of the Antarctic Ozone Hole​

Ok.,
1) I hate to be so simple but I have no idea why you posted that article as it doesn't address the point I raised (ie politics that is informed by good science makes good changes).

FWIW, I DO think it was correct to get politically involved regarding lead in fuel. When there is a clear and present danger, laws do protect us. And that one was. i.e. I'm not against politicising the outcome of scientific research all the time. But the effects need to be able to be documentable, not simply be theories about a distant future.

Not sure what that has to do with climate change predictions either. Only media outlets and laypeople believe that climate change JUST means everything gets warmer.

Imagine them stymying the growth of NYC back in 1880 because of the fear of future piles of horse dung.

Well that's an unreasonable analogy isn't it.

 

[Halbhh]

My take in a single sentence: Half of north america used to be covered by a glacier and it's been, on average, getting warmer ever since. I'm not worried about it. At all.

I've always been a big fan of science. When it becomes a problem is when it gets politicized. And climate science is still in its infancy. We don't know what we don't know. Further study is great. It is what science is. But trying to control civilization because of half baked theories is, well, stupid. Simply put.

I think you'll like this very interesting post.

Consider -- if an object is warmed only by the sun, and has no atmosphere, it will warm up in the sunlight to an average surface temperature due the consistent amount of sunlight hitting it according to its distance from the sun.

The average temperature (when you average over the entire surface) an object like a moon (without atmosphere) then remains at is entirely dependent on its distance from the sun, and it's albedo (the degree to which it absorbs solar radiation).

This process follows a very well known physics law, so that the planet will consistently maintain a 'blackbody temperature' due to absorbing solar radiation from the sun, and emitting infrared. (if it get's hotter, it simply emits more infrared, losing energy at a higher rate, so that it will return to the blackbody equilibrium temperature.)

For a given planet with a given distance from a given star, it the planet has no atmosphere, and has some certain albedo, we can calculate the blackbody temperature the planet as a whole would average over time very precisely.

It's well know basic physics, long tested and quite certain.

Did you know that for its distance from the sun, Venus's natural surface average blackbody temperature according to it's distance from the sun without other factors like atmosphere would be about 275 Kelvin, which is about 35 degrees Fahrenheit.

For Earth, the natural surface average blackbody temperature according to it's distance from the sun would be about 254 Kelvin, which is about -.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

Pretty cool huh?

(Actually, it's far far cooler than Earth has ever been. In the very last ice age, the global average from 19,000 to 23,000 years ago was about 46 degrees Fahrenheit (Earth during the last ice age). That's a gigantically warmer level than -.4F)

But fortunately for Earth, it has an atmosphere that helps hold heat at a pleasant level, warming it up in a very very good way for us, allowing Earth's average surface temperature to be about 56 F!

Is that interesting?

So, what's the actual surface temperature of Venus, as it actually exists, atmosphere and all?

Interested?

The U.S.S.R. sent an amazing surface lander to Venus (perhaps their greatest feat of any the Soviet Union ever did), way back in the 70s!

Venera 13 survived the intense atmosphere of Venus almost 127 minutes (!)....

An incredible feat.
The landing site was an area known as the Phoebe Regio. The lander's on-board instruments recorded hurricane-force winds, an ambient temperature of 457°C (854°F) and an atmospheric pressure of 89 atm (9 MPa) – equivalent to the pressure about 1 km (0.62 mi) below the surface of the ocean. Its other instruments were able to take photos of the surface, examine the chemical composition of the atmosphere, and record the sounds of an alien world. Longest time survived on Venus by a spacecraft

The Venera missions measured the temperature on the surface of Venus at over 850F. That's hotter than our typical ovens at home can even get to, and more like a commercial pizza oven temperature.

Why is Venus so intensely hotter than blackbody, so vastly much more than Earth?

Well, we know from simple and clear and easy to demonstrate in a lab that CO2 adsorbs and reradiates infrared radiation, so that Venus's very large amount of CO2 is a very powerful blanket to trap heat.

Venus has a lot of CO2.

This stuff is very simple, very clear, old science, and long confirmed over and over -- that's what is behind the 'science' of 'greenhouse gasses' like CO2. Not exotic or speculative physics, but very basic physics (my degree in college, engineering physics, included most physics courses a physics major takes; so, I'm not guessing about what is basic physics. I simply learned this early on as a freshman, as we learned basic long established physics first).

 

[rambot]

I simply disagree.

I've recognized that I'm cool with people just being wrong (the teacher in me and all). "Simply disagreeing" is just an opinion.

Show me some data that shows that these changes are not unprecedented and then your disagreement ACTUALLY means something.

Now, once we get a few centuries of trustworthy data under our belts, I'd feel differently, except I'd have been dead for a couple of centuries at least.

We have a few centuries of really fine data. I'm sure you've seen the famous graphs.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Not sure what that has to do with climate change predictions either. Only media outlets and laypeople believe that climate change JUST means everything gets warmer.

I have to agree with you there. I used to call it AGW, but then I reverted to "climate change" for obvious reasons. But I noticed most discussions were reverting to "Global Warming", so I went back to AGW. Gotta go with the flow. It's why I no longer call Ukraine "The" Ukraine.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

The Venera missions measured the temperature on the surface of Venus at over 850F. That's hotter than even a pizza oven.

Why is that?

It's a very simple and clear and easy to demonstrate in a lab effect of CO2 adsorbing and reradiating infrared radiation, so that Venus's very large amount of CO2 is a very powerful blanket to trap heat.

This stuff is very simple, very clear, old science, and long confirmed over and over -- that's what is behind the 'science' of 'greenhouse gasses' like CO2. Not exotic or speculative physics, but very basic physics (my degree in college, engineering physics, included most physics courses a physics major takes; so, I'm not guessing about what is basic physics. I simply learned this early on as a freshman, as we learned basic long established physics first).

I'll just throw this simple scientific fact out: atmospheric density creates heat. This is why, though they have the same percentage of CO2, Mars is really cold and venus is really hot. It's also why Jupiter is so hot.

It's also why Death valley is hotter than the top of Mt Everest.

And it is surprisingly easy to understand. Just go to the Grand Canyon and measure the temperature at the bottom and the temperature at the top. It's not about CO2 at all.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

I've recognized that I'm cool with people just being wrong (the teacher in me and all). "Simply disagreeing" is just an opinion.

Show me some data that shows that these changes are not unprecedented and then your disagreement ACTUALLY means something.


We have a few centuries of really fine data. I'm sure you've seen the famous graphs.

Two things: First, I was disagreeing with an opinion by sharing my own. That's all
Second, Regarding the few centuries. Nope. There were no man made satellites just a few short decades ago. And the reliability of earth surface stations is far from accurate. This may help:

From NASA: The Raw Truth on Global Temperature Records​

And this PDF: Earth Atmospheric Land Surface Temperature and Station Quality in the United States

As I mentioned a few posts ago, I've reache my "burn out" quotient on this particular subject. My last couple of responses are due to posts that came in before that post. I'm now "really" leaving the thread. You guys have fun!

 

[Halbhh]

I'll just throw this simple scientific fact out: atmospheric density creates heat. This is why, though they have the same percentage of CO2, Mars is really cold and venus is really hot. It's also why Jupiter is so hot.

Hi, I don't think we've talked that much. My name is Hal, and I've a degree in engineering physics, and have been interested in astronomy since young, so that over time I've read many thousands of astronomy articles/news/research reports.

So, without any agenda, I can help tell you what's real physics (what is well established with much experimental testing and observation). So, you should just trust it's likely I have information worth knowing. Mars is far colder than Venus due to having a very extremely thin atmosphere -- so that even though that atmosphere is mostly CO2, it's still very little CO2 in total because it's so thin compared to Earth and Venus atmospheres.

Earth has 200 times more atmosphere than Mars, for example.

Venus on the other hand has also the very high percentage of CO2 just like Mars (both are over 95% CO2 atmosphere), but Venus has over 20,000 times more atmosphere by mass than Mars has. So, Venus has therefore over 20,000 times the CO2 that Mars has.

Mars is close to its natural blackbody temperature..... (near -80F on average).

Venus on the other hand is very high above it's natural blackbody temperature (well, see my previous post above in more details -- I put in extra things to see!).

Please also see my post above if you will, to get more on how CO2 is known to be a heat trapping gas. Blackbody temperature is old, well known physics, similar to knowing how to calculate gravity according to mass -- it's very well established physics, long verified.

Jupiter is a gas giant, so it doesn't have a surface as we are used to, and might not even have a core, but that's more theoretical (It is still unclear if deeper down, Jupiter has a central core of solid material or if it may be a thick, super-hot and dense soup. It could be up to 90,032 degrees Fahrenheit (50,000 degrees Celsius) down there, made mostly of iron and silicate minerals (similar to quartz -- Jupiter: Facts - NASA Science).
So, any given temperature number for Jupiter -- such as the -166F you can find easily -- this then has to be for some given depth inside it's atmosphere. Several factors matter for Jupiter's atmospheric temperatures of course, including distance from the sun, internal warm from formation, internal fission, depth in atmosphere, etc. But we can't easily compare Jupiter to a planet that has a surface under an atmosphere such as the rocky planets where we can land a probe on a surface.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Hi, I don't think we've talked that much. My name is Hal, and I've a degree in engineering physics, and have been interested in astronomy since young, so that over time I've read many thousands of astronomy articles/news/research reports.

So, without any agenda, I can help tell you what's real physics (what is well established with much experimental testing and observation). So, you should just trust it's likely I have information worth knowing. Mars is far colder than Venus due to having a very extremely thin atmosphere -- so that even though that atmosphere is mostly CO2, it's still very little CO2 in total because it's so thin compared to Earth and Venus atmospheres.

Earth has 200 times more atmosphere than Mars, for example.

Venus on the other hand has also the very high percentage of CO2 just like Mars (both are over 95% CO2 atmosphere), but Venus has over 20,000 times more atmosphere by mass than Mars has. So, Venus has therefore over 20,000 times the CO2 that Mars has.

Mars is close to its natural blackbody temperature..... Venus on the other hand (well, see my post above in more detail!).

Please also see my post above if you will, to get more on how CO2 is known to be a heat trapping gas. Blackbody temperature is old, well known physics, similar to knowing how to calculate gravity according to mass -- it's very well established physics, long verified.

Jupiter is a gas giant, so it doesn't have a surface as we are used to, and might not even have a core, but that's more theoretical (It is still unclear if deeper down, Jupiter has a central core of solid material or if it may be a thick, super-hot and dense soup. It could be up to 90,032 degrees Fahrenheit (50,000 degrees Celsius) down there, made mostly of iron and silicate minerals (similar to quartz -- Jupiter: Facts - NASA Science).
So, any given temperature number for Jupiter -- such as the -166F you can find easily -- this then has to be for some given depth inside it's atmosphere. Several factors matter for Jupiter's atmospheric temperatures of course, including distance from the sun, internal warm from formation, internal fission, depth in atmosphere, etc. But we can't easily compare Jupiter to a planet that has a surface under an atmosphere such as the rocky planets where we can land a probe on a surface.

Regarding the content of your post, we are in complete agreement.

FWIW, it is why I used actual earth examples to amplify.