NASA confirms summer 2023 was Earth's hottest on record

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is no mention of the Tonga volcanic explosion that has increased the stratospheric global warming product of water vapor by ~10%, not to mention lower level increases. It is estimated it has increased global temperatures and will do so for perhaps another five years. This was an unusual sub-surface eruption.

The question that keeps getting suppressed is the "how much?" is due to this or that. The consensus of scientists is that humans do contribute to warming, but there is no consensus on "how much" is due to humans, especially from China as they continue to build many new coal power plants.

The "how much?" is what the climate models are attempting to do, but the complexity is not yet in their grasp.

The horrible fires in Maui, IMO, is more a study of negligence and possible leadership incompetence than about CO2.
 
Aug 9, 2023
7
2
15
Visit site
There is no mention of the Tonga volcanic explosion that has increased the stratospheric global warming product of water vapor by 10%. It is estimated it has increased global temperatures and will do so for perhaps another five years. This was an unusual sub-surface eruption.

The question that keeps getting suppressed is the "how much" is due to this or that. The consensus of scientists is that humans do contribute to warming, but there is no consensus on "how much" is due to humans, especially from China as they continue to build many new coal power plants.

The "how much" is what the climate models are attempting to do, but the complexity is not yet in their grasp.

The horrible fires in Maui, IMO, is more a study of negligence and possible leadership incompetence than about CO2.
All good observations.
 
Please read the headline again. "Earth" is not the United States.
But the article addresses various locations for extreme heat, including the US.

"A statement outlining the analysis says August alone was 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.2 degrees Celsius) warmer than an average summer, blanketing a record 57 million people in the southern and southwest U.S. under a heat wave of the most severe category." [my bold]

The map appears to be in contradiction to this claim.
 
Sep 18, 2023
5
3
15
Visit site
But the article addresses various locations for extreme heat, including the US.

"A statement outlining the analysis says August alone was 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.2 degrees Celsius) warmer than an average summer, blanketing a record 57 million people in the southern and southwest U.S. under a heat wave of the most severe category." [my bold]

The map appears to be in contradiction to this claim.
It doesn't contradict it at all. Southern states are the hottest states already. By increasing the average temperature by any amount, a hot state that already experiences severe heatwaves will just experience even more severe heatwaves. It doesn't matter that the value hasn't gone up by much, it's still unbearably hot.

The map is measuring temperature anomalies, and the sentence you've highlighted is measuring the amount of people under severe heatwaves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ken Fabian
The map is measuring temperature anomalies,
Correct.

and the sentence you've highlighted is measuring the amount of people under severe heatwaves.
They aren't "measuring the amount of people under severe heatwaves." The map is a regional map, not a population map. The eastern half of the US shows the anomaly to be about 0.5 to 1 deg. C. South Texas is one of the few regions showing the higher temperature anomaly over 1C. This is where I live and it has been very hot this summer, unusually so. Though the 1930s were much hotter.

So the proper question to ask is "why?". Some of this is due to the higher CO2 increase. Most is due, IMO, to several additional reasons: El Nino event; the Tonga eruption; lower sulfide levels (reducing cloud formations), and more.
 
All good observations.
Sorry, looks more like "Look, I found a straw! Let's make a grasp for it".

The potential for the Tonga eruption to raise global temperatures (rather than the more usual lowering) was noticed and pointed out by mainstream climate scientists and some have looked closer and sought to estimate the impacts (with more such studies still in progress - and is likely to keep being revisited). They have been looking at both the warming potential of the water vapor released and the cooling of the aerosols and so far and came up with variations of expected contributions, somewhere between a small amount of cooling overall up to a few hundredths of a degree C of warming. And currently temperatures are tracking higher by 0.2 to 0.5 C higher, ie exceeding 10X that, from other causes. And the highest ever CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations are the biggest of them.

Most of that year to year difference is probably from coming out of la Nina ENSO phase and heading into el Nino, plus the underlying global warming trend. Most of the developing el Nino impact hasn't emerged yet, so it is likely 2023 and 2024 will break existing global temperature records. Which the Doubt, Deny, Delay crowd (well represented here) will almost certainly seek to find cause to downplay, doubt and deny.

The hottest Summer on record has occurred during a la Nina year - ie during a cool phase of ENSO - and that looks like another threshold is being crossed - but most (not all) of the commenters here seek cause - any cause - to downplay or deny the significance of that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CorinGetorix
Sep 18, 2023
5
3
15
Visit site
Correct.


They aren't "measuring the amount of people under severe heatwaves." The map is a regional map, not a population map. The eastern half of the US shows the anomaly to be about 0.5 to 1 deg. C. South Texas is one of the few regions showing the higher temperature anomaly over 1C. This is where I live and it has been very hot this summer, unusually so. Though the 1930s were much hotter.

So the proper question to ask is "why?". Some of this is due to the higher CO2 increase. Most is due, IMO, to several additional reasons: El Nino event; the Tonga eruption; lower sulfide levels (reducing cloud formations), and more.
I am aware that they are not specifically measuring the amount of people under severe heatwaves. That was not my point.

My point was that the map *does not* contradict, as you claimed, having people be affected by heatwaves in the southern US despite the (comparatively, it's still higher than usual) low anomalous temperature.

It's nice that you have an opinion as to why the year has been so hot. I don't know where you got it from, because the article says:

"However, as Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist and director of GISS, explained during July's conference, natural weather patterns like El Niño contribute minimally to climate change when compared to human activities driving global warming. El Niño in particular is calculated to lead to a temporary temperature increase of about 0.1 degrees Celsius, according to agency data. Global warming observed so far exceeds that quantity.

"Without those human contributions to the drivers of climate change, we would not be seeing anything like the temperatures that we're seeing right now," he said."


So forgive me for not placing a ton of faith in your hunch, and instead trusting NASA.
 
CorinGetorix.

NASA…. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3204/...recedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere/

Nature....https://phys.org/news/2023-01-tonga-eruption-chances-global-temperature.html

Here's a very in-depth analysis that considers many variables....

There is agreement that the Tonga eruption will have an impact on increasing temperatures perhaps for seven years, but, as Ken noted, this will only be a very small increase (per current modeling). I was not arguing the Tonga is the reason for higher temperatures, but that countless variables, including new ones like Tonga, are required to make better climate analyses.

We don't have Newtonian-like models (perfect results), though great efforts are underway to provide reliable modeling. Planetary exploration of other atmospheres is seeking funding to a large extent for the purpose of understanding those climates so we can better model our climate. Why make that argument if our climate models are near perfect now? They're not.

Please drop your use of ad hominems.

We can argue how to read the temp. map if you wish, but it's not that important since we are only arguing degree, not kind, pun intended.
 
Sep 18, 2023
5
3
15
Visit site
NASA…. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3204/...recedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere/

Nature....https://phys.org/news/2023-01-tonga-eruption-chances-global-temperature.html
There is agreement that the Tonga eruption will have an impact on increasing temperatures perhaps for seven years, but, as Ken noted, this will only be a very small increase (per current modeling). I was not arguing the Tonga is the reason for higher temperatures, but that countless variables, including new ones like Tonga, are required to make better climate analyses.
Why make that argument if our climate models are near perfect now? They're not.
Nobody in this thread ever claimed otherwise.

Here's a very in-depth analysis that considers many variables....
Judith Curry's blog is your source? Judith Curry, an active climate change denialist, who accused the IPCC of "corruption" with no evidence, claimed that IPCC scientists were motivated by "funding" when they aren't paid for contributions? Who has been shunned by the >95% of scientists who agree that climate change is a) happening, b) caused by humans, and c) extremely dangerous?

I'm going to refer back to something you said earlier which I find very telling. (bold mine)
The question that keeps getting suppressed is the "how much?" is due to this or that.
Suppressed by who or what, exactly? Because you can easily search up the answer to this. For example:
From the IPCC's website: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/

"A.1. Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence) (Figure SPM.1) {1.2}"

From phys.org (a source you seem to trust, as you've given it above): https://phys.org/news/2019-09-climate-natural-man-made.html

"The most recent special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees confirms that the observed changes in global and regional climate over the last 50 or so years are almost entirely due to human influence on the climate system and not due to natural causes."

From the Guardian (which, incidentally, also discusses Judith Curry and her form of denialism): https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-3-how-much-global-warming-are-humans-causing

"Gavin Schmidt (oh hey, he's in the article that this post is about) from Nasa represented the consensus of 96–97% of climate experts in arguing that humans have been the dominant cause of global warming since 1950, while Judith Curry from Georgia Tech represented the opinions of 2–4% of climate experts that we could be responsible for less than half of that warming."

From the Intergovernmental Panel at the IPCC (it's long and you won't read it all, but CTRL+F "human" and you'll see): https://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

"Human influence has been detected in nearly all of the major assessed components of the climate system (Figure TS.12). Taken together, the combined evidence increases the overall level of confidence in the attribution of observed climate change, and reduces the uncertainties associated with assessment based on a single climate variable. From this combined evidence it is virtually certain that human influence has warmed the global climate system."

There's plenty more. It's a Google search away.

I'm not a scientist. I don't know any of this data off the top of my head, I don't know how to analyse a lot of the complicated and ugly graphs and figures, what half the jargon actually means or anything like that; I trust the scientific consensus.

Clearly, you do not. Why not? Again, I ask: How is the question of "how much [of climate change] is due to this or that" suppressed, and by whom or what?

You are using conspiracy language. Do you think the >95% of scientists who agree on the consensus are actively against asking questions such as "how much of climate change is human made"? Do you think they're incompetent enough to not even ask the question? Do you think there's a different group of people attempting to hide the answer to that question?

This is not an ad hominem. There has to be a reason as to why you immediately attempted to undermine the original article's claims. As Ken rightfully pointed out, forms of climate denialism tend to take shape in "Doubt, deny, delay", and you are quite squarely in the delay camp. Why?
 
Judith Curry's blog is your source? Judith Curry, an active climate change denialist, who accused the IPCC of "corruption" with no evidence, claimed that IPCC scientists were motivated by "funding" when they aren't paid for contributions? Who has been shunned by the >95% of scientists who agree that climate change is a) happening, b) caused by humans, and c) extremely dangerous?
That's patently false. I encourage you to read her new book, Climate Uncertainty and Risk.

She demonstrates, as she always has if you read her blog, great respect for the IPCC work. She once served, briefly, with the IPCC given her prominent scientific credentials. Why won't the activists debate her?

She has questioned the more extreme assessments. For instance, the 4.5C temp. increase by 2100 (AR8.5). To the credit of the IPCC, they are now down-playing this more extreme scenario.

I'm going to refer back to something you said earlier which I find very telling. (bold mine)

Suppressed by who or what, exactly? Because you can easily search up the answer to this. For example:
From the IPCC's website: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/

"A.1. Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence) (Figure SPM.1) {1.2}"
But I wasn't accusing the IPCC of suppression. Your jumping to conclusions. You are also leaving out that their models present multiple scenarios for temperature increase, not just this one. They give probabilities for each scenario because this is the best, so far, that science can offer. They are getting better.

If you look at how the UN and other political bodies and individuals (some scientists) are distorting the IPCC work then you will see why I use the word "suppression". They are suppressing, or distorting, the IPCC work.


From phys.org (a source you seem to trust, as you've given it above): https://phys.org/news/2019-09-climate-natural-man-made.html

"The most recent special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees confirms that the observed changes in global and regional climate over the last 50 or so years are almost entirely due to human influence on the climate system and not due to natural causes."

From the Guardian (which, incidentally, also discusses Judith Curry and her form of denialism): https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-3-how-much-global-warming-are-humans-causing

"Gavin Schmidt (oh hey, he's in the article that this post is about) from Nasa represented the consensus of 96–97% of climate experts in arguing that humans have been the dominant cause of global warming since 1950, while Judith Curry from Georgia Tech represented the opinions of 2–4% of climate experts that we could be responsible for less than half of that warming."
97% of Climate Scientists Agree is 100% Wrong article: Climatehttps://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/?sh=2e017bf33f9f


I'm not a scientist. I don't know any of this data off the top of my head, I don't know how to analyse a lot of the complicated and ugly graphs and figures, what half the jargon actually means or anything like that; I trust the scientific consensus.
That's understandable, but undserstand that scientific consensus is not science. Science is objective-based, and subjectivity often dominates any consensus.

This is not an ad hominem. There has to be a reason as to why you immediately attempted to undermine the original article's claims. As Ken rightfully pointed out, forms of climate denialism tend to take shape in "Doubt, deny, delay", and you are quite squarely in the delay camp. Why?
One can easily see that the temperature map does not demonstrate a 1.2C average temperature for the US. But, I now see that this temp. was for August only and the map shows an average for three months. This seems to be the heart of the confusion, which I should have caught earlier.
 
Sep 18, 2023
5
3
15
Visit site
That's patently false.
"The corruptions of the IPCC process, and the question of corruption (or at least inappropriate torquing) of the actual science by the IPCC process, is the key issue." - Judith Curry, http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/16/actons-eleven-the-response.html


"“I’m not happy with the IPCC,” she told Fox News. “I think it has torqued the science in an unfortunate direction.”

That torquing, she suggests, is because the money in climate science (the funding, that is) is tied to embellishing the IPCC narrative, especially the impacts of global warming."

Taken directly from her talk at Fox (I wonder why it's Fox news, of all places) https://www.foxnews.com/science/uns...-adds-little-explanation-for-pause-in-warming

She is also funded by fossil fuel companies.
"I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company...does hurricane forecasting...for an oil company, since 2007.” - Judith Curry, https://www.sasktoday.ca/north/opin...s-keep-trying-to-switch-the-narrative-4139337

The "activists" won't debate her because her science has already been debated, by actual scientists: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry#Criticisms_from_climate_scientists

It is not an activist's job to debate a scientist, it is to promote the ideas to fix problems identified by scientists, and again; 97% of scientists agree on this.
97% of Climate Scientists Agree is 100% Wrong article: Climatehttps://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/?sh=2e017bf33f9f
"Climate scientists agree: climate change is happening here and now. Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening. This agreement is documented not just by a single study, but by a converging stream of evidence over the past two decades from surveys of scientists, content analyses of peer-reviewed studies, and public statements issued by virtually every membership organization of experts in this field. Average global temperature has increased by about 1.4˚ F over the last 100 years. Sea level is rising, and some types of extreme events – such as heat waves and heavy precipitation events – are happening more frequently. Recent scientific findings indicate that climate change is likely responsible for the increase in the intensity of many of these events in recent years." - https://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/ From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, not Alex Epstein, a Koch-funded think-tank owner who believes that COP26 is an attempt to commit mass genocide.

[...]scientific consensus is not science. Science is objective-based, and subjectivity often dominates any consensus
Scientific consensus is how we understand the world. We all view, and can only possibly view, the world through our own subjective lenses. When many different lenses from many different backgrounds and analysis methods agree on an issue, with demonstrably repeatable results, that is as close as we can get to finding truth. There is no such thing as an objective reality when it comes to humans.

It is obviously not inherently bad to actively seek out conflicting information to your own, in order to ensure that the information you have is correct. However, that has been done. Pretty much every respected institution on Earth, that follows the scientific method, is peer reviewed, and follows ethical guidelines for their processes, believe the general consensus for climate change. This is passed to the highest ranking people in governments, in other scientific organisations, even fossil fuel companies themselves - in brief; the most powerful people in the world.

But I wasn't accusing the IPCC of suppression. Your jumping to conclusions.
And I wasn't accusing you of accusing the IPCC of suppression. You're jumping to conclusions. I was asking "Who or what is suppressing the question?"

And you've answered with:
UN and other political bodies and individuals (some scientists) are distorting the IPCC work
and no sources. How are they doing this? Why are they doing this? Who, specifically, in these circles are doing this?

But more importantly, would you even believe any evidence presented that they weren't doing it?

Because we're at a state where, again, every respectable organisation that the world's governments use to understand our world (including NASA which, again, is in the original article that this thread is about, with the sub-heading "Things that we said would come to pass are coming to pass.") agrees that climate change is real, happening, man made, and a threat to human wellbeing.

You are picking and choosing opinion pieces from known oil-industry-funded climate denialists, and placing their opinions on the same level as the overwhelming scientific consensus. This is not simply healthy skepticism. It is unreasonable, and I'm sure you agree that reason is one of the most important aspects of one's analysis when it comes to science.

These are my final words on this matter. You do not have to force the belief in a world that does not exist. Again, I am not a scientist, I'm a university drop-out with too much time on his hands, and it's not difficult for me to find credible sources to back up what I say, because I believe the consensus to begin with. I don't have to dance around whether the IPCC should be trusted or not, or at what level their message is being corrupted or distorted or suppressed, I don't have to place faith that one of my favourite contrarian "scientists" or journalists will come up with an answer as to how the latest addition to the narrative is actually wrong and everyone's being lied to and that the truth will come out. The truth is already out; you're choosing to dismiss it.
 
"The corruptions of the IPCC process, and the question of corruption (or at least inappropriate torquing) of the actual science by the IPCC process, is the key issue." - Judith Curry, http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/16/actons-eleven-the-response.html
Your link has nothing about Judith Curry.

That link is interesting because it tries to argue that the Royal Society acted inappropriately, but it ignores, IMO, the wording of the RS's response to the author.

People tend to get wound too tight on this very challenging topic, especially when it's beneficial to do so.

But, to your point, I have no doubt she said what you claim somewhere. Climategate, in case you've missed this story, gave climate scientists, including with the IPCC, a black eye for pushing a narrative that favors many political efforts.

I like the equation: Science + politics = Politics

So, given her general support of the science done the IPCC -- just read her book -- it's likely you should look at the context in which she meant it.

I know we will never agree, but my hope is that you will stand behind the critical benefit science brings for all humanity -- constant scrutiny. In construction, you aren't allowed to build a concrete structure (e.g. bridge) without taking core samples of the readymix. This gets tested at the lab to determine whether it has strong enough. Sometimes claims of "concrete evidence" is found to lack the scrutiny it should have gotten.

It's my opinion that scientists, on the whole, are making honest efforts to be honest, but we aren't there yet, are we?

Just 10 days ago came this regarding fires....

Patrick T. Brown, climate team co-director at the nonprofit Breakthrough Institute in Berkeley and a visiting research professor at San Jose State University, said his Aug. 30 paper in the prestigious British journal Nature is scientifically sound and "advances our understanding of climate change's role in day-to-day wildfire behavior."

But Brown this week dropped a bomb on the journal—as well as his study's co-authors who are staunchly defending the team's work. In an online article, blog post and social media posts, Brown said he "left out the full truth to get my climate change paper published," causing almost as much of a stir as the alarming findings themselves.


From Physics.org

"“I’m not happy with the IPCC,” she told Fox News. “I think it has torqued the science in an unfortunate direction.”

That torquing, she suggests, is because the money in climate science (the funding, that is) is tied to embellishing the IPCC narrative, especially the impacts of global warming."

Taken directly from her talk at Fox (I wonder why it's Fox news, of all places) https://www.foxnews.com/science/uns...-adds-little-explanation-for-pause-in-warming
Good for her! Read the article. It is about the failure of climate models to produce short term temperature results. She understands that, but she is opposed to any hyperbolic behavior of scientists to push a narrative that is not scientifically supported adequately.

She is also funded by fossil fuel companies.
"I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company...does hurricane forecasting...for an oil company, since 2007.” - Judith Curry, https://www.sasktoday.ca/north/opin...s-keep-trying-to-switch-the-narrative-4139337
Yep, her expertise is also helping countries and communities plan their futures for dealing with the coming consequences of warming and sea level rise. She is needed because some others are in the door pushing for far more extreme measures that come at great cost to the public.

This is why her book is important because it is about acting prudently with global warming, assessing the risk properly. This, of course, requires some understanding of the uncertainty intrinsic to the current models, which don't taken in all the variables, including the AMO (Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation). Volcanic activity consequence are only just now being included in the modeling. But think how hard that must be given our strong lack of prediction for new eruptions.

Climate modeling is extremely difficult, though great minds are working on it.

The "activists" won't debate her because her science has already been debated, by actual scientists: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry#Criticisms_from_climate_scientists
Well, that's debatable. ;) Show me a video of a debate where they won their arguments.

Of course there are those who will counter her viewpoints because she questions abuses of the science that is tailored for political gains. But look at the scientists who support her. Try her blog.

But this is, again, a story of "how much?" It's not a question of kind, we know temperatures have increased since the beginning of the Ind. age, but the question is to "what degree" of increase. IPCC offers several to chose from. How much more increase will we see and what can we do to mitigate it.... prudently! Eliminating fossil fuels won't work.

Let's also not forget that no one has declared what the proper temperature must be for our planet. Do you know? What is our target? But, to be fair, this isn't the key question we must ask, but rather "how much" more will we suffer given we are on an upward trend. CO2 is definitely a key factor, but by "how much"? The models don't say exactly, else they would be far better at short term predictions.

These are my final words on this matter. You do not have to force the belief in a world that does not exist. Again, I am not a scientist, I'm a university drop-out with too much time on his hands, and it's not difficult for me to find credible sources to back up what I say, because I believe the consensus to begin with. I don't have to dance around whether the IPCC should be trusted or not, or at what level their message is being corrupted or distorted or suppressed, I don't have to place faith that one of my favourite contrarian "scientists" or journalists will come up with an answer as to how the latest addition to the narrative is actually wrong and everyone's being lied to and that the truth will come out.
But my faith is not in any scientist or group of scientists (including the competent IPCC). We should direct our trust in the SM, which welcomes honest scrutiny.

The IPCC isn't the only source for climate science. The merits of any honest science should be placed accordingly. This has not been the case from day one, when a young PhD from Canada stuck data together to give us the famous hockey stick.

I feel like were finally playing Tik-Tak-Toe in War Games (no winner), so let's talk astronomy. :)
 
Last edited:
Helio - Trust in Judith Curry is distrust in mainstream climate science - that is her principle message; whether your existing distrust led you to trust her or your trust in her led to your distrust in climate science it ends up the same. She's a hack who feeds denialist memes to the gullible and uses her credentials to give them credibility. You should just own up to your rejection of mainstream science as well as hers. I don't think you are capable of credibly critiquing modern climate science - or what we should be doing about it.

Meanwhile in real climate science land (or space) - another measure that shows global warming is real and accelerating -
Ceres satellite measurements of the energy imbalance -

a36514b6-809d-3b90-a792-1f9c81208831.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: CorinGetorix
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts