Thanks for this great post, Roger. There is a lot of reporting out there about 2023 having been such an exceptional year in terms of weather extremes. Could you do a similar post on 2023 with a worldwide and/or European perspective?
I am about to embark on a research essay, supervised by an IPCC aligned academic, asking the question: "Would HH Lamb still be a sceptic?" The idea came to me after one of his contemporizes, a climate scientist, confided that he thought he would not. Stating:
" he was an "excellent observationalist; honed during his Antarctic work. As the evidence has continued to build over the last 25 years, especially in the area of “attribution”, as the observations (frequency of severe events, and their analysis, etc) have – by and large – matched the predictions, and we have understood much more the role of the oceans, I speculate – because he was open-minded and a good observationalist – that he would, today, be accepting of the reality and importance of rapid climate change due mainly to human activity."
But this year's extremes are a bit 'hum ho', and the major climate indicators (other than thermally related) seem similarly 'hum ho.' I am looking forward to finding out what I am missing. Thoughts are welcome.
Hello – I’m a new subscriber and happy to be here! Thanks for all you do, Roger. I have a couple of questions, and this seems like the group that could get me pointed in the right direction:
1. Regarding the average temperature in 2023 – if the extreme heat was above average (meaning hotter) and the extreme cold was below average (meaning less cold or “warmer”) then how could the average remain… average? Shouldn’t it have gone up? What am I missing?
2. After reading Steve Koonin’s book (especially pages 100 – 107), I’m under the impression that both extreme heat and extreme cold are going down… that is, in general since the early 1900s it’s getting less hot and less cold. But, it’s getting less cold faster, thus the overall increase in the global average. This would seem to be in line with the NOAA data presented by the EPA showing that most (~81%) of the climate stations in the U.S. show no increase (or even a decrease in the most extreme temperatures – 95th percentile since 1948). Climate Change Indicators: High and Low Temperatures | US EPA – Figure 3. What am I missing? Koonin also points out that since the record temps data doesn’t show a global increase that they changed the way it’s presented to percentages or ratios… so when presented as hot to cold days, then even when both numbers decline, the percentage of hot days can go up dramatically because the cold days are decreasing faster.
Just a question average temps are not remarkable but peaks are clearly that. I have read that some of this in addition to carbons might be do to urbanization of the planet. Do you have a take on that?
Excellent post, sir. Thank you. I am curious as to what constitutes a "wind LSR." Is it predicated on velocity only? maximum gusts? sustained winds?
Do similar records exist for atmospheric pressure at any one location. it would seem to me that because weather is highly dependent on pressure, science would research correlations that cause pressure differentials. Or, because climate is described as an "average" over an extended period of time (30 years, usually), do we assume pressure differentials "precipitate" out of the equation?
As to the USA graph of acreage burned, it shows starting at 1983 due to the effort to memory hole the data from the previous century which shows far larger numbers earlier in the 20th century, with a slight rebound since 1983. This chart is the very definition of cherry picking, its the only one showing an increase and its false.
And
"both of which contribute to a long-term trend that the IPCC has attributed primarily to the emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.".
The IPCC summaries also tell us all the data you show above are wrong.
So tell me again why i would believe the IPCC on this when they lie about so much?
If governments are starting to attack people for "misinformation", when can we expect to see Antonio Guterres sentenced to 150 years in jail as the biggest offender?
Give a fellow a break! Couldn't find a single typo, tense problem, or even awkward usage!
The graph you presented of average temperatures since 1895 makes it blindingly obvious that fossile fuel usage hasn't appreciably changed climate (as far as temperature goes, anyway). How could anyone argue to the contrary if this graph was shown behind such a person?
That 76-78 coldest period corresponds to massive blizzards and snow dumps and cold on the canadian prairies.
I had a paper route and a toboggan to do deliveries, was awful.
Maybe the world data shows a different trend because the rest of the data is sketchy in comparison?
Wind, my peeps back in south Sask said it was awful year for wind.
Fires, yes, everyone talks about canada but last I heard climate change doesn’t affect only one country. North America as a whole had a well below record season.
The trendlines of the weather and climate data presented continue to suggest what I call the Humboldt hypothesis, that the modest warming attributed to anthropogenic causes, or any cause, are not portents or signs of disastrous tipping points. Rather, they are records of the shift in climate and plant hardiness zones occurring now as they have so often in the past. Famous scientist Alexander Von Humboldt was among the first to investigate and write about such biozones, and I recommend the recent book, "The Invention of Nature- Alexander Von Humboltd's New World" by Andrea Wolf for learning about this fascinating and multifaceted scientist.
The global warming trend that Roger Pielke references is responsible for the slowly shifting climate hardiness zones. The weather and climate you experience now is likely becoming similar to the weather and climate of an area some 50 to 100 miles to your south not so long ago. Or, if you live in the mountains, your weather and climate is gradually becoming similar to some lower elevation several hundred feet lower. In response to this warming, "In 2023, the USDA released a new version of its map to accommodate an even greater increase in global temperature, resulting in about half the US shifting upward in zone." https://www.hgtv.com/outdoors/landscaping-and-hardscaping/discover-plant-hardiness-zones
Finding trends is challenging. Weather variability makes finding the signal in the "noise" of variability difficult. More easily quantifiable data, like temperature, are the easiest trends to discern. This difficulty has enabled the media and climate activist scientists to promote normal weather events as climate change, and catastrophic climate model projections as settled science. Roger Pielke is one of the few to carefully graph climate phenomenon variability and change, exposing many baseless claims of the climate activists. The appalling irony is that speaking science and data to power often gets you called a climate or science denier! What I call the Humboldt hypothesis is that your new emerging climate and climate hardiness zone will be similar to that area just south of you a few decades earlier. Think of climate change this way, and ask yourself- is that and will that be a catastrophic change?
Terrific as usual. You reference the anomaly method of calculating climate. What I don't know (and if it is obvious, please forgive me and just point me to sources that can fill in my ignorance!) is what series (?) of periods are used to calculate the anomaly from? Is it a particular set of days? Weeks? A year? And where? For how long does an 'anomaly ' need to persist to trigger measurement? Some background on the whole anomaly thing would be super, including when someone (?) decided it was the right (?) way to measure 'climate' changes and why? I'm still a bit stuck on the idea that climate is a human construct for characterizing weather that has happened over a long time ( meaning you have to choose a time, an area, which weather phenomena and the calculations you will do) and how we got to 'climate' as something humans can forecast centuries into the future. Global no less. Argh. This stuff is so hard and my husband and I appreciate what you do so much.
Love the end summary Roger. I had the good fortune to cross paths with Jerry Namias during my post-doc at Scripps in the mid-80s. He practiced the lost art of synoptic climatology. We still had a wall of synoptic weather charts by fax in a nook on the floor and that's where you would find Namias in his semi-retirement. He took the time to show me how the 500mb polar systems were going to evolve the next month, and they did just as he predicted. People still do synoptic climatology, but they don't generate clicks ;-( . Sometimes people rediscover the polar jet index cycle (Namias, 1950) and claim it's waviness is evidence of global warming. Namias knew better.
Note: For some reason, most likely operator error, my final edits on this piece did not make it into the email version. So read the online version for the final final. Sorry about that. The edits were all minor.
Thank you for putting this 2023 recap together. It is so useful to see this in one place! PS: I've seen a very subtle shift by Bill Gates to "climate adaptability" in some of his comments. I would love to see a leader, such as yourself, to start promoting "climate resiliency" as a policy focus to counter the alarmism of us all being helpless "climate change" victims.
Thanks for this great post, Roger. There is a lot of reporting out there about 2023 having been such an exceptional year in terms of weather extremes. Could you do a similar post on 2023 with a worldwide and/or European perspective?
Volker
Roger, you seem to be contradicting Al Gore here. Is he taking your calls?
I am about to embark on a research essay, supervised by an IPCC aligned academic, asking the question: "Would HH Lamb still be a sceptic?" The idea came to me after one of his contemporizes, a climate scientist, confided that he thought he would not. Stating:
" he was an "excellent observationalist; honed during his Antarctic work. As the evidence has continued to build over the last 25 years, especially in the area of “attribution”, as the observations (frequency of severe events, and their analysis, etc) have – by and large – matched the predictions, and we have understood much more the role of the oceans, I speculate – because he was open-minded and a good observationalist – that he would, today, be accepting of the reality and importance of rapid climate change due mainly to human activity."
But this year's extremes are a bit 'hum ho', and the major climate indicators (other than thermally related) seem similarly 'hum ho.' I am looking forward to finding out what I am missing. Thoughts are welcome.
Hello – I’m a new subscriber and happy to be here! Thanks for all you do, Roger. I have a couple of questions, and this seems like the group that could get me pointed in the right direction:
1. Regarding the average temperature in 2023 – if the extreme heat was above average (meaning hotter) and the extreme cold was below average (meaning less cold or “warmer”) then how could the average remain… average? Shouldn’t it have gone up? What am I missing?
2. After reading Steve Koonin’s book (especially pages 100 – 107), I’m under the impression that both extreme heat and extreme cold are going down… that is, in general since the early 1900s it’s getting less hot and less cold. But, it’s getting less cold faster, thus the overall increase in the global average. This would seem to be in line with the NOAA data presented by the EPA showing that most (~81%) of the climate stations in the U.S. show no increase (or even a decrease in the most extreme temperatures – 95th percentile since 1948). Climate Change Indicators: High and Low Temperatures | US EPA – Figure 3. What am I missing? Koonin also points out that since the record temps data doesn’t show a global increase that they changed the way it’s presented to percentages or ratios… so when presented as hot to cold days, then even when both numbers decline, the percentage of hot days can go up dramatically because the cold days are decreasing faster.
Educate me please. Thanks!
Just a question average temps are not remarkable but peaks are clearly that. I have read that some of this in addition to carbons might be do to urbanization of the planet. Do you have a take on that?
Happy Holidays
Excellent post, sir. Thank you. I am curious as to what constitutes a "wind LSR." Is it predicated on velocity only? maximum gusts? sustained winds?
Do similar records exist for atmospheric pressure at any one location. it would seem to me that because weather is highly dependent on pressure, science would research correlations that cause pressure differentials. Or, because climate is described as an "average" over an extended period of time (30 years, usually), do we assume pressure differentials "precipitate" out of the equation?
As to the USA graph of acreage burned, it shows starting at 1983 due to the effort to memory hole the data from the previous century which shows far larger numbers earlier in the 20th century, with a slight rebound since 1983. This chart is the very definition of cherry picking, its the only one showing an increase and its false.
And
"both of which contribute to a long-term trend that the IPCC has attributed primarily to the emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.".
The IPCC summaries also tell us all the data you show above are wrong.
So tell me again why i would believe the IPCC on this when they lie about so much?
If governments are starting to attack people for "misinformation", when can we expect to see Antonio Guterres sentenced to 150 years in jail as the biggest offender?
He makes Putin look like George Washington.
Roger,
Give a fellow a break! Couldn't find a single typo, tense problem, or even awkward usage!
The graph you presented of average temperatures since 1895 makes it blindingly obvious that fossile fuel usage hasn't appreciably changed climate (as far as temperature goes, anyway). How could anyone argue to the contrary if this graph was shown behind such a person?
Great work Roger, keep it up!
Frank
I'm always curious about how increased drought resistance from more CO2 interacts with potential increases in drought weather
My understanding is that inland regions may see more drought while coastal areas should see more rain with a net benefit for agriculture
This seems like one of the more confident and consequential predictions of climate change effect on weather
My observations
That 76-78 coldest period corresponds to massive blizzards and snow dumps and cold on the canadian prairies.
I had a paper route and a toboggan to do deliveries, was awful.
Maybe the world data shows a different trend because the rest of the data is sketchy in comparison?
Wind, my peeps back in south Sask said it was awful year for wind.
Fires, yes, everyone talks about canada but last I heard climate change doesn’t affect only one country. North America as a whole had a well below record season.
Go figure
Merry Christmas and happy new year
The trendlines of the weather and climate data presented continue to suggest what I call the Humboldt hypothesis, that the modest warming attributed to anthropogenic causes, or any cause, are not portents or signs of disastrous tipping points. Rather, they are records of the shift in climate and plant hardiness zones occurring now as they have so often in the past. Famous scientist Alexander Von Humboldt was among the first to investigate and write about such biozones, and I recommend the recent book, "The Invention of Nature- Alexander Von Humboltd's New World" by Andrea Wolf for learning about this fascinating and multifaceted scientist.
The global warming trend that Roger Pielke references is responsible for the slowly shifting climate hardiness zones. The weather and climate you experience now is likely becoming similar to the weather and climate of an area some 50 to 100 miles to your south not so long ago. Or, if you live in the mountains, your weather and climate is gradually becoming similar to some lower elevation several hundred feet lower. In response to this warming, "In 2023, the USDA released a new version of its map to accommodate an even greater increase in global temperature, resulting in about half the US shifting upward in zone." https://www.hgtv.com/outdoors/landscaping-and-hardscaping/discover-plant-hardiness-zones
Finding trends is challenging. Weather variability makes finding the signal in the "noise" of variability difficult. More easily quantifiable data, like temperature, are the easiest trends to discern. This difficulty has enabled the media and climate activist scientists to promote normal weather events as climate change, and catastrophic climate model projections as settled science. Roger Pielke is one of the few to carefully graph climate phenomenon variability and change, exposing many baseless claims of the climate activists. The appalling irony is that speaking science and data to power often gets you called a climate or science denier! What I call the Humboldt hypothesis is that your new emerging climate and climate hardiness zone will be similar to that area just south of you a few decades earlier. Think of climate change this way, and ask yourself- is that and will that be a catastrophic change?
Terrific as usual. You reference the anomaly method of calculating climate. What I don't know (and if it is obvious, please forgive me and just point me to sources that can fill in my ignorance!) is what series (?) of periods are used to calculate the anomaly from? Is it a particular set of days? Weeks? A year? And where? For how long does an 'anomaly ' need to persist to trigger measurement? Some background on the whole anomaly thing would be super, including when someone (?) decided it was the right (?) way to measure 'climate' changes and why? I'm still a bit stuck on the idea that climate is a human construct for characterizing weather that has happened over a long time ( meaning you have to choose a time, an area, which weather phenomena and the calculations you will do) and how we got to 'climate' as something humans can forecast centuries into the future. Global no less. Argh. This stuff is so hard and my husband and I appreciate what you do so much.
Love the end summary Roger. I had the good fortune to cross paths with Jerry Namias during my post-doc at Scripps in the mid-80s. He practiced the lost art of synoptic climatology. We still had a wall of synoptic weather charts by fax in a nook on the floor and that's where you would find Namias in his semi-retirement. He took the time to show me how the 500mb polar systems were going to evolve the next month, and they did just as he predicted. People still do synoptic climatology, but they don't generate clicks ;-( . Sometimes people rediscover the polar jet index cycle (Namias, 1950) and claim it's waviness is evidence of global warming. Namias knew better.
Note: For some reason, most likely operator error, my final edits on this piece did not make it into the email version. So read the online version for the final final. Sorry about that. The edits were all minor.
Thank you for putting this 2023 recap together. It is so useful to see this in one place! PS: I've seen a very subtle shift by Bill Gates to "climate adaptability" in some of his comments. I would love to see a leader, such as yourself, to start promoting "climate resiliency" as a policy focus to counter the alarmism of us all being helpless "climate change" victims.