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.
Good points, Sean. I accept the globe is 1.3 degrees hotter than a century ago... I also accept that CO2 emissions (i.e., human activity) play some part in that. Though how much, I don't know... as I also accept a bevy of other influencers like UHI effects, Milankovitch cycles, and just general natural variation within a large and complex system.
The crowd loses me when I ask "so what?" I too notice the "hum ho" statistics as you put it... and therefore haven't bought into the alarmism. Does that make me a skeptic I wonder?
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.
I think Koonin does an excellent job on those pages you reference. Here's my understanding, but keep in mind that Koonin's data stops with year 2018, and 2023 may have more extremes. My second paragraph below is easier to understand.
Koonin finds an exhibit, the RATIO of daily record high temperatures to daily record low temperatures for stations across the forty-eight contiguous states from 1930 to 2017, presented in the 2017 US Climate Science Special Report to be inconsistent with other data later in the report. Upon investigation he discovers the questionable exhibit used running records of highs and lows in the ratios, and that the ratios show more daily record highs than daily record lows because the denominator in decreasing NOT because the numerator is increasing and the variance of that ratio is increasing dramatically because the data set, which is the number of running records, is shrinking dramatically with each passing year for the simple reason that new records are hard to attain. So the Special Report's CSSR Figure ES.5 is highly misleading.
Koonin then goes on the describe how the graph on page 107 was constructed, which is the "Number of record US daily temperature extremes for 725 US stations from 1895 until 2018, calculated by the 'absolute' method." MY GUESS is that this method proceeds as follows: start with January 1, for each of the 725 stations determine which year in the range 1895 to 2018 had the record high at that station and add a count to that year for that station. Do this for each station. Now do the same for January 2, January 3 ... to Dec 31. When you finish you will have distributed 725 times 365 = 264,625 counts to the 124 buckets (years 1895 to 2018). You just get a simple graph with years 1895 to 2018 on the horizontal axis and number of count (extremes) on the vertical. Each station and day of the year is weighted equally. Do this for the record lows also, but show this on a separate graph. It would be nice if Koonin would have his friend at the University of Alabama, Professor John Christy, update the graph for years 2019-2023.
There's definitely a difference between Koonin's graph and the one Roger included above. In the NOAA graphs above they use just January and July separately, that's one difference. The NOAA graph uses temperature which indicates they picked one temperature at one station, the highest in the country for that month. It seems to me you're throwing away a lot of data with this method, which is going to give you more statistical variability. It also explains why the average temperature anomaly graph appears to have a level trend line.
1. Yes, I wondered about that also. The anomaly is calculated based on taking the average of Tmax and Tmin, at local sites. Shown here are aggregated Tmax values. Also, the time periods are important ... 21st century vs. 20th century.
2. I'm pretty sure that IPCC has concluded that extreme heat is going up in many places.
3. There is defiantly a lot to deconvolve related to lows/highs and colds/hots
1 & 3 - yes there is a lot to unpack with regard to temperature, particularly with regard to actual temps vs. the averages and how they’re calculated/presented. I always joke that I’m glad I didn’t live before global warming… because it was hotter! For a quick example (and some perspective), we all know the 1930s was a particularly hot time in North America. Not in an esoteric, mathematical way, but actually. In Lincoln, NE where I live, the temp exceeded 100 degrees 57 times that year, with a dozen+ of those above 110 degrees… all the way up to a maximum of 117. But, the overall average was still lower than today, because it was also much colder! In contrast, in 2023, we exceeded 100 degrees only 9 times… with a maximum of 105.
2 – I too would agree that extreme heat is going up in some places… things change after all. But I still cannot wrap my head around Koonin’s presentation of actual temps vs. percentages. For some reason it makes complete sense to me, aligns with what I’ve tracked for the Midwest, and is backed up by that EPA chart I referenced. I’ll have to think on it some more.
What seems remarkable is that 35 years on the changes are so minute. But we are cranking out tons of statistics that weren't even around in the early 1900's. A constant obsessive watch of those statistics seems to not have produced a definitive answer. The change on average, is not more than 1 degree. Point to point about 1.3 degrees. My conclusion: The obsessed (paranoid) observers are always "up too close" to be reliable sources. Do you think weathermen are reliable sources to predict impending hurricane damage? Have you ever heard one pooh-poohing the impact of the approaching storm? The only people who thought Y2k was an issue were techies, etc.
What they forget is their constant, unrelenting doomsday talk is ruining the mental health of our children (and some adults) and has been increasing since their obsession began.
The increase in population and the infrastructure for billions more is never mentioned. Going from 1.6 billion (1900) to over 8 billion is an incredible feat,while now having less poverty, more live births, way higher life expectancy, and a much easier life in general. And we did it all on the back of one lousy degree.
Thanks Roger, for giving us a source of real information.
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?
In similar spirit it is highly likely that any recent “trend” in acres burned in fires (as suggested by the red line) is driven in part (at least) by deliberately inadequate management of forests in the past 20 years compared to prior periods. Also, one can’t help but conjecture that the start-point for that trend-line has been carefully chosen.
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?
Its very likely the dirty thirties would not have been nearly as bad if co2 was at 400-500ppm.
If moisture content of the atmosphere increases, precipitation should increase, where is a guess. I'll look at UN predictions, and then predict the opposite while seeming to predict the same thereby performing CYA, the definition of climate science.
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.
Pat, regarding the mid 70s, it was a very cold and snowy time - I lived in NW Ontario and winter days were pretty brutal. So it wasn’t hard to believe my geology prof who was saying that a little ice age was coming. Contrast that to current southern Manitoba where today it’s +3c and hardly any snow.
But your point regarding climate change is global really seems to get missed by our current government and I dare say the media as I believe they picked the wildfires as the top story of the year. But when looking at the fire area chart for the US and putting everything into a North American perspective maybe it wasn’t so bad.
Although having lived in Yellowknife 20 years ago, I wouldn’t have wanted to go through what the folks there had to endure.
A bad fire year is a bad year, no fun for anyone, was a lot of smoke on the prairies all summer, hope next year not as bad.
As to warm now, yes, it’s been a beautiful fall and start of winter, this year looks like Asia getting hammered with the cold.
We have a place on a lake in SW Sask, last winter the ice was 2 feet thick, unheard of, usually 10-12”, happened because exceptional cold in November and December while, guess what, Eastern Europe and Asia weren’t that cold. Remember that Europe was “saved” from its own energy policy by a warm winter.
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
A great idea!
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.
Good points, Sean. I accept the globe is 1.3 degrees hotter than a century ago... I also accept that CO2 emissions (i.e., human activity) play some part in that. Though how much, I don't know... as I also accept a bevy of other influencers like UHI effects, Milankovitch cycles, and just general natural variation within a large and complex system.
The crowd loses me when I ask "so what?" I too notice the "hum ho" statistics as you put it... and therefore haven't bought into the alarmism. Does that make me a skeptic I wonder?
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!
I think Koonin does an excellent job on those pages you reference. Here's my understanding, but keep in mind that Koonin's data stops with year 2018, and 2023 may have more extremes. My second paragraph below is easier to understand.
Koonin finds an exhibit, the RATIO of daily record high temperatures to daily record low temperatures for stations across the forty-eight contiguous states from 1930 to 2017, presented in the 2017 US Climate Science Special Report to be inconsistent with other data later in the report. Upon investigation he discovers the questionable exhibit used running records of highs and lows in the ratios, and that the ratios show more daily record highs than daily record lows because the denominator in decreasing NOT because the numerator is increasing and the variance of that ratio is increasing dramatically because the data set, which is the number of running records, is shrinking dramatically with each passing year for the simple reason that new records are hard to attain. So the Special Report's CSSR Figure ES.5 is highly misleading.
Koonin then goes on the describe how the graph on page 107 was constructed, which is the "Number of record US daily temperature extremes for 725 US stations from 1895 until 2018, calculated by the 'absolute' method." MY GUESS is that this method proceeds as follows: start with January 1, for each of the 725 stations determine which year in the range 1895 to 2018 had the record high at that station and add a count to that year for that station. Do this for each station. Now do the same for January 2, January 3 ... to Dec 31. When you finish you will have distributed 725 times 365 = 264,625 counts to the 124 buckets (years 1895 to 2018). You just get a simple graph with years 1895 to 2018 on the horizontal axis and number of count (extremes) on the vertical. Each station and day of the year is weighted equally. Do this for the record lows also, but show this on a separate graph. It would be nice if Koonin would have his friend at the University of Alabama, Professor John Christy, update the graph for years 2019-2023.
There's definitely a difference between Koonin's graph and the one Roger included above. In the NOAA graphs above they use just January and July separately, that's one difference. The NOAA graph uses temperature which indicates they picked one temperature at one station, the highest in the country for that month. It seems to me you're throwing away a lot of data with this method, which is going to give you more statistical variability. It also explains why the average temperature anomaly graph appears to have a level trend line.
Thanks! Some replies ...
1. Yes, I wondered about that also. The anomaly is calculated based on taking the average of Tmax and Tmin, at local sites. Shown here are aggregated Tmax values. Also, the time periods are important ... 21st century vs. 20th century.
2. I'm pretty sure that IPCC has concluded that extreme heat is going up in many places.
3. There is defiantly a lot to deconvolve related to lows/highs and colds/hots
1 & 3 - yes there is a lot to unpack with regard to temperature, particularly with regard to actual temps vs. the averages and how they’re calculated/presented. I always joke that I’m glad I didn’t live before global warming… because it was hotter! For a quick example (and some perspective), we all know the 1930s was a particularly hot time in North America. Not in an esoteric, mathematical way, but actually. In Lincoln, NE where I live, the temp exceeded 100 degrees 57 times that year, with a dozen+ of those above 110 degrees… all the way up to a maximum of 117. But, the overall average was still lower than today, because it was also much colder! In contrast, in 2023, we exceeded 100 degrees only 9 times… with a maximum of 105.
2 – I too would agree that extreme heat is going up in some places… things change after all. But I still cannot wrap my head around Koonin’s presentation of actual temps vs. percentages. For some reason it makes complete sense to me, aligns with what I’ve tracked for the Midwest, and is backed up by that EPA chart I referenced. I’ll have to think on it some more.
Thanks.
What seems remarkable is that 35 years on the changes are so minute. But we are cranking out tons of statistics that weren't even around in the early 1900's. A constant obsessive watch of those statistics seems to not have produced a definitive answer. The change on average, is not more than 1 degree. Point to point about 1.3 degrees. My conclusion: The obsessed (paranoid) observers are always "up too close" to be reliable sources. Do you think weathermen are reliable sources to predict impending hurricane damage? Have you ever heard one pooh-poohing the impact of the approaching storm? The only people who thought Y2k was an issue were techies, etc.
What they forget is their constant, unrelenting doomsday talk is ruining the mental health of our children (and some adults) and has been increasing since their obsession began.
The increase in population and the infrastructure for billions more is never mentioned. Going from 1.6 billion (1900) to over 8 billion is an incredible feat,while now having less poverty, more live births, way higher life expectancy, and a much easier life in general. And we did it all on the back of one lousy degree.
Thanks Roger, for giving us a source of real information.
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
Yes. As my father has said for decades, there are many influences on climate beyond CO2, and UHI are among them.
In similar spirit it is highly likely that any recent “trend” in acres burned in fires (as suggested by the red line) is driven in part (at least) by deliberately inadequate management of forests in the past 20 years compared to prior periods. Also, one can’t help but conjecture that the start-point for that trend-line has been carefully chosen.
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
Woo-Hoo! Thanks!
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
Its very likely the dirty thirties would not have been nearly as bad if co2 was at 400-500ppm.
If moisture content of the atmosphere increases, precipitation should increase, where is a guess. I'll look at UN predictions, and then predict the opposite while seeming to predict the same thereby performing CYA, the definition of climate science.
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
Pat, regarding the mid 70s, it was a very cold and snowy time - I lived in NW Ontario and winter days were pretty brutal. So it wasn’t hard to believe my geology prof who was saying that a little ice age was coming. Contrast that to current southern Manitoba where today it’s +3c and hardly any snow.
But your point regarding climate change is global really seems to get missed by our current government and I dare say the media as I believe they picked the wildfires as the top story of the year. But when looking at the fire area chart for the US and putting everything into a North American perspective maybe it wasn’t so bad.
Although having lived in Yellowknife 20 years ago, I wouldn’t have wanted to go through what the folks there had to endure.
And we will pay for this nice weather eventually.
There is no free lunch
A bad fire year is a bad year, no fun for anyone, was a lot of smoke on the prairies all summer, hope next year not as bad.
As to warm now, yes, it’s been a beautiful fall and start of winter, this year looks like Asia getting hammered with the cold.
We have a place on a lake in SW Sask, last winter the ice was 2 feet thick, unheard of, usually 10-12”, happened because exceptional cold in November and December while, guess what, Eastern Europe and Asia weren’t that cold. Remember that Europe was “saved” from its own energy policy by a warm winter.
Not this year.
“Weather” is interesting.
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 Lee! See this from 2000 by me and Dan Sarewitz in The Atlantic, it caused quite a stir at the time: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/07/breaking-the-global-warming-gridlock/304973/