patrick.net

NOAA's numbers are out. August is the 5th warmest August in recorded history. Nasa concurs and says the solar minimum is providing some much needed cooling.
Expect snow this winter.

Onvacation says

NOAA's numbers are out. August is the 5th warmest August in recorded history. Nasa concurs and says the solar minimum is providing some much needed cooling.
Expect snow this winter.

I posted the numbers for 2018 a couple of months ago and it as clear that without a record heat summer this would be barely in the top 5 maybe even top 10, so a drastic drop compared to the recent record after record years. If this continues this may be a significant reversal to come.

mell says

If this continues this may be a significant reversal to come.

Based on what?

personal

1/2 a degree is a big fucking deal right?

antiforum

Expat says

The level of willful stupidity and ignorance here is shocking.

LOL you must be new here. I'm shocked that you're shocked.

CBOEtrader says

How does one measure "global surface mean air temperature"? Then explain how they did it in the 1880's.

I think they used these things called thermometers. Heard of em?

https://qz.com/1055629/why-does-all-our-climate-data-start-in-1880/

Fact is, there were weather stations all over the world by the mid 1800's, taking fairly accurate and frequent measurements. Suprisingly (or maybe not), there's a shit ton of data about climate and temperature, but earlier than 1880 and the accuracy and coverage start to deviate to the point that the data isn't usable.. for now. Much of the data is in books, not digitized, and as it gets entered into a computer this may change.

But hey, don't let a little thing like data ruin your argument. Keep going!

Tenpoundbass says

1/2 a degree is a big fucking deal right?

Only if it goes up, then it's big, almost irreversable, we'll have to create a carbon trading market for Wall Street to trade Collars and Strangles on right away.

If it goes down 1/2 a degree, it's just a blip.

We can say for sure that in last years Earth has become warmer, that is a scientific FACT which we can not argue about. A year-long cooling or warming is a blip, and the trend clearly is towards warming.

Having said that, explanation as to why it gets warmer is a theory, which may or may not be correct, or phrasing differently, we can not accept or deny it 100%. For some it may be 10% possibility that humans cause warming, for others 90% possibility.

They way how I think about this - and I give it about 60 human/40 non-human warming cause - is as follows. Even if it is a relatively small possibility, we all are royally screwed if we do cause the warming. So, why not do something about it.

Next question is what we can and should do. What we do should not decrease life standard of average person and should not enrich banks and other parasites. Things that are for virtue signalling of Hollywood celebrities (electric, hybrid cars; fuel ethanol, etc) are useless and may in fact be causing warming as driving a Toyota Corolla might be more efficient than a hybrid WRT to CO2 emissions. Blaming everyone for global warming and living in a 1000000 sq ft mansion that consumes as much electricity as a whole village (hello, Al Gore) is counterproductive as well.

I'd say that we should switch to nuclear power generation which is carbon-neutral. Recycle nuclear waste (technology exists, but it is not done because govt is scared of proliferation). Develop technologies for nuclear combustion of other elements, such as Th which is nearly limitless. Research to make better batteries, then perhaps electric vehicles will be able to replace or supplement internal combustion. Also, start shaming idiots in media/Hollywood who virtue signal about environment while consuming as much as 100 normal humans. Perhaps then idea of limitless consumption will become less popular. Use solar where it makes sense (in desert environment).

This

HeadSet says

1. Limit Population by curtailing immigration, and let the natural lower fertility rate bring the population to an energy and resource sustainable level.
2. Curtail imports from nations that do not manufacture those products under US style environmental laws.

also may help, and #2 probably is more important. Ain't gonna happen though, as too many people make money in reselling crap from China.

socal2 says

Thanks to the miracle of fracking natural gas (which all Democrats were against), America now leads the world in carbon reduction and oil and gas exports.

Absolutely true. The more conservative audience should remember that fracking came out of DOE-funded research in 1970's. DOE is now vilified, but they laid groundwork for shale revolution.

One amusing video about fracking to lighten the mood here:
www.youtube.com/embed/F4aOMKhkhSc

We can yell at each other forever but that will not solve anything.

dr6B says

I give it about 60 human/40 non-human warming cause

Interesting, how did you arrive at that number? Would love to see your research on it.

dr6B says

Things that are for virtue signalling of Hollywood celebrities (electric, hybrid cars; fuel ethanol, etc) are useless and may in fact be causing warming as driving a Toyota Corolla might be more efficient than a hybrid WRT to CO2 emissions. Also, blaming everyone for global warming and living in a 1000000 sq ft mansion that consumes as much electricity as a whole village (hello, Al Gore) is counterproductive as well.

The fixation climate change deniers have on Hollywood 'hypocrisy' when it comes to this topic mystifies me. Celebrities are using their influence to raise awareness, big deal. Are they perfect non-polluters? Certainly not. Fact is, everyone IS to blame for global warming, including Al Gore.

I would agree that nuclear is a great way to go. Everything you wrote above regarding that is solid. More $$ towards fusion research; if that nut is cracked then it's game over for oil, fracking, coal, basically everything. Solar works too.. And not just in desert climates! https://news.energysage.com/solar-panels-in-winter-weather-snow-affect-power-production/

Anti solar people grouse about how pollutive the manufacture of panels is, I guess they've never seen coal strip-mining. Also, the environmental damage a solar panel might inflict is drastically outweighed by it's longevity and usability.


Also, a RAV4 hybrid (I assume that's what you meant by hybrid wrt?)gets 155 g/km CO2 emissions, and is a much heavier and larger car than a Corolla.. which gets 188 g/km (1.6l engine). Just saying. ?

Develop technologies for nuclear combustion of other elements, such as Th

I am sure you meant "fission" instead of "combustion," but the point is still valid. Another breakthrough tech would be a room temperature near superconductor, which would abate the line-loss that exists transmitting electricity today. Without that loss, the same generating capacity could service a multiple of what is presently possible. Better solar cells, better batteries, more efficient motors are on the way anyhow.

If Californians do not want to wait and instead something today, how about going back to clotheslines? Clothes Dryers are serious energy hogs and large populations cutting back on dryer use would cull some serious "carbon."

HeadSet says

If Californians do not want to wait and instead something today, how about going back to clotheslines? Clothes Dryers are serious energy hogs and large populations cutting back on dryer use would cull some serious "carbon."

Sure, but why just Californians? How about people in the Midwest stop building colossal mcmansions that take massive amounts of energy to heat and cool, many of which are so poorly constructed that they leak energy like a sieve?

Evan F. says

Also, a RAV4 hybrid (I assume that's what you meant by hybrid wrt?)gets 155 g/km CO2 emissions, and is a much heavier and larger car than a Corolla.. which gets 188 g/km (1.6l engine). Just saying.

Need to take into account battery production, which for hybrids involve separation of rare earth elements, which is extremely energy-consuming. Environmental footprint for Corolla production is much smaller than for hybrids, even if it consumes more fuel when running. There was a research paper ca. 10 yrs ago which looked at this issue, but I can not track it down any more. I recall that one needs to run hybrid for many years without changing the battery in order for it to be more efficient than Corolla.

Evan F. says

The fixation climate change deniers have on Hollywood 'hypocrisy' when it comes to this topic mystifies me. Celebrities are using their influence to raise awareness, big deal. Are they perfect non-polluters? Certainly not. Fact is, everyone IS to blame for global warming, including Al Gore.

They are annoying as hell (celebrities). If they do not practice what they preach, they should shut the fuck up.

Evan F. says

Interesting, how did you arrive at that number? Would love to see your research on it.

An unscientific gut feeling after reading research about global warming in Nature and Science magazines for last 15 years, and avoiding reading anything in non-scientific press/not listening to TV about this topic.

HeadSet says

If Californians do not want to wait and instead something today, how about going back to clotheslines?

I am not in CA (in TX), but we do use clotheslines when we have dry weather. In more regulated CA though HOA's might skin you alive for that.

Also, a RAV4 hybrid (I assume that's what you meant by hybrid wrt?)gets 155 g/km CO2 emissions, and is a much heavier and larger car than a Corolla.. which gets 188 g/km (1.6l engine). Just saying. ?

There is also the "carbon" emitted generating the electricity the plug in types use, vs the "carbon" generated refining and getting gasoline to service stations. The future can be electric cars using renewable generated electricity, but for that to work we need to keep population at a resource sustainable level.

HeadSet says

Another breakthrough tech would be a room temperature near superconductor, which would abate the line-loss that exists transmitting electricity today.

I think they are now above liquid N2 boiling point, where some technological applications are feasible. However, they can not easily make the material into wires, and the theory behind high T superconductivity is not clear at this point.

Evan F. says

Solar works too.. And not just in desert climates! https://news.energysage.com/solar-panels-in-winter-weather-snow-affect-power-production/

Energy sage is a solar company, so they will not be objective. I considered putting solar on my house, but with hurricanes every Fall, strong winds in Fall and Spring which would drop tree branches on solar panels, it becomes pain in the ass.

Fact is, everyone IS to blame for global warming, including Al Gore.

And we must all atone for our guilt by "believing" the AGW Gospel and voting Democrat? The fact that Al Gore bangs the AGW drum while living in a style that spews more "carbon" than an average town, makes me thing Al is just a modern version of the old TV Evangelist. The TV Evangelist did not need to live in a humble giving lifestyle, he just had to spout hard core dogma to keep the flock. I doubt that either the TV Evangelist or Al Gore actually believe what they preach, but it pays handsomely.

I considered putting solar on my house, but with hurricanes every Fall, strong winds in Fall and Spring which would drop tree branches on solar panels, it becomes pain in the ass.

I live on the VA coast, which is also prone to hurricanes, and I have been to quite a few homes with solar panels (we have sponsored "solar tours" every year.) The solar panels are quite durable. The issue is more in cost. It takes about $20k to install enough panels to "net zero," and $20k will pay years of electric bills. But as the tech improves it will become better economics to go solar. Right now it is more "hobby" than cost savings.

HeadSet says

What is wrong with these two present day ideas?

1. Limit Population by curtailing immigration, and let the natural lower fertility rate bring the population to an energy and resource sustainable level.
2. Curtail imports from nations that do not manufacture those products under US style environmental laws.

Those are both good ideas. Another good idea would be to increase research into ways to manage the climate.

Note that neither major party proposes any of these ideas. Both major parties prefer the divide and misrule method: stoke panic among climate alarmists, and denial among the 'god is in charge of the climate' crowd, and sit back to watch the show with some popcorn (and maybe lots of beer). The alarmists, in their panic, say horrible things that destroy their own credibility, and demand corrupt and counter-productive policies, e.g. subsidizing southern hemisphere kleptocracies and the Clinton Foundation. The deniers are at least not proposing harm. Therein lies the "debate," and that explains why Democrats end up losing on this issue.

dr6B says

Need to take into account battery production, which for hybrids involve separation of rare earths, which is extremely energy-consuming. Environmental footprint for Corolla production is much smaller than for hybrids, even if it consumes more fuel when running. There was a research paper ca. 10 yrs ago which looked at this issue, but I can not track it down any more

10 years ago. Can't track it down. Certainly manufacturing has improved in that stretch of time. The fact is, yes, hybrids take more energy to produce, but that is more than offset by their efficiency over the life of the car, even when using non-green sources of electricity.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/does-hybrid-car-production-waste-offset-hybrid-benefits.htm

I think they are now above liquid N2 boiling point, where some technological applications are feasible.

I saw some cryo type superconductors like that in grad school in 1989. One guy even used the superconductor as winding in an sort of electric motor. All done around liquid nitrogen temps. No progress since then? You smart people need to get off your lazy asses.

HeadSet says

The issue is more in cost. It takes about $20k to install enough panels to "net zero," and $20k will pay years of electric bills.

True.. how many years is the big question, I suppose. And your average electric bill is going to go nowhere but up. Most back-of-the-napkin calculations I've seen recently pin solar panels as cost effective after about 7-8 years.

Evan F. says

10 years ago. Can't track it down. Certainly manufacturing has improved in that stretch of time. The fact is, yes, hybrids take more energy to produce, but that is more than offset by their efficiency over the life of the car, even when using non-green sources of electricity.

Thanks, interesting link. I recall that the paper I can not track down was from Berkeley, but I might be wrong.

This from the link

According to another Argonne National Laboratory report, if a plug-in hybrid charges from coal-generated electricity, it could be responsible for emitting up to 10 percent more greenhouse gasses than a conventional vehicle and up to 60 percent more than a standard hybrid

is also very illuminating.

HeadSet says

I think they are now above liquid N2 boiling point, where some technological applications are feasible.

I saw some cryo type superconductors like that in grad school in 1989. One guy even used the superconductor as winding in an sort of electric motor. All done around liquid nitrogen temps. No progress since then? You smart people need to get off your lazy asses.

Compressed H2SO4 at -70C, bitches! Liquid N2 is about -195C.

Evan F. says

Compressed H2SO4 at -70C, bitches! Liquid N2 is about -195C

H2S, I think. Smells of rotten eggs and is toxic. Unfortunately, same problem of not being able to make into wires.

HeadSet says

It takes about $20k to install enough panels to "net zero," and $20k will pay years of electric bills.

About 15 years of my electricity bills is 20K as my house is size of a small closet in Al Gore house :)

dr6B says

This from the link

According to another Argonne National Laboratory report, if a plug-in hybrid charges from coal-generated electricity, it could be responsible for emitting up to 10 percent more greenhouse gasses than a conventional vehicle and up to 60 percent more than a standard hybrid

is also very illuminating.

Yes, fortunately I didn't say plug in hybrid, there's a definite distinction. This from the article is also illuminating:

The Argonne National Laboratory ran a side-by-side comparison of hybrid and conventional vehicles over their entire life cycle, which includes vehicle production, vehicle operation and the energy required to produce fuel for both cars. If you assume that both vehicles travel 160,000 miles (257,495 kilometers) over their lifetime, the conventional vehicle requires 6,500 Btu of energy per mile compared to 4,200 Btu per mile for a hybrid. That higher energy input results in far greater lifetime greenhouse gas emissions for conventional vehicles compared to hybrids, more than 1.1 pounds (500 grams) per mile compared to 0.75 pounds (340 grams) per mile [source: Burnham et al].

dr6B says

H2S, I think. Smells of rotten eggs and is toxic.

You are correct.. I jumped the gun on that one ?

dr6B says

According to another Argonne National Laboratory report, if a plug-in hybrid charges from coal-generated electricity, it could be responsible for emitting up to 10 percent more greenhouse gasses than a conventional vehicle and up to 60 percent more than a standard hybrid

I drive a standard hybrid, Camry XLS. Nice car, gets good mileage! Drives smoothly and has some real punch when I have a Ricky Bobby moment!

I drive a standard hybrid, Camry XLS. Nice car, gets good mileage!

"Yes, but are you a climate denier?" says Al Gore as he blows by you in his new 13 mpg Dodge Hellcat.

Expat says

2016 was a fucking hot year. We cooled through to Feb 2018. But IT'S STILL FUCKING HOTTER THAN EVER.

Can anyone else see the contradiction here?

Rhetorical question.

Onvacation says

Can anyone else see the contradiction here?

Yes, but to someone in a panic, the point is to say extreme things, even contradictory or horrible things, in order to signal virtue and to shout down any discussion of potentially good ideas. The Democrats in particular have stoked a 'money or your life' panic mentality, because they profit from panic not debate.

Onvacation says

Expat says

2016 was a fucking hot year. We cooled through to Feb 2018. But IT'S STILL FUCKING HOTTER THAN EVER.

Can anyone else see the contradiction here?

Rhetorical question.

I'm glad it's a rhetorical question, because then it doesn't necessitate an answer.. it's becoming exhausting trying to respond to this.

curious2 says

Yes, but to someone in a panic, the point is to say extreme things, even contradictory or horrible things, in order to signal virtue and to shout down any discussion of potentially good ideas

Who has 'shouted down' those ideas? I'd say they're worth considering, but realistically they're not nearly enough.

Just try to remember that 17 of the last 18 years are the hottest on record.

Evan F. says

Who has 'shouted down' those ideas?

Since you asked, I will give you an example from memory, though I cannot link to it. At a Democratic party function, a speaker was talking about policy ideas, not only about climate but more broadly, and invited suggestions from the audience. A ~20yo male got the microphone and began shouting about how climate change would cut his life expectancy in half. At his age, that implied he expected climate change to kill him (and probably everyone else) by 2050. He demanded the party focus on reducing CO2 emissions. Now, if you feel like trolling an internet forum, you could focus on the fact that he was given a microphone and so he wasn't literally in that moment shouting down other speakers. His rant had the effect of shutting down discussion though. Similarly, look at the horrible comment above. You could say that user was typing, not necessarily shouting, but the point is that no one can reason with panic. So, the DNCe stoke and exploit the panic to push their 'money or your life' demands, e.g. pay more than $100bn/year to corrupt kleptocracies and the Clinton Foundation.

I have also seen geo-engineering ideas shut down a different way, without shouting. There seems to be a new religion of "mother nature" and "mother earth", possibly related to some wave of feminism. The feeling seems to be that we must return to mother nature, and stop toxic males and their inventions from assaulting mother earth. Geo-engineering is yet another toxic male science, and the only example presented in that "debate" is to spray sulfuric acid into the atmosphere. Limiting the presentation to that example is not quite a straw man, because some have actually said that would work, but the idea has the effect of reductio ad absurdum: there are other ideas, but people recoil from the idea of spraying sulfuric acid into the air and that ends the discussion.

One way and another, the game is to narrow the 'debate' to the two options that have major party approval: kleptocracy or nothing. Neither of these would actually enable people to manage the climate, so the issue can be exploited ad nauseam.

Evan F. says

I think they used these things called thermometers. Heard of em?

Yep. They used them to measure the WORLDWIDE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE down to hundredths of a degree!

Evan F. says

But hey, don't let a little thing like data ruin your argument. Keep going!

You fundamentally miss the point of the question.

Let's examine. Your answer is: Evan F. says

I think they used these things called thermometers. Heard of em?

Lol. Ok so where would a thermometer (or thermometers) be placed to measure worldwide temperature? When would measurements be read? Would things like deforestation be taken into effect or are we measuring thermometers under tree canopies one year, and in the middle of a city the next? What, if any, allowance is being made for modern improvements in methods so as to compare apples to apples w the past?

If you cant answer process questions about worldwide temperature measurements, then you shouldnt be discussing the topic.

CBOEtrader says

Ok so where would a thermometer (or thermometers) be placed to measure worldwide temperature?

"To get a complete picture of Earth’s temperature, scientists combine measurements from the air above land and the ocean surface collected by ships, buoys and sometimes satellites, too.

The temperature at each land and ocean station is compared daily to what is ‘normal’ for that location and time, typically the long-term average over a 30-year period. The differences are called an ‘anomalies’ and they help scientists evaluate how temperature is changing over time.

A ‘positive’ anomaly means the temperature is warmer than the long-term average, a ‘negative’ anomaly means it’s cooler.

Daily anomalies are averaged together over a whole month. These are, in turn, used to work out temperature anomalies from season-to-season and year-to-year."

And that is how they know that 2016 (the hottest year EVER!) was 0.004 degrees warmer than 2015.

Evan F. says

Just try to remember that 17 of the last 18 years are the hottest on record.

The temperature peaked in 2016 and is falling.

September was the 4th warmest in history. Prepare for colder years to come as the sun's activity cycles down.

CO2 will not keep the planet warm.

Onvacation says

Prepare for colder years to come as the sun's activity cycles down.

The notion that a solar minimum or even grand minimum will do anything to stem the current warming trend has already been largely debunked.