Data, data, everywhere and none of it fit to apply to common sense. What's left out of the surface heat energy numbers are the three energy absorbing elements of the hydrological cycle: 1.2 trillion tons of melting global ice annually, 3.3 billion tons daily; the 321 million cubic miles of heating oceans; the 1.4 trillion tons of water vapor rising in the atmosphere daily; and the amount of heat energy exhausted into outer space daily. Anyone attempting to show less heat energy in the environment now than last year is, well, just nuts. Greenland has been melting at the rate (NOAA) of 28.5 million tons per hour, although the high temp there just fell below 32 degF, and one pound of melting ice absorbs 144 BTUs. The watts/sq.m. number is lost on me. Eliot Jacobson's calculation of 20-30 Hiroshima bomb blast equivalents PER SECOND is comprehendable for me, where the AEC says each one releases 63 trillion BTUs into the environment.
My gold standard for this data is C3S, and their "Climate Pulse" page. In their article "Hottest May on record spurs call for climate action", June 5, 2024, includes data demonstrating a 0.2 degC annual increase since 2020 on their 1991-2020 baseline. At this rate of global surface air temp increase, we may see a 1 degC increase EVERY 5 YRS. This is simple math from a retired physician with time on my hands and an a genuine interest in the fate of all life on the planet. If this trend continues, we may see a 6 degC global ave. temp increase by the 23rd BD of any child unfortunate to be born today, 2047. Love your effort, Richard, but I'm a fan of simplicity and common sense, plain language. Maybe the product of 42 yrs'. of explaining complex medical diagnoses to folks with a HS education. Have a blessed night! Gregg Miklashek, MD
Just a note of thanks! I find some of the numbers you report hard to follow - that's the part of climate science that always makes my eyes glaze over, but the way you stay on top of the shifting baseline is invaluable. I hate this narrative that we live in and I hate that scientists like Gavin Schmidt always have to put a positive spin on things to maintain funding. But I sincerely appreciate your analysis and the work that you put into this endeavor.
The article on net heat *loss* has already been reported on the CBC in Canada. When I saw it it just made no sense to me so I thank you for this post. The physics involved of adding heat to the ocean and increased CO2 (and methane) in the atmosphere means that any cooling will only come from a cataclysmic event like a massive volcano eruption.
Are you considering the climate engineering efforts already in motion? If Sulfur aresols diminishing causes albedo to drop, then all of those planes trailing Chem trails must be having some effect, don't you think? Check out geoengineeringwatch.org
No, its the other way around , if CERES says albedo (from pollutants) is dropping (and temperatures are rising) then the alleged chem trails are not having an effect-they're meant to increase aldebo and cool temperatures?
Wait, Richard if you're able, correct me if I'm wrong. The ocean temps on that chart look to be going in the opposition of the chart that shows the arc of the poles in relation to the tropics.
Maybe I'm seeing a pattern where there is none, but that would make the summer the cooler months of water temps.
If Chem trails leave aresols, and they do, you can watch then cloud the sky for yourself for up to three hours after a chem spewing plane goes by, then by God they are reducing albedo. If the number of planes cannot overcome the Sulfer areasols that just means there are not enough planes in the sky. Riddle me this; if a Chem trail blocks sunlight, has it also affected albedo? Of course it has. Do you know how long vapor trails last? 35 seconds. If a trail lasts three hours it isn't vapor. Don't put your head in the sand. Look up any day of the week.
Data, data, everywhere and none of it fit to apply to common sense. What's left out of the surface heat energy numbers are the three energy absorbing elements of the hydrological cycle: 1.2 trillion tons of melting global ice annually, 3.3 billion tons daily; the 321 million cubic miles of heating oceans; the 1.4 trillion tons of water vapor rising in the atmosphere daily; and the amount of heat energy exhausted into outer space daily. Anyone attempting to show less heat energy in the environment now than last year is, well, just nuts. Greenland has been melting at the rate (NOAA) of 28.5 million tons per hour, although the high temp there just fell below 32 degF, and one pound of melting ice absorbs 144 BTUs. The watts/sq.m. number is lost on me. Eliot Jacobson's calculation of 20-30 Hiroshima bomb blast equivalents PER SECOND is comprehendable for me, where the AEC says each one releases 63 trillion BTUs into the environment.
My gold standard for this data is C3S, and their "Climate Pulse" page. In their article "Hottest May on record spurs call for climate action", June 5, 2024, includes data demonstrating a 0.2 degC annual increase since 2020 on their 1991-2020 baseline. At this rate of global surface air temp increase, we may see a 1 degC increase EVERY 5 YRS. This is simple math from a retired physician with time on my hands and an a genuine interest in the fate of all life on the planet. If this trend continues, we may see a 6 degC global ave. temp increase by the 23rd BD of any child unfortunate to be born today, 2047. Love your effort, Richard, but I'm a fan of simplicity and common sense, plain language. Maybe the product of 42 yrs'. of explaining complex medical diagnoses to folks with a HS education. Have a blessed night! Gregg Miklashek, MD
Just a note of thanks! I find some of the numbers you report hard to follow - that's the part of climate science that always makes my eyes glaze over, but the way you stay on top of the shifting baseline is invaluable. I hate this narrative that we live in and I hate that scientists like Gavin Schmidt always have to put a positive spin on things to maintain funding. But I sincerely appreciate your analysis and the work that you put into this endeavor.
The article on net heat *loss* has already been reported on the CBC in Canada. When I saw it it just made no sense to me so I thank you for this post. The physics involved of adding heat to the ocean and increased CO2 (and methane) in the atmosphere means that any cooling will only come from a cataclysmic event like a massive volcano eruption.
And meanwhile in Valencia…
https://bbc.com/news/articles/c93qlpp5gxvo
Many thanks for this post.
There's a lot to take in so I'm afraid I have to ask the question:
Does this all mean that 2025 is set to be pretty much worse (hotter, wetter etc) than now in 2024?
In a global perspective, I mean.
Are you considering the climate engineering efforts already in motion? If Sulfur aresols diminishing causes albedo to drop, then all of those planes trailing Chem trails must be having some effect, don't you think? Check out geoengineeringwatch.org
No, its the other way around , if CERES says albedo (from pollutants) is dropping (and temperatures are rising) then the alleged chem trails are not having an effect-they're meant to increase aldebo and cool temperatures?
Wait, Richard if you're able, correct me if I'm wrong. The ocean temps on that chart look to be going in the opposition of the chart that shows the arc of the poles in relation to the tropics.
Maybe I'm seeing a pattern where there is none, but that would make the summer the cooler months of water temps.
If Chem trails leave aresols, and they do, you can watch then cloud the sky for yourself for up to three hours after a chem spewing plane goes by, then by God they are reducing albedo. If the number of planes cannot overcome the Sulfer areasols that just means there are not enough planes in the sky. Riddle me this; if a Chem trail blocks sunlight, has it also affected albedo? Of course it has. Do you know how long vapor trails last? 35 seconds. If a trail lasts three hours it isn't vapor. Don't put your head in the sand. Look up any day of the week.