Thanks for the concerted effort, Richard, but that firehose of disparate data streams has left my old head aspin. I hang my hat on the EU's C3S, and they typically use the 1991-2020 baseline for global temp. comparisons. So, today, they show (with a 48hr. lag) an anomaly of 0.73 degC for land surface air temp. over the baseline, and a sea temp global ave. of 0.48 over baseline. They published "Hottest May on record spurs call for climate action", in which they gave 0.75 degC increase over baseline for a recent 12 mo. recording period, which I make to be 0.214 degC annual ave. increase. If so, then all of your/IPCC/etc. numbers using the misleading 1850-1900, etc. baselines, etc., are far too conservative and misleading as to the real, rapid global temp. increase, which may be 1 degC every 5 yrs., reaching 3 degC by 2032. But the even greater and more disturbing story is told in the 1.2 trillion tons of melting global ice worldwide, where each melting pound is absorbing 144 BTUs of heat energy, that's 3.3 billion tons per day. Eliot Jacobson has told us that we are pumping the heat energy equivalent of 20+ Hiroshima nuclear bomb blasts PER SECOND into the atmosphere, where each one releases 63 trillion BTUs. So, even with our planet's AC on high, we are still accumulating heat energy at the most rapid rate in history. Please, tell me if I'm wrong. Gregg
I believe that I've quoted him accurately, but are you factoring in the latent heat energy absorption from the melting ice? My point is that we're still heating up on land and sea even with the enormous amount of heat sequestered in the melting ice, even with the enormous ice melt. Thanks for the info and dialog. Afterall, I'm just an ole doc and learning as I go about the climate collapse that appears to be developing rapidly. Last summer, here in Marietta, Ohio, we had a really hot/humid summer and I couldn't go for my usual walk down to the river after 9:30, so I could safely make it back by 10:30 and not have heat exhaustion.
Nah, all that heat energy, which we seem intent on continuing to generate through fossil fuel burning, will burn us the hell up, or at least any child unfortunate enough to be among the 200,000 born today.
It's not heat from burning fossil fuels causing the warming. It's heat from the sun, more of which is absorbed into the climate system because of reduced albedo, and more being contained by the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.
3 by 2032 tracks with the my comprehension of the math plus factoring in some leeway for the unknown. It may even be conservative for all we know, but regardless that's way too quick to be anything but a nightmare anyway. 2028 or 2032 equally bad, even if it was 2036 or 2040 it would be similarly devastating. I can even see a path to 5 or 6C or even far more than that before 2050 because the exponential function is a real fucker, as is thermodynamics, and inertia.
Everyone is dead walking and doesn't quite realize it yet.
Extrapolating the C3S data giving the 0.214 degC annual increase from their June 5, 2024 article, that's pointing to a possible 6 degC increase by 2047. So, any child among the 200,000 born today could see an impossible world to survive in by his/her 22nd BD. Little wonder PEW survey revealed 47% of American adults 18-50 are choosing NOT to reproduce ever. Sad that we have a Federal Government being taken over by Neanderthals hell bent on ignoring climate science and whose only interest is in promoting fossil fuel corporations. I pity the children.
Thank you Richard...I savored the last bit of 2024, with the Christmas lights and actually a bit of snow (which I wonder if it will be the last in my lifetime) and enter 2025 mentally prepared and preparing for the worst, if I can even imagine it...Thank you for helping me these past 2 years to get informed and get ready...
Glad to see you back on deck, I was becoming concerned if you were OK Richard. All the best for 2025-it will not be easy for any of us. Be kind to each other
Hey love the article, thanks for compiling everything. That SAID your use of CAPS seemingly at random detracts from the OVERALL feel and message. Just my opinion.
I am AUTISTIC and I experience "Kinesthetic Synesthesia". Particularly around text.
All of my life I "masked" that and conformed to standard formatting for my work. I am OLD and cranky now. I write for myself now. My writing reflects an approximation of the shapes, colors, movements, and textures I experience when I write.
Oh sorry about that! I had no idea. It's just a little distracting for me at times, but it's minor. Again, love the compilation, graphs and all of it put together. Keep up the good work!
In Climate Science there have been two main factions since the 70's; Alarmists and Moderates. In 1979 at the Woods Hole Climate Summit they split over the issue of Climate Sensitivity. Which means how much warming you think that "doubling" the CO2 level to 560ppm (2XCO2) would cause.
The Alarmists predicted +4.5°C to +6°C of warming.
The Moderates predicted +1.8°C to +3°C of warming.
The Moderate forecast agreed with that of the Fossil Fuel climate researchers who were at the summit. There is a reason for this. Their forecasts were based on the amount of observed warming they saw in the 70's.
The Alarmist forecasts were based on the straight physics of the situation. However, they could not account for the "missing heat". Without an explanation it sure looked like the Moderates were right.
Here's what we didn't know at that time.
In the paper “Climate effects of aerosols reduce economic inequality. Nature Climate Change, 2020; DOI: 10.1038/s41558–020–0699-y” the authors find that:
Estimates indicate that aerosol pollution emitted by humans is offsetting about -0.7 degrees Celsius, or about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit, of the warming due to greenhouse gas emissions,” said lead author Zheng. “This translates to a 40-year delay in the effects of climate change."
"Without cooling caused by aerosol emissions, we would have achieved 2010-level global mean temperatures in 1970.”
In the 80's the Republicans backed the Moderates in Climate Science because their science meant it was "safe-ish" to base US Energy Policy on fossil fuels. Instead of nuclear power the way Carter had wanted.
The Moderates have marginalized and ridiculed the Alarmists faction for so long that most people assume they are "doomer cranks". Michael Mann has equated "doomism" with mental illness.
SCIENCE is a rough game.
CR046 - What went wrong. A Climate Paradigm Postmortem, or "How the Fossil Fuel Industry, the Republicans, and the Climate Science Moderates of the 80's stole the rest of your life"
CR047 - What went wrong. A Climate Paradigm Postmortem. Part Two, Understanding our Current Climate Paradigm. Where it came from and why it gained ascendancy.
I'm glad you waited until after the holidays for the report. I took a break too. Spirituality really helps me. Trying to have things be nice for my family for as long as possible. Light to you.
It doesn't have to be the end of the world to be the end of me. 2500 million also seems a little low on the casualty end given the prospects of simultaneous multi-breadbasket crop failures. Even beyond that, I'm hearing papers are en route giving 8⁰ ECS from palaeoclimate data, so various projections may need serious recalibration if those pan out.
I'm operating under the assumption that I have about 10 to 15 years left of something that isn't a complete absolute hellscape nightmare of a life. Really about half of that would be nice to get, the other half would be bonus. None of us are ready for what's coming, even those of us who understand.
I don’t have any way to guess how long, but for me, the fascist political threat is what I suspect is most likely to back me into a corner that I won’t dare be taken alive from at some unpredictable point in time. The ecological etc. breakdown will surely drive a political one at some no later point.
Thanks for the concerted effort, Richard, but that firehose of disparate data streams has left my old head aspin. I hang my hat on the EU's C3S, and they typically use the 1991-2020 baseline for global temp. comparisons. So, today, they show (with a 48hr. lag) an anomaly of 0.73 degC for land surface air temp. over the baseline, and a sea temp global ave. of 0.48 over baseline. They published "Hottest May on record spurs call for climate action", in which they gave 0.75 degC increase over baseline for a recent 12 mo. recording period, which I make to be 0.214 degC annual ave. increase. If so, then all of your/IPCC/etc. numbers using the misleading 1850-1900, etc. baselines, etc., are far too conservative and misleading as to the real, rapid global temp. increase, which may be 1 degC every 5 yrs., reaching 3 degC by 2032. But the even greater and more disturbing story is told in the 1.2 trillion tons of melting global ice worldwide, where each melting pound is absorbing 144 BTUs of heat energy, that's 3.3 billion tons per day. Eliot Jacobson has told us that we are pumping the heat energy equivalent of 20+ Hiroshima nuclear bomb blasts PER SECOND into the atmosphere, where each one releases 63 trillion BTUs. So, even with our planet's AC on high, we are still accumulating heat energy at the most rapid rate in history. Please, tell me if I'm wrong. Gregg
Is he saying 20+ HIROs per second, now?
Ouch.
That's about 4.5 HIROs per square mile of open water per year.
In 2023 it averaged out to 15 HIROs per second, roughly 15Zj of ENERGY, about 3.4 HIROs per square mile of open water.
I believe that I've quoted him accurately, but are you factoring in the latent heat energy absorption from the melting ice? My point is that we're still heating up on land and sea even with the enormous amount of heat sequestered in the melting ice, even with the enormous ice melt. Thanks for the info and dialog. Afterall, I'm just an ole doc and learning as I go about the climate collapse that appears to be developing rapidly. Last summer, here in Marietta, Ohio, we had a really hot/humid summer and I couldn't go for my usual walk down to the river after 9:30, so I could safely make it back by 10:30 and not have heat exhaustion.
i get what your saying, once the ice has melted, all that heat energy will quickly bring everything to ambient.
Nah, all that heat energy, which we seem intent on continuing to generate through fossil fuel burning, will burn us the hell up, or at least any child unfortunate enough to be among the 200,000 born today.
It's not heat from burning fossil fuels causing the warming. It's heat from the sun, more of which is absorbed into the climate system because of reduced albedo, and more being contained by the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.
And what support do you have for your hypothesis?
3 by 2032 tracks with the my comprehension of the math plus factoring in some leeway for the unknown. It may even be conservative for all we know, but regardless that's way too quick to be anything but a nightmare anyway. 2028 or 2032 equally bad, even if it was 2036 or 2040 it would be similarly devastating. I can even see a path to 5 or 6C or even far more than that before 2050 because the exponential function is a real fucker, as is thermodynamics, and inertia.
Everyone is dead walking and doesn't quite realize it yet.
Extrapolating the C3S data giving the 0.214 degC annual increase from their June 5, 2024 article, that's pointing to a possible 6 degC increase by 2047. So, any child among the 200,000 born today could see an impossible world to survive in by his/her 22nd BD. Little wonder PEW survey revealed 47% of American adults 18-50 are choosing NOT to reproduce ever. Sad that we have a Federal Government being taken over by Neanderthals hell bent on ignoring climate science and whose only interest is in promoting fossil fuel corporations. I pity the children.
We've had a good run, but it's a shame we didn't pay attention to its consequences sooner. It's not like we weren't informed.
Thank you Richard...I savored the last bit of 2024, with the Christmas lights and actually a bit of snow (which I wonder if it will be the last in my lifetime) and enter 2025 mentally prepared and preparing for the worst, if I can even imagine it...Thank you for helping me these past 2 years to get informed and get ready...
Thank you, Richard. Saying “Happy New Year” hardly seems appropriate but it is good to read your content again.
Glad to see you back on deck, I was becoming concerned if you were OK Richard. All the best for 2025-it will not be easy for any of us. Be kind to each other
Happy New Year to you too
Thank you for this excellent overview, Richard. I've just discovered your page.
Have you come across Climate & Economy? The climate round-ups complement your analyses very nicely:
https://climateandeconomy.com/2025/01/07/7th-january-2025-todays-round-up-of-climate-news/
Thanks for this in depth report! Humans are a stupid, stupid species😞
Nice work, but very grim. Thank you (I think...lol).
Hey love the article, thanks for compiling everything. That SAID your use of CAPS seemingly at random detracts from the OVERALL feel and message. Just my opinion.
Thanks again for writing it though.
I am AUTISTIC and I experience "Kinesthetic Synesthesia". Particularly around text.
All of my life I "masked" that and conformed to standard formatting for my work. I am OLD and cranky now. I write for myself now. My writing reflects an approximation of the shapes, colors, movements, and textures I experience when I write.
Oh sorry about that! I had no idea. It's just a little distracting for me at times, but it's minor. Again, love the compilation, graphs and all of it put together. Keep up the good work!
https://apps.climate.copernicus.eu/global-temperature-trend-monitor/
Are we in the longest contiguous stretch to date of being above of IPCC projections?
Who are "Alarmists"?
In Climate Science there have been two main factions since the 70's; Alarmists and Moderates. In 1979 at the Woods Hole Climate Summit they split over the issue of Climate Sensitivity. Which means how much warming you think that "doubling" the CO2 level to 560ppm (2XCO2) would cause.
The Alarmists predicted +4.5°C to +6°C of warming.
The Moderates predicted +1.8°C to +3°C of warming.
The Moderate forecast agreed with that of the Fossil Fuel climate researchers who were at the summit. There is a reason for this. Their forecasts were based on the amount of observed warming they saw in the 70's.
The Alarmist forecasts were based on the straight physics of the situation. However, they could not account for the "missing heat". Without an explanation it sure looked like the Moderates were right.
Here's what we didn't know at that time.
In the paper “Climate effects of aerosols reduce economic inequality. Nature Climate Change, 2020; DOI: 10.1038/s41558–020–0699-y” the authors find that:
Estimates indicate that aerosol pollution emitted by humans is offsetting about -0.7 degrees Celsius, or about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit, of the warming due to greenhouse gas emissions,” said lead author Zheng. “This translates to a 40-year delay in the effects of climate change."
"Without cooling caused by aerosol emissions, we would have achieved 2010-level global mean temperatures in 1970.”
In the 80's the Republicans backed the Moderates in Climate Science because their science meant it was "safe-ish" to base US Energy Policy on fossil fuels. Instead of nuclear power the way Carter had wanted.
The Moderates have marginalized and ridiculed the Alarmists faction for so long that most people assume they are "doomer cranks". Michael Mann has equated "doomism" with mental illness.
SCIENCE is a rough game.
CR046 - What went wrong. A Climate Paradigm Postmortem, or "How the Fossil Fuel Industry, the Republicans, and the Climate Science Moderates of the 80's stole the rest of your life"
CR047 - What went wrong. A Climate Paradigm Postmortem. Part Two, Understanding our Current Climate Paradigm. Where it came from and why it gained ascendancy.
Interesting. Who came up with the names?
What an incredibly well detailed blog piece, well done sir.
I think it's a combination of the six-dozen feedback loops we've triggered and the consequences of less shipping aerosols!
https://kevinhester.live/2024/03/18/the-aerosol-masking-effect-a-deep-dive-into-our-faustian-bargain/
HIC SUNT DRACONES
I'm glad you waited until after the holidays for the report. I took a break too. Spirituality really helps me. Trying to have things be nice for my family for as long as possible. Light to you.
It doesn't have to be the end of the world to be the end of me. 2500 million also seems a little low on the casualty end given the prospects of simultaneous multi-breadbasket crop failures. Even beyond that, I'm hearing papers are en route giving 8⁰ ECS from palaeoclimate data, so various projections may need serious recalibration if those pan out.
I'm operating under the assumption that I have about 10 to 15 years left of something that isn't a complete absolute hellscape nightmare of a life. Really about half of that would be nice to get, the other half would be bonus. None of us are ready for what's coming, even those of us who understand.
I don’t have any way to guess how long, but for me, the fascist political threat is what I suspect is most likely to back me into a corner that I won’t dare be taken alive from at some unpredictable point in time. The ecological etc. breakdown will surely drive a political one at some no later point.
Thank you for the report.