Year-End 2023

The year 2023 was a doozy.

The news started to heat up when the planet recorded its hottest June in history. Then came July, and the news burst into flames because not only was it the hottest July in history, it was the hottest month in history, and perhaps the hottest month in 120,000 years. It turns out Earth tends to be hottest in July; with most of its land area in the northern hemisphere, the global average tends to follow our northern-hemisphere seasons.

Then August was the hottest August in history, September the hottest September in history, October the hottest October, November the hottest November, and December the hottest December in history. September was, for scientists, most remarkable because it was the hottest temperature anomaly in history. Anomaly is the difference between a given month’s temperature and its average during some reference period, which represents how different the month is from “normal” — and September was farther from normal than any month yet seen. In the scientific nomenclature coined by climate scientist Zeke Hausfather, it was “absolutely gobsmackingly bananas.”


The heat wasn’t just felt in the news. Heat waves struck around the globe, in some cases rather remarkable heat waves, like in Arizona. The city of Phoenix has always been hot in July, but this year they reached 110°F for 31 days in a row! Meanwhile, the whole state of Arizona had a July which didn’t just break the record, it obliterated it:

Of course, that didn’t stop idiots and liars from setting new records for stupidity/dishonesty with statements like “This weather is normal.” No, it’s not, AZ Republican state senator Justine Wadsack.

As for wildfires, it wasn’t a terrible year in the USA or in Australia, a repeat of what we’ve seen in the recent past. That’s because it was Canada’s turn. They didn’t suffer that many wildfires in 2023, but boy oh boy did those fires burn big; Canada saw more than twice the burn area of any previous year, and here in the USA, a lot of us were breathing the smoke from the fires scorching our neighbor to the north.

The weather in the USA went a bit off the rails in 2023; we saw more billion-dollar weather disasters (even allowing for inflation) than any previous year. It wasn’t the costliest year due to weather; that usually happens when one or a few exceptionally huge disasters (usually hurricanes) wreak destruction. But even though none of 2023’s weather disasters fell in the “exceptionally huge” category, there were so many of them that the year’s weather cost put another sizeable dent in our economy. Most worrisome, both the number of such disasters and the total cost are trending upward (with statistical significance).

This was also the year that James Hansen, arguably the world’s best-known climate scientist (the Godfather of climate science?), published another paper with numerous colleagues claiming some rather remarkable things, not all of which I agree with. He has caused quite a stir in the scientific community with two claims in particular: first, that global warming has accelerated recently so the rate of warming now is faster than it was over the last several decades; and second, that our chance to keep global warming below the 1.5°C threshold is “deader than a doornail.”

Lately, Hansen seems to promote ideas which are hard to swallow scientifically, but he has turned out to be right often enough, that one is ill-advised to dismiss him out of hand. As for acceleration, we all seem to agree that there is evidence of it but we disagree on whether or not the evidence is conclusive. As for our chances to stay within the 1.5°C threshold, some point out that there’s no physical reason we can’t do it, we just need to institute massive greenhouse-gas emissions cuts right away. Others point out that there’s no way we’re going to institute enough emissions cuts soon enough, and that 1.5°C is dead for socio-political, not physical, reasons.

In other climate news, we witnessed COP28, the 28th “Conference Of the Parties” to address the climate change problem. This time it was hosted in Abu Dhabi, and led by the CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company. In moves which are heralded by some as marking a genuine breakthrough, they finally agreed to admit to the need to “transition away from fossil fuels,” while others were highly critical of the wheelings-and-dealings going on behind the scenes, among the truly vast number of participants who were there to represent the fossil fuel industry.

Meanwhile, CO2 emissions keep rising and so does the amount of CO2 in the air:


You can support this blog. Please
donate at my wee dragon

18 responses to “Year-End 2023

  1. The CO2 curve looks like the quadratic component at least is gone, though it doesn’t yet seem to be negative.

    • Yeah, it “looks like” the curve may have gone linear but I’d love to see a statistician do the calculations on this. I took a look at CO2.earth to check the growth rates and they show this, for the decades since 1961:

      2011 – 2020 2.43
      2001 – 2010 2.04
      1991 – 2000 1.55
      1981 – 1990 1.56
      1971 – 1980 1.35
      1961 – 1970 0.91

  2. This is doong the rounds on Mastodon in the last couple days. I thought it interesting at least and she speaks to the “hot models” that quite a few climate scientists seem keen to ignore, including Gavin Schmidt etal

    [Response: I am acquainted with quite a few climate scientists, including Gavin Schmidt, and none of them are “keen to ignore the hot models.”]

    • Susan Anderson

      Thank you Tamino! So sick of the endless arguing.

    • Speaking of climate scientists who “seem to ignore” important information, you might check out Gavin’s comments on Spencer’s new Heritage Foundation “science” on Gavin et. al.’s Realclimate site. That is an example of using every principle from a Propaganda 101 course syllabus like throwing out inconvenient data, restricting the analysis to parts of the year, selecting “hot” models and deselecting “cool” models, misreporting of means, “accidentally” neglecting to report variation and confidence intervals, and outright lies (like about which models are actually used for predictive purposes and which are not).

  3. [Response: I am acquainted with quite a few climate scientists, including Gavin Schmidt, and none of them are “keen to ignore the hot models.”]

    Could you please prove that?

    • What must Tamino prove to you? That he knows “quite a few” climate scientists, and none are ignoring the hot models? How many climate scientists, his published peers, do you suppose he knows? Are you asking him to prove that Gavin Schmidt isn’t ignoring hot models? Commenter jgnfld supplied the link to Dr. Schmidt’s analysis:

      “Whoops: Link here https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/spencers-shenanigans/

      Prof. Andrew Dessler isn’t ignoring the hot models either: https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/revisiting-the-hot-model-problem

      But forget “proof”! If you had scientific training, you’d know that proof is for mathematics and distilled beverages, not natural science.

    • Although answers to Mal’s questions about what SVP wants Tamino to prove would be illuminating, I’d be more interested in hearing whether SVP wants proof from Trevor for his claim that “she speaks to the “hot models” that quite a few climate scientists seem keen to ignore, including Gavin Schmidt etal

      I suspect that SVP probably has a rather unbalanced perspective on what sort of things need “proof”.

  4. So what you people are saying is that me asking Tamino to prove HIS ASSERTION that the “quite a few climate scientists” he knows “none of them” not a single one are “keen to ignore the hot models” now rises the level of me seeking “scientific proof” that isn’t a thing and an example of me being hopeless at “inductive reasoning.”

    You sit and declare I am the one with the thinking and intelligence problem and I am the one who is “unbalanced.”

    Um, yeah sure guys. I’ll just cross to the other side of the street now, you please just carry on …. wow!

    Lovely visit … it was like a vacation in Maui

    [Response: I think what really upsets you is that you were so eager to believe some bullshit you heard about climate scientists wanting to ignore the hot models, that you simply couldn’t handle the prospect that the bullshit source from which you got this information lied to you.

    But they did, and you were oh so easily suckered.

    Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.]

  5. Right. So Tamino, you’re now believe you can read my mind and see my past, and also know my intentions. All from asking a simple direct question about what you stated yourself.

    For I have heard of no one telling me any such thing. All I heard was your claim here on this site. No others. You are standing on very thin ice, and are making yourself look very foolish and desperately playing “mind games” as opposed to having an Open Mind. You are bordering on delusional and paranoid.

    Over a simple question to your blog? Seriously? As they say in the classic “The Lady doth protest way too much.” When all you needed to do was address the question, and possibly even answer it directly. But you left to your resident groupies instead.

    Yet can you even name those climate scientists you speak of? Seems not. I will go ask them myself if you are incapable of supporting your own (non-scientific) public claims.

    Admit it, it was a meaningless throw away line that spilled from the depths of your mind not knowing from whence it came? Now you just look like a childish immature trolling fool. My god man, what a waste of space.

    [Response: I think readers can judge for themselves, who it is who looks like a childish immature trolling fool.]

  6. PS I only now noticed this little comment
    “Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.”

    What a small minded little prick you are Tamino.

    As they say in the classics – Go Fuck Yourself you egotistical and arrogant and mentally challenged little creep.

  7. You’re a fool Tamino. And a piss weak coward.

  8. *Yawn* Whatever your point might be, SVP, you just proved that it takes one to know one.

  9. SVP raises some very pertinent points!

    Unless:
    1 – I see affidavits from all the scientists you claim to know, Tamino, confirming you really are acquaintances
    2 – AND 24/7 CCTV (not some fancy easily fakeable and boring scientific papers or posts in scientific blogs – CCTV preferably collected from a satellite please, we all know ONLY satellite data is reliable) proving that said climate scientists are not just ignoring all the hot models.
    3 – Said evidence in points 1 and 2 provided not later than 10 working days counting from today
    4 – Said evidence in point 1 and 2 not dated earlier than 1st day of 2023/24 financial year

    YOUR ASSERTION is nothing more than salacious slander against what’s his name who posted somewhere something about quite a few of them ignoring hot models!
    OUTRAGEOUS!

    TAMINO, you creep! Stop being such a weak coward and prove it!!!
    Head my demands you fool! This is so upsetting!

  10. PS
    Head or heed? Stop confusing me with your perfidious “mind games”!

  11. ” I think readers can judge for themselves, who it is who looks like a childish immature trolling fool.”

    Oh, I know! I know! Pick me! Pick me!

    I notice that SVP still has not requested that Trevor provide any “proof” of his assertion.