Not all places on earth are experiencing global warming at the same rate. Let’s consider the U.S., the “lower 48 states.” Taking data from NOAA for the 344 climate divisions in this region, and computing the linear trend rate for each, we can see differences between different parts of the USA, with red dots for warming and blue for cooling, larger dots faster and smaller dots more slowly:
I’ve launched a new blog. I’m not abandoning this one, just starting another.
The “YES” stands for “Youth Education in Science” because it’s about educating youth (including youthful 100-year-olds if they wish) about the science.
I can use help, in many ways. One is to visit the blog and drive up traffic. That’s an odd request because at the moment there’s only one post and it’s just a “welcome” — no science yet.
Another is to participate in comment threads. Answer questions. There’s quite a bit of knowledge among regular readers here, share it with others. Do be advised that the standard for civil discussion will be unbelievably high.
I will also, eventually, welcome guest posts. There’s certainly no hurry … I haven’t even made a scientific post myself yet.
And, anything you can do to spread the word will help.
As usual, donations to this blog will also help. I’ve decided not to solicit donations on the ClimateYES blog, I just want to keep it informative.
As I say, no need to hurry. But … think about it.
This blog is made possible by readers like you; join others by donating at My Wee Dragon
Sea level isn’t just rising, it is accelerating. It did so during the 20th century, and has done so even more quite recently. ABC news reported the story, based on just-published research (Nerem et al. 2018), that the latest satellite data now show it plainly. The authors of the new study conclude:
When taken with a rate of sea-level rise of 2.9 ± 0.4 mm/y (epoch 2005.0), the extrapolation of the quadratic gives 654 ± 119 mm of sea-level rise by 2100 relative to 2005, which is similar to the processed-based model projections of sea level for representative concentration pathways 8.5 in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Stated alternatively, the observed acceleration will more than double the amount of sea-level rise by 2100 compared with the current rate of sea-level rise continuing unchanged.
Sheldon Walker commented on my most recent post about his most recent post. It began thus:
Sheldon Walker | February 7, 2018 at 12:10 am | Reply
Sheldon Walker: Oh, oh, I see, running away then. You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what’s coming to you. I’ll bite your legs off!
I’ve got to give you credit; you do have a sense of humor.
A reader asked for the actual rates at which various global temperature data sets (featured in this post) are increasing, after one removes the estimated impact of ENSO (the el Niño southern oscillation), volcanic eruptions, and solar variations.
I welcome such requests, but caution strongly that I can’t fill them all, or even most of them. It’s too much work. But in this case, it’s a pretty simple request and I’ll go for it.
Global sea level before the satellite era is estimated from individual tide gauge records, which are combined to reconstruct a global average. One of the reconstructions climate deniers love best is from Jevrejeva et al., and the reason is obvious: because it gives a result they like.
But there are problems with the methodology used by Jevrejeva et al. HUGE problems.
One of the myths about temperature data is the ludicrous notion that the data for atmospheric temperature from satellites are better than the surface data from thermometers. We’ve heard this from people who should know better, like John Christy and Judith Curry, and climate denier politicians like Ted Cruz. The problem is, it just ain’t so.
But before I get to that —
I know I’ve posted about the “pause that never was” quite a bit lately, and how desperate climate deniers are to hold on to this figment of their imagination. I can’t help but share with you the most revealing comment about the “pause that never was” that I’ve seen in a long time (maybe ever). In a post on the WUWT blog about the latest satellite data from UAH, the very first comment was this:
RH February 1, 2018 at 10:03 am
Do we start a new pause? Or does the temperature lower enough to continue the old pause?
God forbid you should wait for enough actual data before declaring a new pause. Even if this is a case of “Poe’s Law,” it worked … as the follow-up comments illustrate. Climate deniers aren’t just desperate. They’re delusional.