Science & Technology News

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Not even close. I used the same cursory check I use for any scientist when checking their validity, which has both advantages and disadvantages.

Apparently, you're unable to distinguish a conflict of interest even in your support for such a poorly credentialed scientist.

Here are some actual numbers, comparing S. Koonin to the denialist's favorite whipping-boy, M. Mann.


Koonin

Publications............................247
H-index...................................38
Citations..............................6065
Highly influential citations.........122

https://www.semanticscholar.org/auth...oonin/91621348

Mann

Publications................................933
H-index......................................207
Citations...............................186912
Highly influential citations.........11338

https://www.semanticscholar.org/auth...Mann/144979479

Should be additionally mentioned Koonin is 15 years older than Mann.


That would be 'checkmate' regarding Koonin's 'staturesqueness', though I'm aware that in the 'minds' of some this is just further 'proof' of the corruption and manipulation infecting the scientific establishment world-wide.

Leaving aside (mostly) the typical schoolboy innuendo.

No innuendo needed, since you apparently just confirmed what the crank denialist scientist's sketchy publisher advertised, namely . . .

Originally Posted by Exile

"more than 200 peer-reviewed papers in the fields of physics and astrophysics, scientific computation, energy technology and policy, and climate science"

https://benbellabooks.com/authors/koonin-steven-e/

Unless your logic would lead you to prohibit a marine diesel tech from replacing your boat engine solely because he had "only" done the job 200 times instead of another mechanic's 900 times. There's nothing I'm aware of in Mann's credentials either, btw, that suggests he lacks professional expertise. Ditto for any qualified scientist in the relevant field for that matter.

Nope, this is yet another vivid demonstration that all the nasty rep-bashing, name-calling, and indictment-by-innuendo leveled against climate scientists (and anyone else who agrees) is all about their opinions and nothing more. This is also true, of course, for some of the higher profile scientists like Mann who promote the mainstream positions, but it can't compete with the hostility, defamation, and -- worst of all -- suppression of independent scientific inquiry that occasions the toxic politics surrounding this important issue.

Welcome to the world of the angry, authoritarian Left, where not even a scientist appointed to serve a US president who famously declared the climate debate "over" can escape its wrath. And you still wonder why so many people not obsessed with their own personal politics and ideology remain skeptical??

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

.



Not even close. I used the same cursory check I use for any scientist when checking their validity, which has both advantages and disadvantages.

Apparently, you're unable to distinguish a conflict of interest even in your support for such a poorly credentialed scientist.

Here are some actual numbers, comparing S. Koonin to the denialist's favorite whipping-boy, M. Mann.


Koonin

Publications............................247
H-index...................................38
Citations..............................6065
Highly influential citations.........122

https://www.semanticscholar.org/auth...oonin/91621348

Mann

Publications................................933
H-index......................................207
Citations...............................186912
Highly influential citations.........11338

https://www.semanticscholar.org/auth...Mann/144979479

Should be additionally mentioned Koonin is 15 years older than Mann.


That would be 'checkmate' regarding Koonin's 'staturesqueness', though I'm aware that in the 'minds' of some this is just further 'proof' of the corruption and manipulation infecting the scientific establishment world-wide.

Leaving aside (mostly) the typical schoolboy innuendo.



To avoid beating a dead horse, Yep.

How about comparing apples to apples
Koonin is a theoretical physicist
Mann is a geologist.

How about comparing your God Mann against Tim bell an actual climatologist?

Let's see he won in an actual court case brought against him by Mann.
But I'm sure you will try to defame him he's a skeptic.

[Lake-Effect]

We can safely leave the deniers and inactivists to entertain each other for a bit, with their handful of champions and their poring over personal stats like they were baseball cards. After all, they're obsessed with the public debate which, if CF is any gauge, is really just a series of gang scuffles, with projectiles furnished by political and corporate influencers. This isn't science, and not how or where science is done.

Back on the subject of cities, here's a discussion of the efficiencies of city density, and the paradox of how a progressive mecca (San Francisco) becomes unaffordable and resistant to change (NIMBYs etc).

– one major solution to both the housing crisis and the climate crisis has been met with fierce resistance: building more.

Climate scientists and urban planners increasingly suggest that one of the most impactful ways to slash greenhouse gas emissions is to make cities denser. This change, scientists have calculated, is even more impactful than installing solar panels on all new constructions or retrofitting old buildings with energy-saving technologies. Residents of cities like San Francisco, Chicago, New York and Minneapolis already have much lower carbon footprints than in the surrounding suburban sprawl. City dwellers tend to have smaller apartments that require less energy to heat and cool.

Most European cities were established before the dominance of the automobile, and they continue to be more efficient, walkable/bikable... and usually score higher for quality of life.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Exile

Useless a-logical drivel....And you still wonder why so many people not obsessed with their own personal politics and ideology remain skeptical??

Except we weren't talking about number of papers published, under discussion was the relative strength of Koonins credentials. Typical dishonest use of a logic trick.

I wonder not at all why you remain a denier, even though you want to hide behind the "so many people" rubric.

Originally Posted by newhaul

How about comparing apples to apples
Koonin is a theoretical physicist
Mann is a geologist.

How about comparing your God Mann against Tim bell an actual climatologist?

Let's see he won in an actual court case brought against him by Mann.
But I'm sure you will try to defame him he's a skeptic.

You mean this 'Tim bell'?

"Timothy John Leigh Bell, Baron Bell (18 October 1941 – 25 August 2019), was a British advertising and public relations executive, best known for his advisory role in Margaret Thatcher's three successful general election campaigns and his co-founding and 30 years of heading Bell Pottinger."


Or are you referring to this 'Tim Ball'?

"Timothy Francis Ball (born November 5, 1938) is a Canadian public speaker and writer who was a professor in the Department of Geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1971 until his retirement in 1996. Ball then became very active in promoting climate change denial, giving public talks and writing opinion pieces and letters to the editor for Canadian newspapers. He has been a member of energy industry funded lobbying groups, and wrote for the climate change denial website Tech Central Station."


Ball in no way 'won in an actual court case', rightfully brought against him by Mann for libel. A brief summation of the details.


"The Frontier Centre for Public Policy's web site published a February 2011 interview, in which Ball told an anonymous interviewer that Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, "should be in the State Pen, not Penn State". This referred to Mann's role in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Mann then sued Ball and Frontier Centre for libel, and stated that he was seeking punitive damages and for the article to be removed from the web site. On 7 June 2019 the Frontier Centre For Public Policy published a retraction and apology and settled their part of the case with Mann. On 21 March 2019 Tim Ball had applied to the court to dismiss the action for delay, this request was granted at a hearing on 22 August 2019, and court costs were awarded to Ball. The actual defamation claims were not judged, but instead the case was dismissed due to delay by Mann's legal team."


Though it would be enlightening and perhaps entertaining fpr those not familiar with the "actual climatologist's" (spoiler alert; he's not, he has a PhD in geography, with a specific focus on historical climatology) antics in prevaricatory behavior.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Ball

As for the actual comparison, since I showed you the tool, why don't you use it yourself?

https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/T.-Ball/40576748

To summarize, Ball's credentials are even worse than Koonin's, with 33 publications, an H index of 14, 1037 citations and 56 highly influental citations.

That you don't seem to know about the level of real debate going on only serves to make one at least wonder, what is your point? Of course this is a rhetorical question, as your motives seem quite transparent enough.

Must apologize for this bit of coyness, from post 2393.

What is apparent is that 'the point', for at least one of these posters, is to

A. post controversial and often irrelevant or off-topic messages with the intention of (or anticipated result of) baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal, harmonious on-topic discussion, especially when a pattern of such posting is apparent.

B. post libelous remarks or directly misleading information in hopes of inciting thread-ending vitriol.

Sad to say, but my responses to them are, for now at least, ended.

As 'they' say, 'feeding the wildlife' can have negative consequences.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

We can safely leave the deniers and inactivists to entertain each other for a bit, with their handful of champions and their poring over personal stats like they were baseball cards. After all, they're obsessed with the public debate which, if CF is any gauge, is really just a series of gang scuffles, with projectiles furnished by political and corporate influencers. This isn't science, and not how or where science is done.

Back on the subject of cities, here's a discussion of the efficiencies of city density, and the paradox of how a progressive mecca (San Francisco) becomes unaffordable and resistant to change (NIMBYs etc).

– one major solution to both the housing crisis and the climate crisis has been met with fierce resistance: building more.

Climate scientists and urban planners increasingly suggest that one of the most impactful ways to slash greenhouse gas emissions is to make cities denser. This change, scientists have calculated, is even more impactful than installing solar panels on all new constructions or retrofitting old buildings with energy-saving technologies. Residents of cities like San Francisco, Chicago, New York and Minneapolis already have much lower carbon footprints than in the surrounding suburban sprawl. City dwellers tend to have smaller apartments that require less energy to heat and cool.

Most European cities were established before the dominance of the automobile, and they continue to be more efficient, walkable/bikable... and usually score higher for quality of life.

All this, thankfully, gives a slight glimmer of hope towards avoiding catastrophe.

It will be 'a long row to hoe', but with a groundswell of public awareness and effort worldwide, things could turn out a lot better than it appears they will now.

Here's a take from Kevin Anderson, logically and validly addressing some of the IPCC's political inanities. In case you don't know him, he's the 'real deal'; 10 years as an engineer building oil platforms in the North Sea, now, refuses to fly, uses public transport, apparently has what some would call sketchy personal hygiene habits, etc.


"Kevin Anderson is Professor of Energy and Climate Change in the School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering at the University of Manchester and is a former Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He is research active with recent publications in Climate Policy, Royal Society journals, Nature and Science. He engages widely across all tiers of government; from reporting on aviation-related emissions to the EU Parliament, advising the Prime Minister's office on Carbon Trading and having contributed to the development of the UK's Climate Change Act.

With his colleague Alice Larkin, Kevin's work on carbon budgets has been pivotal in revealing the widening gulf between political rhetoric on climate change and the reality of rapidly escalating emissions. His work makes clear that there is now little chance of maintaining the rise in global temperature at below 2C, despite repeated high-level statements to the contrary. Moreover, Kevin's research demonstrates how avoiding even a 4C rise demands a radical reframing of both the climate change agenda and the economic characterisation of contemporary society.

Kevin has a decade of industrial experience, principally in the petrochemical industry. He is a chartered engineer and fellow of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and is a Director of Greenstone Carbon Management."


Production quality is pretty bad, but one gets the gist...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzDW...fjJ3lQ&index=1

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Except we weren't talking about number of papers published, under discussion was the relative strength of Koonins credentials. Typical dishonest use of a logic trick.

I wonder not at all why you remain a denier, even though you want to hide behind the "so many people" rubric.



You mean this 'Tim bell'?

"Timothy John Leigh Bell, Baron Bell (18 October 1941 – 25 August 2019), was a British advertising and public relations executive, best known for his advisory role in Margaret Thatcher's three successful general election campaigns and his co-founding and 30 years of heading Bell Pottinger."


Or are you referring to this 'Tim Ball'?

"Timothy Francis Ball (born November 5, 1938) is a Canadian public speaker and writer who was a professor in the Department of Geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1971 until his retirement in 1996. Ball then became very active in promoting climate change denial, giving public talks and writing opinion pieces and letters to the editor for Canadian newspapers. He has been a member of energy industry funded lobbying groups, and wrote for the climate change denial website Tech Central Station."


Ball in no way 'won in an actual court case', rightfully brought against him by Mann for libel. A brief summation of the details.


"The Frontier Centre for Public Policy's web site published a February 2011 interview, in which Ball told an anonymous interviewer that Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, "should be in the State Pen, not Penn State". This referred to Mann's role in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Mann then sued Ball and Frontier Centre for libel, and stated that he was seeking punitive damages and for the article to be removed from the web site. On 7 June 2019 the Frontier Centre For Public Policy published a retraction and apology and settled their part of the case with Mann. On 21 March 2019 Tim Ball had applied to the court to dismiss the action for delay, this request was granted at a hearing on 22 August 2019, and court costs were awarded to Ball. The actual defamation claims were not judged, but instead the case was dismissed due to delay by Mann's legal team."


Though it would be enlightening and perhaps entertaining fpr those not familiar with the "actual climatologist's" (spoiler alert; he's not, he has a PhD in geography, with a specific focus on historical climatology) antics in prevaricatory behavior.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Ball

As for the actual comparison, since I showed you the tool, why don't you use it yourself?

https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/T.-Ball/40576748

To summarize, Ball's credentials are even worse than Koonin's, with 33 publications, an H index of 14, 1037 citations and 56 highly influental citations.




Must apologize for this bit of coyness, from post 2393.

What is apparent is that 'the point', for at least one of these posters, is to

A. post controversial and often irrelevant or off-topic messages with the intention of (or anticipated result of) baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal, harmonious on-topic discussion, especially when a pattern of such posting is apparent.

B. post libelous remarks or directly misleading information in hopes of inciting thread-ending vitriol.

Sad to say, but my responses to them are, for now at least, ended.

As 'they' say, 'feeding the wildlife' can have negative consequences.




All this, thankfully, gives a slight glimmer of hope towards avoiding catastrophe.

It will be 'a long row to hoe', but with a groundswell of public awareness and effort worldwide, things could turn out a lot better than it appears they will now.

Here's a take from Kevin Anderson, logically and validly addressing some of the IPCC's political inanities. In case you don't know him, he's the 'real deal'; 10 years as an engineer building oil platforms in the North Sea, now, refuses to fly, uses public transport, apparently has what some would call sketchy personal hygiene habits, etc.


"Kevin Anderson is Professor of Energy and Climate Change in the School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering at the University of Manchester and is a former Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He is research active with recent publications in Climate Policy, Royal Society journals, Nature and Science. He engages widely across all tiers of government; from reporting on aviation-related emissions to the EU Parliament, advising the Prime Minister's office on Carbon Trading and having contributed to the development of the UK's Climate Change Act.

With his colleague Alice Larkin, Kevin's work on carbon budgets has been pivotal in revealing the widening gulf between political rhetoric on climate change and the reality of rapidly escalating emissions. His work makes clear that there is now little chance of maintaining the rise in global temperature at below 2C, despite repeated high-level statements to the contrary. Moreover, Kevin's research demonstrates how avoiding even a 4C rise demands a radical reframing of both the climate change agenda and the economic characterisation of contemporary society.

Kevin has a decade of industrial experience, principally in the petrochemical industry. He is a chartered engineer and fellow of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and is a Director of Greenstone Carbon Management."


Production quality is pretty bad, but one gets the gist...

Typographical error Tim Ball the historical climatologist.

Now can we change to omitting that is not just

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Except we weren't talking about number of papers published, under discussion was the relative strength of Koonins credentials.

Oh, I see. My mistake. I guess I'll have to continue waiting then for any "discussion" that suggests Koonin's professional credentials disqualify him from rendering an expert opinion. Without this, I'm afraid the only consistent distinction anyone can draw between scientists who dissent from the various mainstream positions on CC is just that -- that their opinions dissent.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

I'm afraid the only consistent distinction anyone can draw between scientists who dissent from the various mainstream positions on CC is just that -- that their opinions dissent.

Well, we can also observe that the dissenting opinions are often for different reasons; it's not like there's one or two competing theories that are anywhere near as well-supported scientifically as the dominant position. And often the dissenting opinions don't support each other, or even disagree with each other. Which is perfectly fine. I believe that the credible points of dissent have already been taken into account by the experts in the field; the fact that some people want to re-litigate them in public does not necessarily mean that they didn't receive due consideration where it actually mattered.

As pointed out previously, there's likely as much or more qualified dissent claiming that NGOs like IPCC have deliberately downplayed the seriousness of the looming crisis, than there is claiming that it's overblown. When the decided conclusion has roughly the same number of dissatisfaction on both sides of it... that's often a pretty good indication that the conclusion is close to being the right one.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Well, we can also observe that the dissenting opinions are often for different reasons; it's not like there's one or two competing theories that are anywhere near as well-supported scientifically as the dominant position. And often the dissenting opinions don't support each other, or even disagree with each other. Which is perfectly fine. I believe that the credible points of dissent have already been taken into account by the experts in the field; the fact that some people want to re-litigate them in public does not necessarily mean that they didn't receive due consideration where it actually mattered.

As pointed out previously, there's likely as much or more qualified dissent claiming that NGOs like IPCC have deliberately downplayed the seriousness of the looming crisis, than there is claiming that it's overblown. When the decided conclusion has roughly the same number of dissatisfaction on both sides of it... that's often a pretty good indication that the conclusion is close to being the right one.

I can't say that any of this is untrue, only that it relies on large assumptions that you haven't supported with any substance or facts -- esp. the bolded part. My last little (cursory) foray into the latest IPCC report suggests that contrarian positions were being ignored, not already taken into account. This observation is also in accord with the complaints of the more high-profile scientists/skeptics themselves. As for dissenting opinions not agreeing with each other, I'm not sure what you have in mind but you may be mistaking inconsistency for scientific unknowns. But as to your last point, splitting the baby (if you will) is the stuff of politics not science. The IPCC should be able to honestly synthesize and report the "state of the science" and not be vulnerable to compromise in either direction.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

My last little (cursory) foray into the latest IPCC report suggests that contrarian positions were being ignored, not already taken into account. This observation is also in accord with the complaints of the more high-profile scientists/skeptics themselves.

The dissenters certainly have more money and influence behind them . We can't say with any authority that the few "high profile" (aka well publicized) skeptics are more numerous than the experts who think that the public message isn't sharp enough.

...
But as to your last point, splitting the baby (if you will) is the stuff of politics not science. The IPCC should be able to honestly synthesize and report the "state of the science" and not be vulnerable to compromise in either direction.

The IPCC's mandate is not to decide whether the climate crisis warrants action or not. It was formed because there was (and still is) consensus (... everyone drink!) from the subject matter experts that climate change is serious and warrants a coordinated response. The IPCC's job is to facilitate and support the response. They're not a court.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The dissenters certainly have more money and influence behind them .

Not sure if you're being facetious here or not, but this is yet another assumption that sounds absurd.

We can't say with any authority that the few "high profile" (aka well publicized) skeptics are more numerous than the experts who think that the public message isn't sharp enough.

Back to polling huh.

The IPCC's mandate is not to decide whether the climate crisis warrants action or not. It was formed because there was (and still is) consensus (... everyone drink!) from the subject matter experts that climate change is serious and warrants a coordinated response. The IPCC's job is to facilitate and support the response. They're not a court.

Good observation. No they're not. And they're not supposed to be influenced by political compromise, such as that which would be required if they reached their conclusions by compromising between 'doomist' scientists who believe they're not doing enough, and more moderate factions and skeptics who believe they're overly alarmist. Wasn't that the (rather bizarre) point you just posted? Can you substantiate this, or have you perhaps already had too much to drink?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Good observation. No they're not. And they're not supposed to be influenced by political compromise, such as that which would be required if they reached their conclusions by compromising between 'doomist' scientists who believe they're not doing enough, and more moderate factions and skeptics who believe they're overly alarmist. Wasn't that the (rather bizarre) point you just posted? Can you substantiate this, or have you perhaps already had too much to drink?

I fear you spinnaker pole has been shoved up higher than I first suspected.

[GordMay]

“Joint NASA, NOAA Study Finds Earth's Energy Imbalance Has Doubled”

Researchers have found [1] that Earth’s energy imbalance approximately doubled, during the 14-year period from 2005 to 2019.

Earth's climate is determined by a delicate balance between how much of the Sun's radiative energy is absorbed in the atmosphere, and at the surface, and how much thermal infrared radiation Earth emits to space. A positive energy imbalance means the Earth system is gaining energy, causing the planet to heat up.

Scientists at NASA and NOAA compared data from two independent measurements. NASA's Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) suite of satellite sensors measure how much energy enters and leaves Earth's system. In addition, data from a global array of ocean floats, called Argo, enable an accurate estimate of the rate at which the world’s oceans are heating up. Since approximately 90 percent of the excess energy from an energy imbalance ends up in the ocean, the overall trends of incoming and outgoing radiation should broadly agree with changes in ocean heat content.

Increases in emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, due to human activity, trap heat in the atmosphere, capturing outgoing radiation, that would otherwise escape into space.
The warming drives other changes, such as snow and ice melt, and increased water vapor, and cloud changes, that can further enhance the warming.
Earth’s energy imbalance is the net effect of all these factors.
In order to determine the primary factors driving the imbalance, the investigators used a method that looked at changes in clouds, water vapor, combined contributions from trace gases, and the output of light from the Sun, surface albedo (the amount of light reflected by the Earth's surface), tiny atmospheric particles called aerosols, and changes in surface and atmospheric temperature distributions.

The study [1] finds that the doubling of the imbalance is partially the result an increase in greenhouse gases, due to human activity, also known as anthropogenic forcing, along with increases in water vapor, are trapping more outgoing longwave radiation, further contributing to Earth’s energy imbalance. Additionally, the related decrease in clouds and sea ice lead to more absorption of solar energy.

The researchers also found that a flip of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), from a cool phase to a warm phase, likely played a major role in the intensification of the energy imbalance.
The PDO is a pattern of Pacific climate variability. Its fingerprint includes a massive wedge of water, in the eastern Pacific, that goes through cool and warm phases. This naturally occurring internal variability in the Earth system can have far-reaching effects on weather and climate. An intensely warm PDO phase, that began around 2014, and continued until 2020, caused a widespread reduction in cloud coverage over the ocean, and a corresponding increase in the absorption of solar radiation.

It's likely a mix of anthropogenic forcing and internal variability, and over this period they're both causing warming, which leads to a fairly large change in Earth's energy imbalance.
The magnitude of the increase is unprecedented.

The study is only a snapshot, relative to long-term climate change, and it's not possible to predict, with any certainty, what the coming decades might look like, for the balance of Earth's energy budget.
The study does conclude, however, that unless the rate of heat uptake subsides, greater changes in climate, than are already occurring, should be expected.

The lengthening, and highly complementary records, from Argo and CERES have allowed us both to pin down Earth’s energy imbalance with increasing accuracy, and to study its variations and trends with increasing insight, as time goes on.
Observing the magnitude and variations of this energy imbalance are vital to understanding Earth’s changing climate.

[1] “Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate” ~ by Norman G. Loeb et al

Plain Language Summary
Climate is determined by how much of the sun's energy the Earth absorbs and how much energy Earth sheds through emission of thermal infrared radiation. Their sum determines whether Earth heats up or cools down. Continued increases in concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and the long time-scales time required for the ocean, cryosphere, and land to come to thermal equilibrium with those increases result in a net gain of energy, hence warming, on Earth. Most of this excess energy (about 90%) warms the ocean, with the remainder heating the land, melting snow and ice, and warming the atmosphere. Here we compare satellite observations of the net radiant energy absorbed by Earth with a global array of measurements used to determine heating within the ocean, land and atmosphere, and melting of snow and ice. We show that these two independent approaches yield a decadal increase in the rate of energy uptake by Earth from mid-2005 through mid-2019, which we attribute to decreased reflection of energy back into space by clouds and sea-ice and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases and water vapor ...

Full Study ➥ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2021GL093047

PDF ➥ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2021GL093047

[newhaul]

Well today just got interesting. The planet seems to be cooling .

https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2anom

Notice the anomaly wrt the 1979 to 2000 period that they use.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Well today just got interesting. The planet seems to be cooling .

https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2anom

Notice the anomaly wrt the 1979 to 2000 period that they use.

In your own words, please tell us what we're looking at, and the importance of what it is showing.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

In your own words, please tell us what we're looking at, and the importance of what it is showing.

Pretty self explanatory just read the numbers . It is at 0.0°C anomaly wrt the 1979 to 2000 baseline .
Then there is this statement from the NSIDC
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Sea ice loss during the first half of August stalled, though ice in the Beaufort Sea is finally starting to weaken. The Northern Sea Route appears*closed off in 2021, despite being open each summer since 2008.