Hmmmmm, or not ~cr
Kyle Clem, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington
Climate scientists long thought Antarctica’s interior may not be very sensitive to warming, but our research, published today, shows a dramatic change.
Over the past 30 years, the South Pole has been one of the fastest changing places on Earth, warming more than three times more rapidly than the rest of the world.
My colleagues and I argue these warming trends are unlikely the result of natural climate variability alone. The effects of human-made climate change appear to have worked in tandem with the significant influence natural variability in the tropics has on Antarctica’s climate. Together they make the South Pole warming one of the strongest warming trends on Earth.
The South Pole is not immune to warming
The South Pole lies within the coldest region on Earth: the Antarctic plateau. Average temperatures here range from -60℃ during winter to just -20℃ during summer.
Antarctica’s climate generally has a huge range in temperature over the course of a year, with strong regional contrasts. Most of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula were warming during the late 20th century. But the South Pole — in the remote and high-altitude continental interior — cooled until the 1980s.
Scientists have been tracking temperature at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, Earth’s southernmost weather observatory, since 1957. It is one of the longest-running complete temperature records on the Antarctic continent.
Our analysis of weather station data from the South Pole shows it has warmed by 1.8℃ between 1989 and 2018, changing more rapidly since the start of the 2000s. Over the same period, the warming in West Antarctica suddenly stopped and the Antarctic Peninsula began cooling.
One of the reasons for the South Pole warming was stronger low-pressure systems and stormier weather east of the Antarctic Peninsula in the Weddell Sea. With clockwise flow around the low-pressure systems, this has been transporting warm, moist air onto the Antarctic plateau.
South Pole warming linked to the tropics
Our study also shows the ocean in the western tropical Pacific started warming rapidly at the same time as the South Pole. We found nearly 20% of the year-to-year temperature variations at the South Pole were linked to ocean temperatures in the tropical Pacific, and several of the warmest years at the South Pole in the past two decades happened when the western tropical Pacific ocean was also unusually warm.
To investigate this possible mechanism, we performed a climate model experiment and found this ocean warming produces an atmospheric wave pattern that extends across the South Pacific to Antarctica. This results in a stronger low-pressure system in the Weddell Sea.
We know from earlier studies that strong regional variations in temperature trends are partly due to Antarctica’s shape.
The East Antarctic Ice Sheet, bordered by the South Atlantic and Indian oceans, extends further north than the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, in the South Pacific. This causes two distinctly different weather patterns with different climate impacts.
More steady, westerly winds around East Antarctica keep the local climate relatively stable, while frequent intense storms in the high-latitude South Pacific transport warm, moist air to parts of West Antarctica.
Scientists have suggested these two different weather patterns, and the mechanisms driving their variability, are the likely reason for strong regional variability in Antarctica’s temperature trends.
Read more: How solar heat drives rapid melting of parts of Antarctica’s largest ice shelf
What this means for the South Pole
Our analysis reveals extreme variations in South Pole temperatures can be explained in part by natural tropical variability.
To estimate the influence of human-induced climate change, we analysed more than 200 climate model simulations with observed greenhouse gas concentrations over the period between 1989 and 2018. These climate models show recent increases in greenhouse gases have possibly contributed around 1℃ of the total 1.8℃ of warming at the South Pole.
We also used the models to compare the recent warming rate to all possible 30-year South Pole temperature trends that would occur naturally without human influence. The observed warming exceeds 99.9% of all possible trends without human influence – and this means the recent warming is extremely unlikely under natural conditions, albeit not impossible. It appears the effects from tropical variability have worked together with increasing greenhouse gases, and the end result is one of the strongest warming trends on the planet.
These climate model simulations reveal the remarkable nature of South Pole temperature variations. The observed South Pole temperature, with measurements dating back to 1957, shows 30-year temperature swings ranging from more than 1℃ of cooling during the 20th century to more than 1.8℃ of warming in the past 30 years.
This means multi-decadal temperature swings are three times stronger than the estimated warming from human-caused climate change of around 1℃.
The temperature variability at the South Pole is so extreme it currently masks human-caused effects. The Antarctic interior is one of the few places left on Earth where human-caused warming cannot be precisely determined, which means it is a challenge to say whether, or for how long, the warming will continue.
But our study reveals extreme and abrupt climate shifts are part of the climate of Antarctica’s interior. These will likely continue into the future, working to either hide human-induced warming or intensify it when natural warming processes and the human greenhouse effect work in tandem.
Kyle Clem, Research Fellow in Climate Science, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/24/faster-than-everyplace-else/
It’s just like every school is above average. People can’t math anymore…
Wowee a whole 2c increase in the anomaly.
So Antarctica has warmed from Freeze Your A$$ Off cold to simply Freeze Your Nuts Off cold
Colder than a mother-in-law’s kiss.
as a colleague of mine would say during the winter: it’s colder than a whore’s tit.
However, in the summer he would claim it was hotter than a whore’s tit.
I think he was just a little bit too obsessed with the relative temperature of whore’s tits.
Gotta keep those big tits warm and stay as close to them as you can year round.
I usually say colder than a banker’s heart. My banker neighbor loved it.
I don’t think these sayings are correct. The point about witches was that they danced naked around the fire no matter the weather. Thus, “Colder than a witch’s tit,” became a popular comparison.
I admit to never having heard about something hot being attributed to witches or whores. I would volunteer that, “As hot as a N’Orleans sidewalk,” carries a lot of imagery including certain professions…
The Continent has not warmed 2c.
Only 1°C from the baseline? And that’s with 24 hour sunlight for more than three months! How is that possible?( it warms more than that in the first hour of sunrise at my house)
It averages -40°F in the summer, too -70° Fahrenheit in six months of winter with zero sunlight. That’s only 30° colder. even the coast line never gets above freezing… it’s obvious there’s something else going on here because it makes their models seem to be created by Disneyland.
At that rate all the ice will be gone before we all die of COVID-19 in just a few millennia.
thanks, you made me laugh!
“Everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else. ”
My thought exactly, when reading the header. 🙂
Me duth think that their have been changes in the type of thermometers used.
Everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else.
Which one would think leads to the conclusion that everywhere else is warming only half as fast.
That would fit with AGW’s circular reasoning.
Cherry picking; which is what this breed of
climate scientistclimate alarmist does best. They select data from a few weather stations on the continent and ignore the satellite data which covers the whole continent. Sound suspiciously like the Mann trick of discarding tree rings he doesn’t like.When you look at the UAH temperature data since 1979 from satellite telemetry since 1979, which covers all of Antarctica, there appears to be no warming trend whatsoever.
Graph of land temperatures measured by satellite for 60° to 90° south (Antarctica) from UAH over the last 40 years:
http://yburbs.com/uah-temp-all/uah-temp-all.html?ga=0&spl
You can also select other latitudes or global data and compare and contrast.
Very likely there is a lot of problems with a recording station at the S. Pole. Its height above the snow/ice can vary a lot and the device tends to end up under the snow, which can make it less sensitive and see larger swings. Sound familiar? Look at the graph. Well insulated the battery may actually heat the station. It would have to be restated regularly to be valid.
“a lot of problems with a recording station at the S. Pole”
Really, you’ve been there? what’s it like?
I have, although that was in the 70s. Colder than a witch’s tit in winter. And that was in one of the warmer areas, in summer.
Probably short sleeve weather by now. Go try it, pack light.
“Loydo June 30, 2020 at 7:59 pm
“a lot of problems with a recording station at the S. Pole”
Really, you’ve been there? what’s it like?”
People like Loydo think they are being smart when they make comments like this, and then they run in to people like you Glenn that actually have ventured out to places like Antarctica.
Every village has its idiot, and on WUWT it’s Loydo
“Cherry picking”, “They … ignore the satellite data…”, “no warming trend whatsoever”.
I thought the post is about the South Pole, but they even mention “Over the same period, the warming in West Antarctica suddenly stopped and the Antarctic Peninsula began cooling.” But I get it, reposting something like this here is not about the “study”.
Btw, you cherry picked, here’s one that isn’t:
http://yburbs.com/uah-temp-all/uah-temp-all.html?ga=0&spl
Well whaddya know?
I know that the plot you favor
http://yburbs.com/uah-temp-all/uah-temp-all.html?ga=0&spl
shows no South Polar warming trend at all since 1980.
Did you know that, Loydo? Or are you really so unable to read a graph?
I think that many people on here know that Loydo doesn’t know how to read a graph, and then some.
I think you could have ended your post 5 words earlier 😉
Mmm, thats odd, I just cut and pasted the temp-all plot address but it seems to default to the Southern Polar Land-plot. Oh well you’ll just have to go there and select ‘all’ yourself. ‘All’ because that is then no longer a cherry-pick…
Btw thankyou to the generous, kind-hearted souls who’ve taken the time and effort to help me out.
Loydo, without any query parameters, the page defaults to the Global Average, like this:
http://yburbs.com/uah-temp-all/uah-temp-all.html
If you add any query parameters (for example ?gl&go to show Global Land and Global Ocean) it will display the default Global Average and the other plots. To turn off the Global Average you have to use ga=0. For example, to display only Southern Hemisphere (all), you would use:
http://yburbs.com/uah-temp-all/uah-temp-all.html?ga=0&sa
Sorry to make it so complicated. I haven’t figured out yet how to update the address when you select a different plot in the legend.
Yeah it was the Global average I was trying to link to. Is that your page? Well done if it is.
Loydo. Well done for making a fool of yourself, again. There’s no warming trend in that graph
Loydo, I think you probably tried to show a different plot from that data but selecting a different plot from the legend on the right doesn’t update the link in the address bar. You have to create the link manually using the instructions at the bottom of the page. I created that page to make it easier to visualize all the UAH lower troposphere data and compare and contrast different latitudes and ocean and land data. It’s a work in progress. Also, the data is only through February 2020. I haven’t updated it to the latest (May 2020). Soon.
For example, to turn off the default Global Average and display only the Global Land plot:
http://yburbs.com/uah-temp-all/uah-temp-all.html?ga=0&gl
Or if you want to just display the Global Average (default):
http://yburbs.com/uah-temp-all/uah-temp-all.html
Could you re-post the graph you were trying to show? I’m curious to see.
Loydo: Thanks for confirming that there’s no warming trend.
Hoist on your own petard.
Yeah there is Graeme – the global trend.
After adjustments?
To the extent that there might be a trend, without doing any complex mathemagic, the range is approximately 1.2 C° in approx. 40 years (approx. -0.4 °C before 1980 to approx. 0.8 °C in 2020). That works out to a warming trend of approx. 0.03 °C/yr. Not sure it’s something I would get terribly alarmed over.
side note, if we (cherry)pick 1980 to make it an even 40 years, the range and trend are even lower.
Please show me the apocalypse.
“…an ensemble of climate models…” shows warming? U of Wellington must be looking for funding. And 3 trillion tonnes of ice loss over 25 years?
Do you think that would be a ‘net’ loss of ice Patrick, otherwise isn’t that statement pretty meaningless?
It is totally meaningless however, people who are fearful and easily lead, Loydo for instance, will believe the big scary numbers. Lets assume the average car weighs 1.5 tonnes. Three trillion tonnes is 1.5 trillion cars. It’s scary! But then they add “…over 25 years…” on a continent that is so large and covered in ice, permanently, that 3 trillion over 25 years won’t add up to much in the bigger picture when you factor in ice growth and we know ice mass and volume is increasing over Antarctica.
Thanks Patrick, I’ve come to realise that it’s often about the timeframe and the information that’s left out. Some people just don’t look at all the angles.
I’ve calculated that the loss of 3 trillion tonnes of ice from Antarctica is equivalent to the continent losing approximately 22 cm of ice. (Area of Antarctica = 14 million Km sq = 1.4 x 10exp13 sq m. Mass loss per sq m = 3 x 10exp12/1.4 x 10exp13 = 0.2143 tonnes/sq m, equivalent to a depth of about 22 cm. Somehow that figure seems less impressive than 3 trillion tonnes.
Is that nice graph a result of a measurement, of a homogenization, or of a model?
No. It´s just adjusted.
I was not aware that human-caused warming had been precisely determined elsewhere. I mean that our knowledge of climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling has not been narrowed down in twenty years of mind-blowingly expensive “research”.
Make that 30 years since FAR 1990. Billions down the toilet.
If a tree falls in the forest during a hurricane, did it make a noise loud enough to hear? If you can’t hear it, how do you guess how loud it was?
My model said it should be this loud, but doesn’t take into account the dampening effects of all the other sounds, because I think they’re all only additive. That’s my narrative.
Happy Canada Day.
WHY are there such large peak-peak excursions after 1980 in the “Annual mean surface temperature anomalies” graph?
*One* good question out of dozens of posts that might be interesting to follow. Is that good or bad result Charles?
Were you able to discern between a photo and artwork this time at least?
Thank goodness for models or they wouldn’t know precisely how much warming was caused by us
Remove what’s known, infer what’s not known, infill with brown matter what cannot be known, and what remains is plausibly an anthropogenic signal.
Climate model nonsense plus one weather station with real data – quality of those data unknown
More climate alarmist nonsense from the always wrong models.
Show me real raw temperatures from real weather stations — not just one — and not just computer game conclusions.
LOL! This is really confusing, since the paper below almost convinced me, that CO2 causes a “negative GHE” in Antarctica, which is why this region is immune to global warming…
“How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative greenhouse effect in Antarctica”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL066749
Serious: Antarctica is not warming because there are no (or almost none) contrails (not even close to it), which actually cause some warming, as opposed to CO2. But I totally understand how this problem must be “fixed”, either by claiming there was secret warming nonetheless (which went undiscovered so far), or building fancy new theorys.
Thanks for beating me to it and saving me from having to go search for it.
I looked back up there to see if they had referenced this paper but, unless I missed them they didn’t reference anything. I also recall that when Schmithüsenet al. was published there was indeed a slight cooling trend across the whole of Antarctica:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcReoE4-XCawX_q-wlUNaKK0slzAPHl_yfd0Qw&usqp=CAU
Maybe both groups could go down there and duke it out.
Yep just as soon as they find a half-arsed explanation as to why it wasn’t following global warming, someone else claims it actually is…
Btw… they build this station in 2005 and then added a black facade to it. Could it be, that a large black complex in an otherwise totally white environment, thus being the only thing to effectively absorb solar radiation, have some impact on local temperatures?
I am just asking, since the “warming” apparently occured since 2005..
Did I miss it? They didn’t say Antarctica is warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe. What kind of climate science is that?
According the the media it is 3 times faster.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/south-pole-warming-three-times-faster-rest-earth-150156003.html
you mean *gasp* it’s worse than we thought!
/sarc for the sarcasm impaired.
The time period chosen to determine recent warming seems poorly chosen (cherry-picked?) for an unbiased analysis. The beginning year, 1989, is an extreme trough, and the ending year, 2018, clearly looks like a periodic peak. Where is the 2019 data? Surely it must be available now. Why not use 1985 or 1992 as the beginning point…both years near the middle of the periodic rise and fall?
Temperatures did not exist in those early years.
The thermometer was not invented until 1985.
BUT, when it was invented, it was 3 times more popular than the average invention.
Don’t forget thermometer forcing:
All those thermometers pulled heat out of the air so they read cooler than it actually is.
According to the model I just built. A Tamiya one.
A surprising finding … in a place where everybody is looking … are these folks smarter than everyone else, or are they just wrong?
They look at a 1C cooling then a 1.8C warming. So the total is 0.8C but they look at the 1.8C and say it happened really fast. If I’m allowed to do that, I’m sure I can find some weather stations with some really dramatically fast cooling in the last ‘x’ years.
commieBob,
“They look at a 1C cooling then a 1.8C warming. So the total is 0.8C but they look at the 1.8C and say it happened really fast. If I’m allowed to do that, I’m sure I can find some weather stations with some really dramatically fast cooling in the last ‘x’ years.”
If I’m allowed to do that, I’m sure I can find some weather stations with some really dramatically fast cooling in the last – um, twelve hours!
There. Better?
Auto
.
So, instead of an average annual temperature of -42 C, it will now be -40 and change. Or colder if other estimates are more accurate for annual average temps at the South Pole. I would be really surprised if there was no wiggling of the long term temperatures a few degrees either way. That is what climate does. What caused the cooling during the 20th century, when CO2 was rising?
Antartica is currently a desert with little atmospheric humidity, so if there is any warming to be seen purely from CO2 inhibiting heat loss to space, this is where we should see it. But is it caused by CO2 at a measly 412 ppmv, or as they alluded to that there is more clouds in this shorter weather/perhaps temporary climate cycle from a warm tropical Pacific Ocean? Either way, there is no melting going on at these temperatures for most of the continent, except maybe for the WIS where there is volcanic activity and maybe the peninsula where it juts out into the Southern Ocean. Yes, maybe it is slightly warmer, but so what? It is still extremely cold and it can’t warm up that much more at those altitudes for the majority of the continent.
And 3 trillion tonnes of ice melt is not much compared to the entire Antarctic ice sheet that is the largest single mass of ice on Earth. It covers an area of almost 14 million square km and contains 30 million cubic km of ice. Around 90 percent of the fresh water on the Earth’s surface is held in the ice sheet, an amount equivalent to 70 m of water in the world’s oceans. I am not going to lose any sleep over this. Well actually, -40 and colder does give me nightmares so maybe I will wake up in a cold sweat now.
Earthling, that’s an important point. The AGW hypothesis depends on positive feedback from water vapor. That very dry climate doesn’t support significant, much less increasing, atmospheric water vapor. So, any ‘warming’ due to CO2 should be declining as CO2 saturates.
While I’m not going to accept this data, if it were true, it would point to a flaw in their hypothesis.
Hmmm.. So why isn’t Macquarie Island warming?
http://www.geoffstuff.com/macq.jpg
1. because it’s an island and it’s temperature is highly modulated by the surrounding water.
2. you need to look at the ENTIRE AREA and asses area trends
you basically made the same mistake they did. single station silliness
“…2. you need to look at the ENTIRE AREA and asses area trends…”
You won’t find many asses to base your tends off of. I really don’t see how this is relevant to temperature, but then again, I wasn’t an English lit major.
I have been to Macquarie Island (1985 on HMAS Stalwart resupplying the scientists when the Nella Dan became stuck in the Antarctic ice).
There are many thousands of asses on that island – penguins and seals
“You won’t find many asses to base your tends off of. I really don’t see how this is relevant to temperature, but then again, I wasn’t an English lit major.”
tends?
You will find many
Go here
https://moshpit.shinyapps.io/ShinyGHCN/
I’m still working on it but have a look
select antarctica
there are more in berkeley earth.
scroll down to the map
82
dumbshit
(trends that is)
No, it’s not warming because Antarctica is not warming.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969716327152
2. you need to look at the ENTIRE AREA and asses area trends
Well, you certainly have all the experience when it comes to asses.
That means the surrounding water has NOT warmed.
I would not expect it to warm at the surface, any excess heat is going to go into melting ice first
re:
IOW, “ignore this data point, year after year, and always.”
‘k
“IOW, “ignore this data point, year after year, and always.”
Ignore? why? It’s a data point.
we know there will local areas that show more warming, less warming and some that will show no warming.
as predicted
It’s an island? Really?
Do you have any idea how far the pole is from the nearest ocean?
He was referring to Macquarie Island , not the pole.
“I have been to Macquarie Island (1985 on HMAS Stalwart resupplying the scientists when the Nella Dan became stuck in the Antarctic ice).
There are many thousands of asses on that island – penguins and seals”
have someone translate for you mark.
“Over the same period, the warming in West Antarctica suddenly stopped and the Antarctic Peninsula began cooling.”
So one part of Antartica is warming but another part has stopped and one is cooling? Yet all they talk about is the warming part. Of course, models
People who crap on about global warming by human beings should get their heads examined as sure enough they don’t display any common sense by believing in computer models. Picking on something that has been happening over 30 years or even 60 years is insignificant compared with what has been happening since before the Antarctic became glaciated 45 million years ago and the global warming that preceded the start of the Holocene interglacial warm period 12,000 years ago. You’d a bit of a luni to think that a CO2 increase of 0.01% over 60 years as measured in the tropical updaft at 3.4 km altitude on the slope of one of the active volcanoes with 48% CO2 in their emissions is going to warm the planet when photosynthesis that started global cooling some 2.7 billion years ago can’t get enough of it and is causing one ice age after another, called a period of glaciation. I think we could call it anarchistic delusion.
The whole concept of a “trend” is fundamentally meaningless when applied to a stochastic non-deterministic process like climate.
And within that stochastic non-deterministic process, 30 years of data is the mere blink of the temporal climate eye. ‘Seeing a trend’ in the last 20% of that climate ‘eye blink’ is a special form of hubris…. or willful deceit.
Dang ham hands… s/b 60 years of data.
“The temperature variability at the South Pole is so extreme it currently masks human-caused effects.”
That’s like saying that unicorns cause pseudo-random number generators to produce numbers that are not truly random, but the range is so extreme that it masks the unicorn-caused effects. Therefore, the hypothesis cannot be proven. That’s how to do science. Propose an untestable hypothesis, and assume that it is true.
arrg
Several of us disagree with the framing of this finding.
https://twitter.com/VariabilityBlog/status/1277718224096972801
https://twitter.com/VariabilityBlog/status/1277718225804038150
https://twitter.com/VariabilityBlog/status/1277718227754328065
1. it is ONE station on the continent. Jesus. The long station fetish can be very misleading.
2. The area average of the continent does not show the same level of warming.
3. Antarctic stations are a bitch to assess for bias because of several phenomena
A) Katabatic winds
B) Sparse spatial sampling
C) The lacuna in the temporal record.
We think that station has issues. Our estimate shows that the station shows a warming that is
out of coherence with it’s neighbors and suggest it is biased HIGH.
https://twitter.com/RARohde/status/1277879490044219392
https://twitter.com/RARohde/status/1277881055517777921
Mr Mosher said: “Several of us disagree with the framing of this finding.”
Trouble is it’s too late, the headline has spun around the world providing more grist to the mill.
It’s reprehensible unrelenting propaganda for a political cause, whilst unashamedly besmirching science.
“time is running out for the frozen continent” are you freaking serious!!
Earlier you were telling us it’s an island. Now it’s a continent. Which is it?
It’s your side who framed the claim. It’s your side that often picks a single station or a single region and uses it to prove the whole world.
Far be it for me to defend the drive-bv king, but he was referring to Macquarie Island in that “earlier” post (look at the post he was replying to) whereas here he’s referring to the topic of the article (ie Antarctica, which is a continent).
Guy asked about an island
I answered his question.
Now you know why drive by is vindicated.
I can’t stay around for your stupidity
Because someone got something wrong vindicates your getting everything wrong with mindless drive-bys? really? Bwahahahahahahahaha
Because someone got something wrong vindicates your getting everything wrong with mindless drive-bys? really? Bwahahahahahahahaha
Cherry picked a bunch of highs and lows.
UAH data does not show any thang like that.
CO2 has been increasing pretty much monotonically since around 1950, yet temperatures at the S. Pole did not start to increase until 2000.
Either CO2 took 50 years to make it to the S. Pole, or something else is responsible for the warming.
“The temperature variability at the South Pole is so extreme it masks anthropogenic effects. Keith Vanderlinde/NSF”
We don’t know for sure it’s there, but if it isn’t we are all out of a job, no more grants or junkets, so we’ll just assume it is.
Much like DLR that MUST be there, ’cause if it isn’t the whole show goes in the dumpster.
Fifty-year Amundsen–Scott South Pole station surface climatology
Fig. 6. Annual mean temperatures for 1957–2010 (blue), 10 year running mean (black), and least squares linear regression line (dashed, r2 = 0.017).
Fig. 5. Mean temperature for the 30-year climatology sets (1961–1990, 1971–2000, and 1981–2010) and for the 50-year climatology (1957–2006).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169809512002256
So only 63 years of temperature data to go off?
Yeah, they need to go back to the very warm Early Twentieth Century before making claims about how much the temperatures have dropped in Antarctica. The year 1957 was a lot cooler than temperatures in the 1930’s.
And doesn’t Chicago have similiar temperature variability throughout the year?
I read stuff like this and kind of long for the days bygone, when smog and inversion layers were a visible problem and the sky looked like someone had been smoking about 10,000 packs a day of Lucky Strikes.
Well hey, 20,679 physicians say “luckies are less irritating”*, so the science is settled smoking lucky strikes are doctor recommended!
* actual Lucky Strikes advertising claim based off of a leading question survey sent to Doctors by the company that made Lucky Strikes.