blizzard1024

Are you serious? Come on. Millions of peoples are not dying due to climate change. That is a big stretch. Are you ok?

Plus you assume that we can measure ocean temperatures with precision needed for OHC. That started really with the Argo floats in 2003. the data gets coarser and less reliable the farther you go back, especially before the satellite era. You seem to have problems with radiosonde data ; well I would say ocean temperature data is rife with inconsistencies, measurement errors etc too. BUT if it supports increasing CO2 = warmer Earth, it is accepted. If it doesn't, then it can't be correct. What about clouds huh? The NASA cloud project shows an inverse relationship between global average temperature and cloud fraction between 1983-2009. This suggests clouds modulate the climate system or have a significant effect. Why is this ignored too? This whole CO2 is the Earth's temperature control knob is on shaky ground and that is why you become so belligerent. You can't have a reasonable debate because you are insecure about this whole theory. So you attack and become angry. Chill out. Life is good....

Christy and Spencer are heros in the climate debate. So is Dr Curry. Brilliant and courageous people who are standing up for real science.

This paper suggests a TCR of 1-2C for a doubling of CO2. That seems reasonable and is in line with the observations. Theoretically speaking a doubling of CO2 should produce a modest warming within this range with neutral feedbacks. Its the 3-6C projections that I think are out of the bounds of reality. The Oceans provide too much of a buffer.

So reanalysis datasets are bad then too because they rely on upper air soundings. So the only records that are valid are the one's that are heavily "homogenized". Of course this introduces a massive warming trend in the data. That is very convenient. Like I said, in climate science the conclusion is CO2 is causing warming and all the research is to support that conclusion. This is backwards.

This is exactly like the surface temperature data which is the gold standard to many.

UAH doesn't retain data from NOAA-14 which has a warming bias. Also UAH agrees best with radiosondes and reanalysis vs the other datasets.

read this paper on climate models... https://judithcurry.com/2020/06/20/structural-errors-in-global-climate-models/#more-26311

The fatal flaw in this paper is that it ignores the UAH data in its conclusion which is the best dataset. RSS uses NOAA-14 which has a known warming bias. Plus they use a model to calculate the diurnal drift factor instead of empirical data. Hence RSS diverges closer to the really flawed surface dataset around 2015. Just like Karl et al 2015 adjusted SSTs upward using faulty methodology to enhance warming. If one looks at my climate division from NCEI, the unadjusted datasets i.e the actual measurements show NO trends since the late 1800s. The adjusted shows 3F rise. So all the global warming is man made by adjustments not the real data. UAH is the closest to reality showing modest warming well within the bounds of the holocene. Nothing unusual.

your anger in your posts shows that you are insecure about your position related to the whole CO2 CAGW viewpoint. I am totally secure in my position. Basic physics. Not computer models and analyses based on computer models that have a high degree of uncertainty.

This is counter intuitive to me. We had two major volcanic eruptions one in 1982 (El Chicon) and Pinatubo in 1991 early in these records and we have had three intense El NInos 1983, 1998 and 2015. How can removing all this lead to a strong warmer trend? Volcanos cool the atmosphere and strong El Ninos warm the atmosphere. I will read in more detail. Thanks.

What you are forgetting here skier is that it doesn't cause an automatic response in the Earth's temperature OHC there is a lag too.... to be truthful we need more data from the Argo floats to make any conclusions. This easily could be a cyclical trends in OHC.

Okay....follow my logic. Argo floats deployed in 2003. Very reliable much higher resolution dataset. Data for deep oceans before this is suspect. So using this new dataset which is the most comprehensive we see ONI or a tendency for more El Ninos, and, indeed OHC from the Argo floats has increased. Before 2003, one can say the data is of lower quality. Before the satellite era of the 1970s the data was even poorer in quality. Hence starting in 1970 (satellite era) or starting in 2003 (Argo data) makes sense and is not cherry picking. The tendency for more El Ninos leading to a warmer planet makes sense meteorologically and climatologically. Maybe CO2 causes more El Ninos? I know that has been stated (of course). But whatever the cause the increase in El Ninos likely is a major player in the warmth of the planet recently.

I told you I started when the argo floats were deployed in 2003 so you can assume much better OHC data. it wasn't a random date. if the data showed negative I still would have posted it.

I don't know much about biology I will give you that. How many times does a drug end up causing unknown side affects or other problems? anyway, I have been using atmospheric models for more than 30 years and I know the inherent problems with them. The atmosphere is a high non-linear system very hard to model.

But we are talking about OHC since the 1970s. We don't have a good handle on OHC really before the Argo floats but I will let that go. Let's try 2003-present after the Argo floats are active and you will see a tendency toward more El Nino ish conditions which is known to warm the planet.

Okay. First the top 5 you have are pretty basic science and not as complex as the climate system. Number 6 hurricane tracks several days out...now you are pushing it. There is tremendous uncertainty several days out and the hurricane center uses probabilities to determine risk. If the probability is greater than 10% of death and destruction, i.e the consequence is very high people evacuate. Rapid intensification, interaction with mid-latitude waves and extratropical transition are not well modelled. Number 7 you are pushing even way more. There are many instances where severe weather outbreaks don't materialize. we don't have a full understanding of CAPE vs shear and the balances needs plus dry air and other variables. There have been many busts here. Number 8 climate models are extremely uncertain.

The ONI actually has a positive trend since the 1970s... data source https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php

Yes you are correct. But more El Ninos lead to more tropical convection. This leads to more water vapor at high altitudes increasing the Earth's temperature and indeed an imbalance.

Yes the argo floats begin in 2003, the satellite data for ice begins during the late 70s a known cool period of the 20th century. Of course there easily can be a cyclical imbalance. Again I am not being disrespectful. I just don't agree. That's all. All of you are obviously passionate and smart people.

ENSO cycles. Since the late 1970s we have had stronger El Ninos vs La Ninas. This would easily increase OHC in a cyclical fashion. The 1970s had predominately strong La Ninas. Now we are seeing stronger El Ninos. Also there hasn't been a major volcanic eruption in almost 30 years. The 1960s, 80s and early 90s had major eruptions. Plus the clean air act has reduced soot and other pollution in many western societies which thermometer data is dense. This had led to warming. Regional changes in forest cover. Ocean current changes. The Sun. The sun reached a grand maximum in the 20th century and it is waning now. There is a lag since the sun heats the oceans significantly vs IR radiation. Cooling could be on the way this century. There is so much more to natural variability that is understudied because the tail wags the dog in climate science. It is assumed CO2 is the thermostat so all papers and studies have to show this or show how today's warming is unprecedented. They even adjust temperatures upward recently and downward in the past. Anything that proves CO2 is the driver of the climate. They have a conclusion so now the research is done to back it up. This is backwards IMO. Respectively- Blizzard1024

So you know what the Earth's climate has been like for the Holocene? last 2000 years? Proxy data is coarse and can't be stitched to high resolution real measurements with accuracy. You can invoke statistics but you can get what you want when playing with stats. How do you know today's climate is unusual? We don't have enough data to understand ocean temperatures or land temperatures more than 100 years and really more than 60 years ago.

When the Earth's OLR is around 239 W/m2 explain to me how .87 w/m2 is significant? especially if the oceans are absorbing most of it?

You can't say this unless you invoke a climate model. Maybe you trust models, I don't.

Where do you get "right wing" lies from? I am not a right winger by no means. I am a realist on the climate system and its inherent uncertainties and complexities. It is NOT all figured out like many seem to think. Even the Earth's heat imbalance, .87 W/m2? We have a very hard time measuring with any certainty the solar constant and other heat flows. This could easily be in error. The Ocean heat uptake is not a problem at all. If you do the math it shows that the increase in OHC equals a whooping .04C! That means that the oceans can continue to take up heat and stabilize the climate system. Anyway I could go on here but I won't.