chubbs

Telling that Spencer avoided the 1998 to 2004 period of interest when comparing to other series. Below are trends from Dec94 to Jan2009, (broadening both ends to improve stats) Slope deg/decade UAH: -.014 RSS: .175 HAD5: .167 GISS .184 NOAA .146 BEST .154 UAH is a clear outlier, for the period of interest, but much closer to the other series before and after.

Yes, correlation between the two datasets plotted is weak. In addition to problems with UAH, need to look at clouds more carefully - types, low vs high, location, etc. Also don't trust the site that prepared the chart - specializes in flawed datasets to promote climate denial. NOAA-14 was dropped because it warms "too much" in UAH's judgement, a qualitative call. Surface records are much less uncertain than satellites because multiple stations can be inter-compared within a region to correct equipment changes or malfunctions, heat island, etc.

There are 2 decades of cloud satellite obs. This study is in-line with others estimating cloud feedback using satellite data. Scientists have been gradually paring down the uncertainty in climate sensitivity with better obs and models, as they do that there is no indication that warming has been overstated. Instead the tightening is mainly from raising the lower-bound.

Another chart tweeted by author - climate models are doing a good job with clouds. The chance of climate science "missing something" is vanishly small.

Saw this on twitter, the increase in severity of heat waves hasn't been evenly distributed. Much of the US has been spared the worst.

Recent summer warming has favored the W US. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/july-2020-climate-outlook-has-no-good-news-us-southwest

The main sink for CO2 is the oceans and the oceans take up heat and CO2 at roughly the same rate. If emissions stopped, CO2 concentrations would decrease fast enough to stabilize temperature. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6131/438.abstract

This is too pessimistic. Warming will stop when emissions stop. It is feasible to go all renewable plus other non-CO2 emitting in a couple of decades.

You don't have a good understanding of climate science or any science for that matter. Science is evidence-based using observations and models are together. Climate models are not like economic models. They are built on well physical laws: conservation of energy, + momentum, radiation physics, etc. When observations agree with models based on known physical laws then confidence increases. That is where we are today. We have decades of observations that match model predictions and theory closely, including observations of past climate which cover a very wide range of climactic conditions, much warmer and colder than today. There is a literally a mountain of evidence supporting the climate science consensus and zero evidence supporting a natural cause for the current warming. This thread is poorly titled. There is no science discussed here and no evidence presented that the science is "unsettled". Instead it is mainly about the political talking points that skeptics respond to. In the past few pages experts can't be trusted because of one perceived foible or another. Instead you trust Rupert Murdoch and others in the climate denial space, who have publishing climate misinformation and discrediting experts for decades.

Sea level trends from satellite. This doesn't include local land rise/fall or compaction of sediments, which is increasing the rise in Louisiana and some areas of east coast (NJ). https://sealevel.colorado.edu/trend-map

Not really. Local ground-level changes can be larger than sea-level rise. Also sea level rise is not uniform. Areas close to Greenland and Antarctica have less rise due to gravitational effects from shrinking ice sheets. Individual tide gauge records don't provide useful information on SLR, need to look at a large group of gauges with the proper weighting of different regions. The satellite record plotted above covers the globe and is robust.

Its been accelerating since the start of the industrial revolution. Almost no sea level rise from Roman times to 1800. 1" in the 1800s, 6" in the 1900s. 1.5" per decade now. https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2016/08/what-roman-ruins-reveal

Huh? Did I say anything about not encouraging debate. I strongly support honest debate. You can deny science all you want, but don't whine and cry when you are called a science denier. If the WSJ's position was supported by science, they would site science in defense, instead they play the victim card.

Climate deniers playing the victim card are the only people I've seen raise the holocaust in a climate discussion. WSJ the most recent example.

If you don't think the main tenets are settled, then you are not exposing yourself to scientific information. A book that is labeled misleading by scientists, isn't strong evidence for anything. Below are a couple of statements from scientific organizations: American Meteorological Society: Scientific evidence indicates that the leading cause of climate change in the most recent half century is the anthropogenic increase in the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide. https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-change1/ American Geophysical Union: Extensive observations document that the global average surface temperature in the atmosphere and ocean has increased by about 1°C (1.8°F) from 1880 to 2018. The current decade is now the hottest in the history of modern civilization. Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. There is no altenrative explanation supported by convincing evidence. https://www.agu.org/Share-and-Advocate/Share/Policymakers/Position-Statements/Position_Climate

Wall Street Journal article repeats multiple incorrect and misleading claims made in Steven Koonin’s new book ’Unsettled’ Analysis of "‘Unsettled’ Review: The ‘Consensus’ On Climate" Published in The Wall Street Journal, by Mark P. Mills on 25 April 2021 Twelve scientists analyzed the article and estimate its overall scientific credibility to be very low. A majority of reviewers tagged the article as: Inaccurate, Misleading. https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/wall-street-journal-article-repeats-multiple-incorrect-and-misleading-claims-made-in-steven-koonins-new-book-unsettled-steven-koonin/

Here is the American Meteorological Society statement on climate. I don't see any debate or disagreement. The debate is among non-scientists: conservative think tanks, politicians, science denial press (WSJ an example), blogs, etc. https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-and-climate-change/

Same old story from Koonin. He doesn't get any traction from scientists, but will probably sell some books. https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/18/did-a-physicist-become-a-climate-truth-teller/ https://slate.com/technology/2014/10/the-wall-street-journal-and-steve-koonin-the-new-face-of-climate-change-inaction.html

Yes with the right comparison, CMIP5 is close to observations and CMIP6 runs a little warm. Thought Spencers' SST values looked too warm. Wouldn't discount other errors. A while ago I estimated the following trends using KNMI explorer for the period 1975 to 2020: RCP6 globe - 0.218 (Tos, not SST blended so warmer than obs) RCP6 ocean only - 0.144 HADSST4 - 0.152 Finally how did you make the chart.

Yes tough sell for expensive solutions, fortunately its getting to the point where a push to net-zero isn't going to cost much, may even reduce costs in the long run. From ZekeH's twitter.

Wouldn't modify sherwood 2020's conclusions based on my simple estimates. In addition to the caveats given above, the radiation paper notes that some forcing components are ignored - ozone and aerosol cloud. Agree with your last post though, ECS<2 seems very unlikely.

Yes, CMIP5 mean was 1.8. So probably too high. The period is short and there is other uncertainty.

Just noodling some #. Doubled CO2 is 3.7 W/m2 so forcing increase is roughly 0.9% of doubled CO2 per year. GISS temperature increase over same period is .0229C per year giving a rough TCR of 2.6. Plenty of uncertainty in slopes due to short time-period, but warming and forcing both increasing at a good clip. Giss trend - http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html