chubbs

1) Pages2k the best compilation of data available. There are are wide range of sources including ice cores. Note the range in time resolution below, some of the series have relatively fine time resolution. If you have any information that is not included please provide. 2) There are plenty of instances of CO2 leading temperatures. The PETM for a start and many others. Our recent ice ages only started after CO2 had dropped low enough for orbital cycles to trigger. 3) There is plenty of data supporting water vapor feedback, as discussed in the other thread.

The timing in the sea-level chart is the same as the temperature+CO2 chart. Increases in all three started in the late 1700s.

Without looking at a map showing the location of changes you can't draw any conclusion about the cause of the decreasing 850 mb trend between 1980 and 2000. There could be a period of drying in the descending subtropical highs, that is what the TPW data show. Whether you want to accept it or not, there is very good agreement between the re-analysis and satellite moisture data in the upper troposphere. There is also strongly increasing surface temperature, TPW, and ocean heat content and the timing is perfectly matched to man-made forcing with a big ramp after 1970. All well explained by climate science. The science explanation makes much more sense than your "theory": a natural forcing which hasn't been identified but which is related in some way to the little ice age suddenly ramped temperatures in 1970 despite the absence of any water vapor feedback. Sorry that just doesn't hold together.

Here is a chart from the paper I linked above. Three separate satellite measurements in close agreement - 40 years of data. Note brightness temperature is a measure of relative humidity.

Reposting chart from 2019 AMS climate report. There is REAL data. Two separate and independent satellite measurements: infared (HIRS) and microwave. Also, relinking the paper which showed that satellite upper troposphere humidity data is in good agreement. The data is there if you really want to partake. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015JD024496

You are the one invoking models, because you can't explain why it is warming. The temperature increase matches man-made forcing to a T. Ocean currents. cloud cover, convection etc. could not have had a large impact, they just move energy around in the system.

The chart below was made from forcing estimates and observed temperatures. No climate model. https://www.globalwarmingindex.org/

That mamade forcing swamps natural since 1950 doesn't rely on climate models. Here are the 1950-->2015 forcing estimates (W/m2): Manmade: 1.90 Natural: -0.09 (mainly solar) Total 1.81 https://github.com/Priestley-Centre/ssp_erf

The evidence is overwhelming. Scientists predicted water vapor feedback before models existed. All models with non-linear dynamics have it, and now it is measured by satellites and present in re-analysis. What more do you want?

You are twisting yourself up into a pretzel. Water vapor feedback is almost like gravity. Well supported by theory and observations. The satellite obs show moistening in the upper troposphere, if anything upper troposphere moistening is faster than predicted by climate models due to moisture increases in the dry subtropics. Per paper below ERA5 is better than other re-analysis products at matching satellite upper troposphere moisture obs. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015JD024496

Plots were made at KNMI Climate Explorer

Here is 200mb data from the ERA5 re-analysis: 200mb heights have increased - the atmosphere is expanding as it warms 200mb temperatures at the higher heights have increased 200mb humidity is constant So yes upper troposphere water vapor is increasing as expected

Saw this chart on twitter (PW is petawatts which is estimated by taking forcing per meter squared times surface area of earth). There is a very close relationship between forcing changes and global temperature. Now that data has been updated, can see that the hiatus and subsequent temperature spike are mainly due to short-term forcing changes. Not much room for natural variation.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Comments: 1) rising temperature due to forcing has swamped ENSO effects, 2) Doesn't matter why warming occurred, warming temperatures have lead to increased moisture in the upper layers of the troposphere. The distribution is just as expected with biggest increase in areas with strong convection.

Per the discussion 20 pages ago. NCEP is an older re-analysis product. Newer products like ERA5 have corrected errors and show increasing upper troposphere moisture. What is the point of providing you with additional information? The data and theory is all very consistent. Temperature is rising, moisture is rising, just as expected. Would take a large non-linearity for moisture to not increase as temperature increases. Note that this would cascade into precipitation and clouds.

HM had a series of tweets on tropical moisture and Atlantic hurricanes. For the area he looked at moisture increased at all levels of the atmosphere. Why wouldn't it? Temperature controls atmospheric moisture and temperature is increasing at all levels of the troposphere.

Just repeating your talking points. Scientists have looked at this for a long time. They use models, a wide range of observations, and other quantitative procedures, not hand waving or talking points from junk science blogs. Climate science predictions have been spot on for decades. CO2 and other non-condensible GHG control the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Very simple physics, backed up by reams of data.

Here is UAH vs RSS+Hadcrut for land temperatures. UAH missed more than 0.2C of warming between 1998 and 2008, mainly due to dropping NOAA14. Land temperatures chosen because that is where satellite diurnal drift errors are most noticeable. https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6-land/mean:12/plot/crutem4vgl/last:480/mean:12/offset:-0.3/plot/rss-land/mean:12

1970 is when the big forcing ramp started as aerosol's stabilized while GHG took off. So you are saying that GHG do control climate NCEP had a roughly 0.2C cooling bias vs other re-analysis products between Nov+Mar this year. CFS below shows we are running about the same as last year despite the developing La Nina. The 0.2C bias in NCEP is about the same as the warming that uah missed due to dropping NOAA-14.

Per the paper below there is a slight reduction in OHC during El Nino due to heat loss from ocean to atmosphere. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331751587_Evolution_of_Ocean_Heat_Content_Related_to_ENSO

The climate system doesn't like to be so far out of equilibrium. There are two ways to get back into balance: reduce ghg, or increase temperature. CO2 forcing in 2019 was 2.076 W/m2. To eliminate, the current 0.87 W/m2 imbalance using CO2 alone, would need to reduce CO2 to 1987 levels when CO2 forcing was 1.211 W/m2 and CO2 concentrations were 348 ppm. 350 ppm was Hanson's safe level, that is roughly the climate we are experiencing today. Per tweet below need roughly 1C of warming to stabilize temperatures with the current atmosphere. We have only experienced about half the warming that our current atmosphere would allow. CO2 forcing estimates from: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

A couple of comments: 1) ice core timing has uncertainty. There is some air exchange as snow accumulates before ice is formed. Recent papers have found the CO2 and temperature changes are closely aligned. https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/8/1213/2012/cp-8-1213-2012.html; https://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060.abstract 2) Can't explain ice core temperature changes in the S Hemisphere without CO2 since summer insolation trends are opposite in S vs N hemisphere 3) As pointed out above can't get magnitude of ice ages without a CO2 forcing contribution. Note if CO2 is contributing nothing, this means climate is more sensitive, since forcing change is roughly 50% smaller without CO2. 4) A recent paper has found temperature change to the last glacial maximum was larger than previously thought producing a larger climate sensitivity estimate. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2617-x

You can get some re-analysis data from KNMI climate explorer, including NCEP. ERA5 is the most recent re-analysis product and it looks like 200+300 mb humidity is available at KNMI. RSS has satellite total column water vapor, which is increasing as expected.