Phoenix Records its Hottest Summer on Record

[skierinvermont]

3 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

I have and don't agree with the methods. Others feel the same way. But of course they don't agree with the consensus so they are shunned. This is not science. This is shutting down the scientific process. people like you and others do this. Many of us folks who believe there is moderate warming not catastrophic warming are getting lumped in with the Alex Jones types, Trumpers etc.  That is so wrong. 

 

 

You don't even know which paper I'm talking about. Next time you lie, at least make it less obvious.

[blizzard1024]

This is my last post. You guys win. It is like talking to a brick wall. Skier you should be removed from this forum. period. The mods have done nothing and that is shameful. Keep living in your fantasy world.  I know you think I live in one, but NO.... it is you guys. Mother Earth is just fine and modest warming will be beneficial. To think otherwise is just plain HYPE.  

[skierinvermont]

4 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

This is my last post. You guys win. It is like talking to a brick wall. Skier you should be removed from this forum. period. The mods have done nothing and that is shameful. Keep living in your fantasy world.  I know you think I live in one, but NO.... it is you guys. Mother Earth is just fine and modest warming will be beneficial. To think otherwise is just plain HYPE.  

Classic. A decent human being would have some shame and admit when they lied.

[donsutherland1]

20 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Yeah, because it doesn't support their theories which would threaten their funding and credibility.  You need to homogenize it to get it to conform 

If the warming were merely artifacts of statistical manipulation, one would not be witnessing a lengthening of growing seasons, increased frequency of early- and late-season blooms, earlier nesting of numerous species of birds, the losses in mass from Greenland and Antarctica, the declining Arctic sea ice (summer minimum and annual average). In the big picture, even if one didn’t rely on the vast body of research showing the ongoing warming, there would be indications of big change from those other examples.

[skierinvermont]

2 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

If the warming were merely artifacts of statistical manipulation, one would not be witnessing a lengthening of growing seasons, increased frequency of early- and late-season blooms, earlier nesting of numerous species of birds, the losses in mass from Greenland and Antarctica, the declining Arctic sea ice (summer minimum and annual average). In the big picture, even if one didn’t rely on the vast body of research showing the ongoing warming, there would be indications of big change from those other examples.

There's an answer for everything Don. The glaciers in Glacier National Park are probably disappearing from being walked on too much. IEM probably shows Montana hasn't warmed at all and unadjusted (uncorrected) temperatures are BEST!

[skierinvermont]

3 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

I have and don't agree with the methods. Others feel the same way. But of course they don't agree with the consensus so they are shunned. This is not science. This is shutting down the scientific process. people like you and others do this. Many of us folks who believe there is moderate warming not catastrophic warming are getting lumped in with the Alex Jones types, Trumpers etc.  That is so wrong. 

 

 

Even Judith Curry understands the time of observation bias in the U.S. temperature record.

It's not that there were no high/lows before 1920 (I have no idea where you got this idea from). It's that over time stations have switched from recording the highest temperature of the previous 24 hours at 5pm to 7am. If you have a thermometer that records the highest temperature of the previous 24 hours, and you reset it at 5pm on a hot day on April 24th you will double count the hot day. You'll get a 95F reading for April 24th, and a 93F reading from 5:01pm that will show up as the hottest temperature of April 25th (recorded at 5pm for the previous 24 hours), even though the hottest it got on April 25th was 80F. By recording at 7am, hot days are no longer double counted. You'd get just one reading of 95F for April 24th (recorded at 7am on April 25th) and one reading of 80F (recorded at 7am on April 26th). 

As Curry's blog points out, you don't have to do adjustments at all. Whenever a station makes a change in recording time, you treat it as an entirely new station completely independent of the old station. IEM doesn't do either form of correction, and instead treats stations which used to record highs at 5pm (and double count high temperatures from hot days) as the same station even when they change their measurement to record at 7am and no longer double count high temperatures.

What exactly about this process do you disagree with? You dare to cross the mighty JUDITH CURRY? (not authored by her but clearly endorsed by her as a guest post on her blog). And you don't have any evidence or specific critiques of TOBs adjustments other than name-calling it ("VOODOO statistics") and that you don't trust scientists.

https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/#:~:text=Between 1960 and today%2C the,and maximum temperatures via USHCN.

 

The number of little children running around with their pants off screaming about temperature adjustments who don't understand why they are made is absurd. At least Curry gets it. Even if you make ZERO TOBs adjustments and just treat stations that change their observation time as two separate stations, the result is exactly the same.

For example say Omaha recorded at 5pm from 1895-1960 and then at 7am from 1960-present. You would treat these two as completely separate stations.  It's the same thing as making a temperature record when not all the stations start in the same year (some start in 1870 and some as late as 1920). As long as anomalies are used, stations dropping in and/or out of the data set don't matter.

This is the method Berkeley used. They made no time of observation adjustment, but get the exact same result as NOAA, which makes a .2C TOBs adjustment based on statistical analysis of hot-day double counting.

[blizzard1024]

3 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

Classic. A decent human being would have some shame and admit when they lied.

I am trying to get off this radical CAGW site. You are not a decent human being. I never lied. How dare you say I lied. That is offensive and you are attacking me and I won't leave it this way. I am going to stay on this forum until you are removed. You should be removed for personally attacking me.  I will see to it. 
 

 

 

 

[SnoSki14]

3 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

If the warming were merely artifacts of statistical manipulation, one would not be witnessing a lengthening of growing seasons, increased frequency of early- and late-season blooms, earlier nesting of numerous species of birds, the losses in mass from Greenland and Antarctica, the declining Arctic sea ice (summer minimum and annual average). In the big picture, even if one didn’t rely on the vast body of research showing the ongoing warming, there would be indications of big change from those other examples.

It's like talking to a brick wall. You could present 1000s of examples and they'll make an excuse for all of them. 

Don't waste your breath. 

[blizzard1024]

9 minutes ago, SnoSki14 said:

It's like talking to a brick wall. You could present 1000s of examples and they'll make an excuse for all of them. 

Don't waste your breath. 

Yeah this is what happens when the world warms. But it easily could be mostly natural too.  You can't prove CO2 is the cause for the millionth time. 

[Bhs1975]

Yeah this is what happens when the world warms. But it easily could be mostly natural too.  You can't prove CO2 is the cause for the millionth time. 

It’s already been proven over and over.

[blizzard1024]

11 minutes ago, Bhs1975 said:

It’s already been proven over and over.

By models. That is not proof. 

[bdgwx]

13 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

By models. That is not proof. 

So what kind of evidence would you accept that would falsify the natural hypothesis and convince you that the anthroprogenic hypothesis can survive falsification?

[csnavywx]

34 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

So what kind of evidence would you accept that would falsify the natural hypothesis and convince you that the anthroprogenic hypothesis can survive falsification?

Bingo. This is the heart of it right here. I am keenly interested in the reply. Oh, and no goalpost moving. You're free to change your mind based on evidence, as any good scientist should, but not the goalposts.

[donsutherland1]

5 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

There's an answer for everything Don. The glaciers in Glacier National Park are probably disappearing from being walked on too much. IEM probably shows Montana hasn't warmed at all and unadjusted (uncorrected) temperatures are BEST!

It’s deeply unfortunate. I was in Iceland a few years ago and the people there were had a lot to say about climate change. They mentioned changes that made fishing more difficult, that the year earlier puffins had a difficult time nesting on account of an absence of fish from abnormal warmth and the disappearing glaciers. I was able to see evidence of a vast retreat that had already taken place with some of the glaciers. 

[blizzard1024]

1 hour ago, bdgwx said:

So what kind of evidence would you accept that would falsify the natural hypothesis and convince you that the anthropogenic hypothesis can survive falsification?

It's not CO2 entirely.CO2 always lags T in ice cores. It never drove the climate in the last 2.6 million years with the present ocean currents and geography. Why would it all of the sudden change?  That's not physics. There is more to the climate system and we just don't understand enough about natural processes. But we shouldn't be polluting our atmosphere, so in the long run we need to go to renewables and cleaner energy sources. CO2 is a weak GHG. That is basic physics. The feedbacks can't be significantly positive or our climate would have gone off the rails a long time ago and it simply didn't. You need major positive feedbacks and high climate sensitivity. The observations are not showing this. If you pick warm biased data sources you get 2C per century or so. UAH is 1.4C per century. So split the difference... 1.5C to 2.0C increase over 1880 leads to another .5C to 1C for a doubling CO2 assuming the climate was in stasis in the 1800s. This is a BAD assumption since we were coming out of a global LIA. It is very possible that much of the 20th century warming is natural with some smaller CO2 component. Climate models are tuned to be sensitive to CO2 and have positive feedbacks which in nature likely doesn't exist. See Spencer's work on ERBE satellite data.  Anyway, I am done. I don't buy your CAGW. It is hype.  I see modest warming. I am finished here.  You got your wish. No dissenters, no debate. No learning.  Have a nice life. 

[chubbs]

10 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

It's not CO2 entirely.CO2 always lags T in ice cores. It never drove the climate in the last 2.6 million years with the present ocean currents and geography. Why would it all of the sudden change?  That's not physics. There is more to the climate system and we just don't understand enough about natural processes. But we shouldn't be polluting our atmosphere, so in the long run we need to go to renewables and cleaner energy sources. CO2 is a weak GHG. That is basic physics. The feedbacks can't be significantly positive or our climate would have gone off the rails a long time ago and it simply didn't. You need major positive feedbacks and high climate sensitivity. The observations are not showing this. If you pick warm biased data sources you get 2C per century or so. UAH is 1.4C per century. So split the difference... 1.5C to 2.0C increase over 1880 leads to another .5C to 1C for a doubling CO2 assuming the climate was in stasis in the 1800s. This is a BAD assumption since we were coming out of a global LIA. It is very possible that much of the 20th century warming is natural with some smaller CO2 component. Climate models are tuned to be sensitive to CO2 and have positive feedbacks which in nature likely doesn't exist. See Spencer's work on ERBE satellite data.  Anyway, I am done. I don't buy your CAGW. It is hype.  I see modest warming. I am finished here.  You got your wish. No dissenters, no debate. No learning.  Have a nice life. 

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.

[bdgwx]

19 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

It's not CO2 entirely.CO2 always lags T in ice cores. It never drove the climate in the last 2.6 million years with the present ocean currents and geography. Why would it all of the sudden change?  That's not physics. There is more to the climate system and we just don't understand enough about natural processes. But we shouldn't be polluting our atmosphere, so in the long run we need to go to renewables and cleaner energy sources. CO2 is a weak GHG. That is basic physics. The feedbacks can't be significantly positive or our climate would have gone off the rails a long time ago and it simply didn't. You need major positive feedbacks and high climate sensitivity. The observations are not showing this. If you pick warm biased data sources you get 2C per century or so. UAH is 1.4C per century. So split the difference... 1.5C to 2.0C increase over 1880 leads to another .5C to 1C for a doubling CO2 assuming the climate was in stasis in the 1800s. This is a BAD assumption since we were coming out of a global LIA. It is very possible that much of the 20th century warming is natural with some smaller CO2 component. Climate models are tuned to be sensitive to CO2 and have positive feedbacks which in nature likely doesn't exist. See Spencer's work on ERBE satellite data.  Anyway, I am done. I don't buy your CAGW. It is hype.  I see modest warming. I am finished here.  You got your wish. No dissenters, no debate. No learning.  Have a nice life. 

Right. I get that you don't accept the evidence that is contrary to the hypothesis...CO2 always lags T, CO2 forcing is small and insignificant, natural forcing is larger than anthroprogenic forcing, positive CO2 feedbacks do not exist, etc.

What I'm asking is...what kind of evidence would you accept that would convince you that the above hypothesis are false?

[Heat_Is_On]

18 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

It's not CO2 entirely.CO2 always lags T in ice cores. It never drove the climate in the last 2.6 million years with the present ocean currents and geography. Why would it all of the sudden change?  That's not physics. There is more to the climate system and we just don't understand enough about natural processes. But we shouldn't be polluting our atmosphere, so in the long run we need to go to renewables and cleaner energy sources. CO2 is a weak GHG. That is basic physics. The feedbacks can't be significantly positive or our climate would have gone off the rails a long time ago and it simply didn't. You need major positive feedbacks and high climate sensitivity. The observations are not showing this. If you pick warm biased data sources you get 2C per century or so. UAH is 1.4C per century. So split the difference... 1.5C to 2.0C increase over 1880 leads to another .5C to 1C for a doubling CO2 assuming the climate was in stasis in the 1800s. This is a BAD assumption since we were coming out of a global LIA. It is very possible that much of the 20th century warming is natural with some smaller CO2 component. Climate models are tuned to be sensitive to CO2 and have positive feedbacks which in nature likely doesn't exist. See Spencer's work on ERBE satellite data.  Anyway, I am done. I don't buy your CAGW. It is hype.  I see modest warming. I am finished here.  You got your wish. No dissenters, no debate. No learning.  Have a nice life. 

Well I think Blizzard is done here. I had popcorn and was enjoying the back and forth especially between him/her and skierinvermont. Will one or both of these users be banned? should they? or is this discourse allowed. It was entertaining....  anyway. 

Is this stuff quoted true? First is CO2 really a weak greenhouse gas? Isn't it the dominate GHG? Also being from a physics background, does CO2 really lag T in ice cores. I find it hard to believe that such data up to 400 thousand years ago could be resolved to such a degree. If CO2 rises and falls lag temperature changes, a layperson in climate science like myself could be confused and think it is not important. Also if CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas again one can see why there is confusion with people. Also was there a little ice age and medieval warm period? I always thought there was and if so, one can see that natural effects can be also at work. Again this can confuse a non climate scientist.  

So is this blizzard just outright lying?  please advise. I really though they figured all this stuff out and we are warming tremendously. I have heard that even our day to day weather especially storms are supercharged by CO2. Of course I take what the media says with a grain of salt since they often overdo stuff. thanks all. 

[donsutherland1]

For another perspective concerning the rising temperatures at Phoenix, if one takes a look at record high and record high-tying maximum temperatures, 167 of those daily records have occurred 2000 or later. Among those, 113 have occurred 2010 or later. These figures are based on 366 days.

For the 92–day June-August period, 55 of those records have occurred 2000 or later; 48 have occurred 2010 or later.

Phoenix’s daily climate record goes back to August 1895.

Under RCP 4.5, Phoenix is projected to have an average high temperature of 107.1 by the mid-2020s. By the mid 2050s, the record-breaking summer of 2020 is projected to be the “new normal” so to speak. 

[LibertyBell]

On 9/12/2020 at 10:18 AM, donsutherland1 said:

Great points, Bluewave.

The science is clear about the warming and its causes. It is no random occurrence that a disproportionate share of warm years and warm summers has occurred 2000 and later or 2010 or later. This is exactly what one would expect statistically in a climate where greenhouse gas forcing is increasing and, in turn, the world is warming.

On top of that, we can superimpose the West's horrid history of wildfires- 17 of the top 20 fire seasons have occurred since 2000.  The fire season has also grown an average of 75 days longer in the 2 decades since 2000 than it was before.

[LibertyBell]

On 9/12/2020 at 7:23 PM, donsutherland1 said:

It’s deeply unfortunate. I was in Iceland a few years ago and the people there were had a lot to say about climate change. They mentioned changes that made fishing more difficult, that the year earlier puffins had a difficult time nesting on account of an absence of fish from abnormal warmth and the disappearing glaciers. I was able to see evidence of a vast retreat that had already taken place with some of the glaciers. 

In Iceland they are now using artificial means to try to keep the glaciers from melting!

[donsutherland1]

Just now, LibertyBell said:

On top of that, we can superimpose the West's horrid history of wildfires- 17 of the top 20 fire seasons have occurred since 2000.  The fire season has also grown an average of 75 days longer in the 2 decades since 2000 than it was before.

The observations match what has been documented in the literature. There is also a fairly large body of peer-reviewed literature on the impact of climate change on wildfires. Climate change, not failures to "rake," forest management practices, etc., is the principal reason for the increase in severe wildfire seasons, not just in the U.S. but also parts of Europe, Asia, and Australia.

[LibertyBell]

18 hours ago, Heat_Is_On said:

Well I think Blizzard is done here. I had popcorn and was enjoying the back and forth especially between him/her and skierinvermont. Will one or both of these users be banned? should they? or is this discourse allowed. It was entertaining....  anyway. 

Is this stuff quoted true? First is CO2 really a weak greenhouse gas? Isn't it the dominate GHG? Also being from a physics background, does CO2 really lag T in ice cores. I find it hard to believe that such data up to 400 thousand years ago could be resolved to such a degree. If CO2 rises and falls lag temperature changes, a layperson in climate science like myself could be confused and think it is not important. Also if CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas again one can see why there is confusion with people. Also was there a little ice age and medieval warm period? I always thought there was and if so, one can see that natural effects can be also at work. Again this can confuse a non climate scientist.  

So is this blizzard just outright lying?  please advise. I really though they figured all this stuff out and we are warming tremendously. I have heard that even our day to day weather especially storms are supercharged by CO2. Of course I take what the media says with a grain of salt since they often overdo stuff. thanks all. 

I dont believe either of them is lying.  Even though I strenuously disagree with "Blizzard" if you psychoanalyze his posts, you can see that he believes what he is posting.  His anger seems to be legit.  We all have our own biases and it takes a lot to bring down that wall.  It's best to keep personal attacks to a minimum, because that only causes more stubbornness and then both sides dig in, regardless of the available evidence.  Attack bad ideas, not the people who espouse them.

 

[LibertyBell]

1 minute ago, donsutherland1 said:

The observations match what has been documented in the literature. There is also a fairly large body of peer-reviewed literature on the impact of climate change on wildfires. Climate change, not failures to "rake," forest management practices, etc., is the principal reason for the increase in severe wildfire seasons, not just in the U.S. but also parts of Europe, Asia, and Australia.

I will match that to a change in our society since 2000.  We seem to have become a much more consumer oriented society.  An example from an entirely different arena is the diabetes epidemic and obesity becoming much more prevalent since 2000 (a higher consumption of processed fast food and food deserts)- and a concurrent rise in the prices of lifesaving drugs.  Everything is connected.

 

[LibertyBell]

On 9/11/2020 at 11:19 AM, skierinvermont said:

I'm just saying if you got rid of corn syrup, they'd just go back to using sugar which would be just as bad. So I don't really see corn syrup as the problem. It's a whole society problem. The regulations on food labeling and advertising could be stronger. Public education could be improved so people understand exercise, diet, and food labeling. Economic disparities that lead to dysfunctional families and upbringings for children are also to blame.

It looks like it went into high gear around 2000 (see post above) when our consumerist-oriented society went into high gear also.  It also depends on the source of the sugar.  I'm pre-diabetic and I have no problem eating bananas or tangerines.  Nature has packaged those sugars in such a way as to minimize their side effects- both have a high number of B vitamins, which metabolize the sugar.  But if I eat a chocolate bar, I get dizzy.  So a pretty big difference between sugar in processed food and healthy natural sources like fruits.

The sugar industry didn't help matters when they covered up research in the 70s....funny how these cartels work, the fossil fuel cartel and tobacco cartels did the same thing.

[LibertyBell]

On 9/11/2020 at 11:17 AM, skierinvermont said:

100s of thousands of people in U.S. die from air pollution from cars and coal power every year. Many millions other suffer from asthma and cardiovascular problems which are inflamed during periods of stagnant poor air quality.

https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_1

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231013004548

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(16)30023-8/fulltext

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749107002849

https://pennstate.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/health-effects-of-outdoor-air-pollution?source=post_page---------------------------

In China and India where the air is much worse, the death tolls are much higher. I have family in China and when the air is bad even young health people get headaches and cold symptoms and have to wear a mask. The elderly just have to stay inside with air purifiers. Which is why these countries are at least trying to clean up and are heavily adopting renewables and closing down dirty energy sources. And guess what? Their economies are stronger than ever and no doomsday widespread dog eating scenario. What nonsense right wing scare tactics.

Yeah, I see they learn from their previous mistakes there.  One good thing to come out of all this is that China is closing down all the wet markets that were prevalent there.  Wish we would do the same in NY.

[rclab]

2 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

The observations match what has been documented in the literature. There is also a fairly large body of peer-reviewed literature on the impact of climate change on wildfires. Climate change, not failures to "rake," forest management practices, etc., is the principal reason for the increase in severe wildfire seasons, not just in the U.S. but also parts of Europe, Asia, and Australia.

“Ignorance is Bliss”. What happens when the laughter dies? For a graphic non scientific example you can go to a classic bit performed by the late comic, Lou Costello. No, not “Whose on first”. Instead it’s when Lou, alone, was in a frightening situation and he began laughing. He laughed even while interacting with the danger. His laughter continued but it slowly, with dawning awareness, transitioned into tears. As always ......

[donsutherland1]

37 minutes ago, rclab said:

“Ignorance is Bliss”. What happens when the laughter dies? For a graphic non scientific example you can go to a classic bit performed by the late comic, Lou Costello. No, not “Whose on first”. Instead it’s when Lou, alone, was in a frightening situation and he began laughing. He laughed even while interacting with the danger. His laughter continued but it slowly, with dawning awareness, transitioned into tears. As always ......

That's a great analogy.

Today, the scientific evidence is clear , overwhelming and unequivocal. Yet, if one peruses Social Media and political rhetoric, beliefs that run counter to the evidence persist. Those beliefs, even as they are sometimes cloaked in terms of uncertainty, are non-scientific. The uncertainty is exaggerated beyond what actually exists. Peer-reviewed data and empirical evidence are dismissed outright to preserve those beliefs. None of those beliefs have anything to do with science or the scientific process. Those beliefs are articles of faith, alone. That faith is incompatible with science and the scientific evidence. It is also a substantial barrier to the kind of reforms needed for society to begin to tackle the reality of climate change and its increasingly adverse consequences (severe heat, extreme wildfires, etc.).

Those affected by the growing consequences of climate change have only tears. The status quo and its prophets bear some degree of responsibility for thwarting reforms that could begin to mitigate the risks that confront them.

[bdgwx]

On 9/13/2020 at 2:46 PM, Heat_Is_On said:

First is CO2 really a weak greenhouse gas?

No. We can quantify its radiative forcing via the well known 5.35 * ln(Ct/Cr) formula where Ct is the target concentration and Cr is the reference concentration. The difference between the Maunder Minimum and Modern Maximum is +0.25 W/m^2 (see Kopp 2016 and data).  2xCO2 comes out to 5.35 * ln(2) = +3.7 W/m^2 (see Myhre 1998). It is about an order of magnitude stronger than the solar forcing.

On 9/13/2020 at 2:46 PM, Heat_Is_On said:

Also being from a physics background, does CO2 really lag T in ice cores.

For the Quaternary Period...mostly yes. But it is complicated and most of the lag claims are based solely on Antarctica (see Shakun 2012).

For other eras like the hyperthermals...no. The Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum is an era in which CO2 catalyzed increases in temperature. The PETM is considered to be the best analog to the contemporary era.

On 9/13/2020 at 2:46 PM, Heat_Is_On said:

Also was there a little ice age and medieval warm period?

Yes. But these are terms that had always been meant to represent cool and warm eras in the North Atlantic region. They were never meant to be applied globally (see Lamb 1982).

Globally temperatures have been relatively stable during the Holocene and especially the last 2000 years (see Kaufman 2020).

On 9/13/2020 at 2:46 PM, Heat_Is_On said:

So is this blizzard just outright lying?

No. Of course not. But neither do I believe that the position he advocates for aligns with the body of evidence either.

On 9/13/2020 at 2:46 PM, Heat_Is_On said:

I really though they figured all this stuff out and we are warming tremendously.

The warming is likely unprecedented for the Holocene.

On 9/13/2020 at 2:46 PM, Heat_Is_On said:

I have heard that even our day to day weather especially storms are supercharged by CO2

Meh...it's complicated. Global warming will certainly shift the bell curve of extreme events to the right, but to claim that any one particular event is wholly attributable to global warming is a bigger stretch than most scientists are willing to make in the vast majority of cases.

[LibertyBell]

18 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

No. We can quantify its radiative forcing via the well known 5.35 * ln(Ct/Cr) formula where Ct is the target concentration and Cr is the reference concentration. The difference between the Maunder Minimum and Modern Maximum is +0.25 W/m^2 (see Kopp 2016 and data).  2xCO2 comes out to 5.35 * ln(2) = +3.7 W/m^2 (see Myhre 1998). It is about an order of magnitude stronger than the solar forcing.

For the Quaternary Period...mostly yes. But it is complicated and most of the lag claims are based solely on Antarctica (see Shakun 2012).

For other eras like the hyperthermals...no. The Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum is an era in which CO2 catalyzed increases in temperature. The PETM is considered to be the best analog to the contemporary era.

Yes. But these are terms that had always been meant to represent cool and warm eras in the North Atlantic region. They were never meant to be applied globally (see Lamb 1982).

Globally temperatures have been relatively stable during the Holocene and especially the last 2000 years (see Kaufman 2020).

No. Of course not. But neither do I believe that the position he advocates for aligns with the body of evidence either.

The warming is likely unprecedented for the Holocene.

Meh...it's complicated. Global warming will certainly shift the bell curve of extreme events to the right, but to claim that any one particular event is wholly attributable to global warming is a bigger stretch than most scientists are willing to make in the vast majority of cases.

what about something like rapidly strengthening hurricanes as they approach the Gulf Coast?  The water is abnormally warm there and in the last few years we've seen a spate of hurricanes strengthening right to landfall- Harvey, Michael, Laura, and now also Sally?

Also much slower moving storms (Harvey, Florence and now Sally).