Phoenix Records its Hottest Summer on Record

[bdgwx]

17 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

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).

 

 

How much stronger? How much slower? How much wetter?

Those are tough questions to answer on an individual storm basis.

I will say that the Siberian heat wave this summer was made vastly more likely by global warming than it would have been otherwise. The shifting of the bell curve and skewing of the probabilities was extreme enough in this particular case that it's hard to claim that the event was merely a fluke.

I'm just saying in general it's a stretch to attribute all of an individual event's magnitude on global warming. Even if Harvey were a bit faster or had slightly less water content to work with Houston still would have experienced catastrophic flooding. In that regard I don't think global warming tipped the scale that caused Harvey to transition from a nuance to a catastrophe. But it may have shortened the recurrence interval between storms of similar magnitude. 

[LibertyBell]

7 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

How much stronger? How much slower? How much wetter?

Those are tough questions to answer on an individual storm basis.

I will say that the Siberian heat wave this summer was made vastly more likely by global warming than it would have been otherwise. The shifting of the bell curve and skewing of the probabilities was extreme enough in this particular case that it's hard to claim that the event was merely a fluke.

I'm just saying in general it's a stretch to attribute all of an individual event's magnitude on global warming. Even if Harvey were a bit faster or had slightly less water content to work with Houston still would have experience catastrophic flooding. In that regard I don't think global warming tipped the scale that caused Harvey to transition from a nuances to a catastrophe. But it may have shortened the recurrence interval between storms of similar magnitude. 

15% slower was the figure I've seen attributed to TC forward speed.  Not sure on the strengthening as they near landfall factor, but the SST are abnormally warm near shore.

That Siberian megaheatwave sure was something to behold, never heard of anything so anomalous lasting so long.

 

[skierinvermont]

On 9/13/2020 at 1:46 PM, 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 believe he is correct that CO2 lags T in ice core data for the recent ice ages. Even if I am remembering that wrong and the resolution isn't there to prove it, it's very likely that CO2 did in fact lag T over the ice ages. Previous warming periods weren't initiated by CO2 and CO2 acted as a positive feedback. When the earth warmed 1C, CO2 would be released from the oceans because warmer water holds CO2 less readily. The increased CO2 and water vapor would cause more warming (less than 1C or the warming would be 'runaway' - people often confuse positive feedbacks with runaway positive feedbacks).  It's not possible to explain the ice ages without the existence of positive feedbacks (CO2 and water vapor) but they weren't the initial cause.

On that point, blizzard is technically correct. What he doesn't understand is that this has been a well understood and researched aspect of the science for decades. I will say, Al Gore presented it somewhat deceptively in 'An Inconvenient Truth' which provided me with endless fodder on my radio show during my climate change skepticism days (until I actually learned and understood the science).

Our current warming is unique in that huge quantities of CO2 have been artificially released into the atmosphere in a very short period.

[skierinvermont]

15 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

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.

 

I think he believes much of what he is saying but there are clear instances of him stating things he knows to be false. For example, claiming to have read a particular paper I mentioned when he doesn't know which paper. Or repeating points that were clearly proven false and deliberately ignoring those replies so as to continue repeating the same falsehoods. It would be different if he actually responded to the points directed at him. But by willfully ignoring the responses I believe it is intentionally disingenuous and dishonest. Ignoring evidence contrary to out beliefs is common human behavior. But it is certainly not admirable and is one of the uglier sides of the human psyche. It is pervasive in the AGW denier community.

Most people don't have the time, energy, intellect, background knowledge, or discipline to understand the science. Which is one reason these debates are so often fruitless with one side consistently ignoring the evidence presented.

[Bhs1975]

I think he believes much of what he is saying but there are clear instances of him stating things he knows to be false. For example, claiming to have read a particular paper I mentioned when he doesn't know which paper. Or repeating points that were clearly proven false and deliberately ignoring those replies so as to continue repeating the same falsehoods. It would be different if he actually responded to the points directed at him. But by willfully ignoring the responses I believe it is intentionally disingenuous and dishonest. Ignoring evidence contrary to out beliefs is common human behavior. But it is certainly not admirable and is one of the uglier sides of the human psyche. It is pervasive in the AGW denier community.

Most people don't have the time, energy, intellect, background knowledge, or discipline to understand the science. Which is one reason these debates are so often fruitless with one side consistently ignoring the evidence presented.

That’s why we need a technocratic government to turn things around in time to survive. Not looking good for civilization right now.

[LibertyBell]

8 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

I think he believes much of what he is saying but there are clear instances of him stating things he knows to be false. For example, claiming to have read a particular paper I mentioned when he doesn't know which paper. Or repeating points that were clearly proven false and deliberately ignoring those replies so as to continue repeating the same falsehoods. It would be different if he actually responded to the points directed at him. But by willfully ignoring the responses I believe it is intentionally disingenuous and dishonest. Ignoring evidence contrary to out beliefs is common human behavior. But it is certainly not admirable and is one of the uglier sides of the human psyche. It is pervasive in the AGW denier community.

Most people don't have the time, energy, intellect, background knowledge, or discipline to understand the science. Which is one reason these debates are so often fruitless with one side consistently ignoring the evidence presented.

You used to be a climate change skeptic and had a radio show?  I didn't know either of that.   I thought climate change had been settled going way back to the 80s.   The science is not that difficult (for those of us who love science) and your use of analogies is a handy method for showing people how it works without having to delve into mathematics, charts, etc.   We already knew it was happening back then and it turns out that the fossil fuel cartel knew about it even before that.  It's just much more obvious now then it was back then.  Obviously the cartel had been doing  a great job covering their tracks, and now that they can no longer do that (well to most of us anyway) they espouse failed strategies like removing carbon from the atmosphere and "clean coal".

[LibertyBell]

3 hours ago, Bhs1975 said:

That’s why we need a technocratic government to turn things around in time to survive. Not looking good for civilization right now.

Heh yeah I've been wondering about the vulnerability of a democracy in which a large segment of the population isn't properly educated to make smart decisions about existential threats.  They are very easy to manipulate without even knowing it's happening.

 

[LibertyBell]

8 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

I believe he is correct that CO2 lags T in ice core data for the recent ice ages. Even if I am remembering that wrong and the resolution isn't there to prove it, it's very likely that CO2 did in fact lag T over the ice ages. Previous warming periods weren't initiated by CO2 and CO2 acted as a positive feedback. When the earth warmed 1C, CO2 would be released from the oceans because warmer water holds CO2 less readily. The increased CO2 and water vapor would cause more warming (less than 1C or the warming would be 'runaway' - people often confuse positive feedbacks with runaway positive feedbacks).  It's not possible to explain the ice ages without the existence of positive feedbacks (CO2 and water vapor) but they weren't the initial cause.

On that point, blizzard is technically correct. What he doesn't understand is that this has been a well understood and researched aspect of the science for decades. I will say, Al Gore presented it somewhat deceptively in 'An Inconvenient Truth' which provided me with endless fodder on my radio show during my climate change skepticism days (until I actually learned and understood the science).

Our current warming is unique in that huge quantities of CO2 have been artificially released into the atmosphere in a very short period.

Well we would have been in a FAR better place had Gore become president rather than the illegitimate "election" of war criminals Bush, Junior and Mercenary Cheney.

 

[skierinvermont]

3 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

You used to be a climate change skeptic and had a radio show?  I didn't know either of that.   I thought climate change had been settled going way back to the 80s.   The science is not that difficult (for those of us who love science) and your use of analogies is a handy method for showing people how it works without having to delve into mathematics, charts, etc.   We already knew it was happening back then and it turns out that the fossil fuel cartel knew about it even before that.  It's just much more obvious now then it was back then.  Obviously the cartel had been doing  a great job covering their tracks, and now that they can no longer do that (well to most of us anyway) they espouse failed strategies like removing carbon from the atmosphere and "clean coal".

There are lots of aspects of the science which get pretty complicated when you dig deeper. When I first started digging around 2007-2009 there were a lot of things that on the surface seemed like biases or errors of climate science. A few of them are actual errors/biases, but most of the time there are good reasons when you read the technical papers on the subject.

A few examples of things that seemed like errors/biases but weren't when I dug more:

1. Global temperature didn't rise from 1997-2009. This fell at the very low end of what climate models predicted was possible. It was basically a 2 SD event and fell right at the 95% confidence interval for climate models. In retrospect, a number of factors had aligned to prevent warming for that 12 year period and the factors were more temporary than I understood (ENSO, solar).

2. Climate science seemed to rely more heavily on warmer temperature sources such as Hadley and GISS (surface based) and RSS (satellite based) than UAH (satellite based). If you read the technical papers on the subject there are good reasons to believe the surface datasets are superior to the satellites, and RSS is likely superior to UAH although both have significant uncertainties.

3. There had been a lot of EL Ninos in the 80s and 90s and this could have somehow caused a lot of the warming (it only caused a little of it).

4. The sun was very strong in the 70s-90s and there were theories that the cosmic rays could cause cloud cover changes that amplify warming. When you read the technical papers on the subject, these theories contain errors and aren't properly peer-reviewed although they are published. Recent low solar activity is yet another proof of their error.

5. Overall I generally acknowledged that doubling CO2 caused 1.2C of warming, but questioned whether feedbacks would really amplify this to 3C. This was based on a belief that historical warming was less than climate scientists said it was, and the possibility of alternative amplifications of the warming such as ENSO/PDO/Solar/Clouds. 

6. There's some dataset floating out there (I forget the name) that shows cloud cover changes that would have caused warming. The dataset is likely flawed.

 

A few examples of things I still believe are errors or biases of a few individuals in the field:

1. James Hansen made a number of extreme predictions about sea level rise in the early 2000s about seal level in 2020 or 2030. They were very wrong.

2. Michael Mann's hockey stick is somewhat deceptive. It should have more clearly shown that he was combining low resolution data (tree ring data from 1000-1900 AD) with very high resolution data (1900-present). There are better presentations of this graph out here than Michael Mann's original.

3. Al Gore's movie presented ice core data and made it sound like CO2 caused temperature changes in the past. In reality, it was one of several positive feedbacks.

4. There are some papers out there that tend to rely on the most extreme outcomes.

5. GISS extrapolates very rapid warming in coastal Siberia over much of the Arctic Ocean where in reality it has likely not warmed as quickly due to the moderating effect of water. This leads to a very slight warming bias during periods of rapid arctic warming.

[bdgwx]

That is a reasonable, rational, and well thought out post @skierinvermont

It is important for people to understand that while many of us do advocate for AGW in general we're not all blinded by the fact that there are many things regarding the state of climate science that lead to frustratingly large uncertainty envelopes,  annoyingly large spreads between prediction and observation, poor explanations of past observations, etc.

I'm always open to discussing climate science's shortcomings. I have a list of pet peeves, concerns, and questions myself actually. My only request is that all discussions be done with an evidence centric approach. Claims on either side of the spectrum should be reasoned, measured, and backed by peer reviewed literature, repeatable experimentation, and verifiable observations. Unsubstantiated claims of fraud, manipulation, conspiracy, the general "nuh-uh" class of arguments, and hostility towards science in general are unsatisfying and unconvincing and do little if anything to move the discipline forward.

For those contrarians out there...don't hear what I'm not saying. I'm not saying that criticism isn't welcome. What I'm saying is that if that criticism does not provide a means or path by which our models of the climate system can improve then what good is it really? If you ask me to abandon a model, which I fully understand isn't perfect, for no model at all then I'm going to push back. But if you instead accompany your criticism or insight with a statement of "here's how your model could be better" then I'll be all over it.

 

[skierinvermont]

Put another way, climate science is pretty conclusive in the big picture, but the science behind it is pretty extensive and can be complex at times. If you trust the field, then the big picture hasn’t changed much since the 90s. But if you want to understand it yourself it’s quite complex, there are some remaining uncertainties, and it’s easy to misunderstand or partially understand. What I don’t understand at this point, I tend to defer to the experts more than I used to because in all of the cases I have looked at in depth, the peer reviewed consensus has been right.

[LibertyBell]

5 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

Put another way, climate science is pretty conclusive in the big picture, but the science behind it is pretty extensive and can be complex at times. If you trust the field, then the big picture hasn’t changed much since the 90s. But if you want to understand it yourself it’s quite complex, there are some remaining uncertainties, and it’s easy to misunderstand or partially understand. What I don’t understand at this point, I tend to defer to the experts more than I used to because in all of the cases I have looked at in depth, the peer reviewed consensus has been right.

We've generally come to the conclusion that the CO2 output went into the oceans first which may partially explain what you pointed out about the lack of warming during the first decade of the millennium (and has resulted in coral bleaching.)  The ironic thing about the climate models is that they're now proving to be TOO conservative as far as sea level rise is concerned.  I've always been of the philosophy that we need to be proactive and make changes (for a multitude of reasons) BEFORE the science was settled, and there have always been good reasons to do that (regarding air pollution and health, which we've already gone over.)  And it's important for us to present a united front to the general public, which either doesn't have access to this data or doesn't have the time to sift through it.  There's many reasons to end the consumption of fossil fuels, and climate change is only one of them.  On top of that, if you want to wait until everything is 100% settled, it'll be too late.  It almost is already.  Perfection is the enemy of the good.

Regarding Siberia, I think we're now seeing the accelerated temperature rise that has long been predicted.  Not only that, we are also seeing it in other northern regions, including Vermont and other parts of Northern New England.  A good analogy is that the attic is on fire and the fire is now spreading to other parts of the house.

 

 

[skierinvermont]

7 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

We've generally come to the conclusion that the CO2 output went into the oceans first which may partially explain what you pointed out about the lack of warming during the first decade of the millennium (and has resulted in coral bleaching.)  

 

 

Sorry if it wasn't clear from my post. The lack of warming from 1997-2009 was primarily due to a decline in ENSO during the period and a decline in solar output. Plus possibly some other unexplained natural variability. CO2 in the atmosphere was rising rapidly before, during, and after that period.

 

You can see in the graph in the paper Don posted a last week that once the effect of ENSO and solar are removed, the 1997-2009 period continued to warm. Although if you look carefully the warming from 1997-2009 was a little slower than before or after even after removing ENSO and solar, especially on UAH and RSS. So there is still a little unexplained natural variability and/or measurement error. But ENSO and solar collectively explain 80-90% of the short term variance (eyeballing - the actual figure is probably in the paper itself).

 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022

 

They confusingly offset the data in the graph below, so ignore the y axis. The point of the graph below is that all 5 of them show a lot more big ups and downs.

 

[bdgwx]

Aerosol loading probably explains part of the warming hiatus. One thing that puzzles me is that oceanic heat content kept marching upward. It makes me wonder if the typical transfer of heat into the atmosphere waned during the period only to be taken up by the cryosphere. The post 1998 El Nino period was about the time where cryosphere declines became most acute.

[skierinvermont]

16 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

Aerosol loading probably explains part of the warming hiatus. One thing that puzzles me is that oceanic heat content kept marching upward. It makes me wonder if the typical transfer of heat into the atmosphere waned during the period only to be taken up by the cryosphere. The post 1998 El Nino period was about the time where cryosphere declines became most acute.

Oh true, I think I remember reading aerosols rose more or declined less during that period than others because of China. 
 

Ohc may have continued to rise at a high rate despite the aerosols partially because of the tendency towards La Niña during that period. Otherwise we might have seen a little slowdown in ohc.

[LibertyBell]

32 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

Aerosol loading probably explains part of the warming hiatus. One thing that puzzles me is that oceanic heat content kept marching upward. It makes me wonder if the typical transfer of heat into the atmosphere waned during the period only to be taken up by the cryosphere. The post 1998 El Nino period was about the time where cryosphere declines became most acute.

It makes a lot of sense that oceanic heat content kept increasing.

https://www.noaa.gov/news/global-ocean-is-absorbing-more-carbon-from-fossil-fuel-emissions

The global ocean absorbed 34 billion metric tons of carbon from the burning of fossil fuels from 1994 to 2007 — a four-fold increase to 2.6 billion metric tons per year when compared to the period starting from the Industrial Revolution in 1800 to 1994.

[LibertyBell]

In another piece I read, it stated that 93% of the heat went into the oceans first, that also explains part of the lag that skiier talked about.

 

[bdgwx]

31 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

It makes a lot of sense that oceanic heat content kept increasing.

https://www.noaa.gov/news/global-ocean-is-absorbing-more-carbon-from-fossil-fuel-emissions

The global ocean absorbed 34 billion metric tons of carbon from the burning of fossil fuels from 1994 to 2007 — a four-fold increase to 2.6 billion metric tons per year when compared to the period starting from the Industrial Revolution in 1800 to 1994.

Right. No disagreement with the uptake of carbon by the ocean. But oceanic heat content (OHC) is a measure of heat uptake; not carbon uptake. It is directly related to the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI). The EEI is dispatched into the ocean, air, ice, and land. The hiatus period is characterized by a general pause in heat uptake by the air despite heat uptake proceeding in the ocean. ENSO cycles likely played a role in the waning of the transfer of heat to the atmosphere. I was wondering how much of a role the cryosphere played in that as well. The puzzle is that increased aerosol loading brings down the EEI and thus should have reduced the rate of OHC increases. This is what makes me think aerosol loading may not be as important in explaining the hiatus period as some have hypothesized.

18 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

In another piece I read, it stated that 93% of the heat went into the oceans first, that also explains part of the lag that skiier talked about.

@donsutherland1  found the following study which estimates that value at 89%. It appears to be one of those comprehensive style studies that attempts to provide the best estimate of EEI with the lowest uncertainty from the vast body of evidence available at the time of publication.

Schuckmann et al. 2020: Heat Stored in the Earth System: where does the energy go?

There are some big names in the author list and the bibliography at the end is huge. Keeping in mind that I'm but an amateur...this looks like something that will be heavily relied upon in the upcoming IPCC AR6 report.

 

[bdgwx]

49 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

Oh true, I think I remember reading aerosols rose more or declined less during that period than others because of China. 
 

Ohc may have continued to rise at a high rate despite the aerosols partially because of the tendency towards La Niña during that period. Otherwise we might have seen a little slowdown in ohc.

I agree. I think the aerosol hypothesis can be at least partially falsified by the OHC data. If aerosol increases were playing a significant factor we should have observed a decrease in the EEI and thus a reduction in OHC uptake. I think ENSO or other natural cycles better explain the atmospheric warming hiatus. Cryosphere declines also seem (to me) like a reasonable hypothesis for explaining the hiatus as well, but I haven't seen any literature that I can use to support it at the moment.

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, bdgwx said:

I agree. I think the aerosol hypothesis can be at least partially falsified by the OHC data. If aerosol increases were playing a significant factor we should have observed a decrease in the EEI and thus a reduction in OHC uptake. I think ENSO or other natural cycles better explain the atmospheric warming hiatus. Cryosphere declines also seem (to me) like a reasonable hypothesis for explaining the hiatus as well, but I haven't seen any literature that I can use to support it at the moment.

If that's true then a reasonable assumption would be that ENSO may have offered a temporary counterbalance to atmospheric warming.  The question then becomes if artificial sources were taken out of the equation, how much would the earth have cooled in that period?

[skierinvermont]

3 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

If that's true then a reasonable assumption would be that ENSO may have offered a temporary counterbalance to atmospheric warming.  The question then becomes if artificial sources were taken out of the equation, how much would the earth have cooled in that period?

The paper referenced finds an effect size of ~.09C per unit of MEI (multivariate enso index). I'd ballpark the line of best fit for the MEI from 1997-2009 as decreasing 1 unit. So a cooling of .09C.

The effect size for TSI is ~.1C per W/m2 (measured with the sun directly overhead). Given TSI decreased maybe .3W/m2 line of best fit, that's a cooling effect of .03C.

Sum it up and the earth would have cooled .12C based on ENSO and solar alone from 1997-2009. Aerosols could have added a little more cooling. This cooling was primarily negated by GHGs (primarily CO2) providing a roughly equal warming effect. This warming effect of .12C or perhaps a bit more is similar to the 40 year background warming rate, confirming the background warming rate has stayed roughly constant. Just another way of saying what the graph I posted above shows.

[blizzard1024]

On 9/15/2020 at 1:22 AM, skierinvermont said:

I believe he is correct that CO2 lags T in ice core data for the recent ice ages. Even if I am remembering that wrong and the resolution isn't there to prove it, it's very likely that CO2 did in fact lag T over the ice ages. Previous warming periods weren't initiated by CO2 and CO2 acted as a positive feedback. When the earth warmed 1C, CO2 would be released from the oceans because warmer water holds CO2 less readily. The increased CO2 and water vapor would cause more warming (less than 1C or the warming would be 'runaway' - people often confuse positive feedbacks with runaway positive feedbacks).  It's not possible to explain the ice ages without the existence of positive feedbacks (CO2 and water vapor) but they weren't the initial cause.

Sorry I don't agree. How can something else kick off a global warming event during the last glacial maximum, CO2 remains constant or even falls as it lags this initial forcing and then all of the sudden after several hundred years it becomes a positive feedback? That makes no sense. Obviously it is not the control knob of the climate if it doesn't kick off climate change. How can CO2 be still falling and global warming occurring and vice versa? Then after a lag it all of the sudden becomes a feedback?  If that is the case, it is only a feedback to the warming we see today. Warmer oceans outgas CO2 and humans add some too. There is some effect from increasing CO2 but whatever kicked off the warming from the Little Ice Age to present is the dominant forcing. Since CO2 increases have a logarithmic effect radiatively CO2 should have more influence during ice ages and less so now as CO2 has rise to above 400 ppm. There is less warming for each additional ppm of CO2. So even if there is unnatural rises in CO2, the effects are diminishing on the climate system. All told 3.7 w/m2 of extra forcing for doubled CO2 vs OLR of 239 w/m2 is 1-2%. That is very little. There is SOME effect but it is not driving the climate.  Climate models are flawed and do not account for natural processes well. They also assume the climate was in stasis in 1850 which it wasn't since we were warming out of the LIA. So climate models don't prove anything.   

[skierinvermont]

27 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Sorry I don't agree. How can something else kick off a global warming event during the last glacial maximum, CO2 remains constant or even falls as it lags this initial forcing and then all of the sudden after several hundred years it becomes a positive feedback? That makes no sense. Obviously it is not the control knob of the climate if it doesn't kick off climate change. How can CO2 be still falling and global warming occurring and vice versa? Then after a lag it all of the sudden becomes a feedback?  If that is the case, it is only a feedback to the warming we see today. Warmer oceans outgas CO2 and humans add some too. There is some effect from increasing CO2 but whatever kicked off the warming from the Little Ice Age to present is the dominant forcing. Since CO2 increases have a logarithmic effect radiatively CO2 should have more influence during ice ages and less so now as CO2 has rise to above 400 ppm. There is less warming for each additional ppm of CO2. So even if there is unnatural rises in CO2, the effects are diminishing on the climate system. All told 3.7 w/m2 of extra forcing for doubled CO2 vs OLR of 239 w/m2 is 1-2%. That is very little. There is SOME effect but it is not driving the climate.  Climate models are flawed and do not account for natural processes well. They also assume the climate was in stasis in 1850 which it wasn't since we were warming out of the LIA. So climate models don't prove anything.   

Nobody ever said CO2 was the only factor. The interglacial warming was kicked off by earth's orbital changes. The warming took thousands of years because the orbital changes also took thousands of years. Throughout the whole process CO2 is acting as a positive feedback and making it warmer than it would be. It's entirely possible the earth could have cooled for a hundred years here or there while CO2 rose because orbital changes or some other factor caused cooling. I'm not sure that ice core data has that kind of resolution however, and you've presented no such evidence. The graphs I've seen have CO2 and temperature correlated very closely. If you presented documented evidence of CO2 rising significantly while temperature dropped significantly (and by significantly I mean more than other 3rd factors could possibly account for), that would indeed interesting. But you've presented no such evidence.

The evidence is to the contrary: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915

Climate models do not assume the climate was in stasis in 1850. This is false - and likely a lie unless you have any evidence to back it up. Making false claims without evidence is dishonest.

3.7W/m2 is not 'very little' forcing. The earth's surface would have to warm 1.2C in order to emit that extra radiation to space. This is without the tremendous evidence of positive feedbacks that would lead to more forcing beyond the 3.7W/m2.

The logarithmic nature of CO2 forcing is well understood. During the interglacials it would rise from 190 to 270. Today we are past 400. 

 

Show me what is inconsistent with CO2 acting as a positive feedback in this graph. Keep in mind the precision of the measurements may be +/-5 or 10% (would have to check the paper to confirm). Blue is temp yellow is CO2. I would say this graph is entirely consistent with the theory that CO2 acts as a positive feedback during the interglacials. It doesn't prove it. But it is consistent.

 

[Bhs1975]

Sorry I don't agree. How can something else kick off a global warming event during the last glacial maximum, CO2 remains constant or even falls as it lags this initial forcing and then all of the sudden after several hundred years it becomes a positive feedback? That makes no sense. Obviously it is not the control knob of the climate if it doesn't kick off climate change. How can CO2 be still falling and global warming occurring and vice versa? Then after a lag it all of the sudden becomes a feedback?  If that is the case, it is only a feedback to the warming we see today. Warmer oceans outgas CO2 and humans add some too. There is some effect from increasing CO2 but whatever kicked off the warming from the Little Ice Age to present is the dominant forcing. Since CO2 increases have a logarithmic effect radiatively CO2 should have more influence during ice ages and less so now as CO2 has rise to above 400 ppm. There is less warming for each additional ppm of CO2. So even if there is unnatural rises in CO2, the effects are diminishing on the climate system. All told 3.7 w/m2 of extra forcing for doubled CO2 vs OLR of 239 w/m2 is 1-2%. That is very little. There is SOME effect but it is not driving the climate.  Climate models are flawed and do not account for natural processes well. They also assume the climate was in stasis in 1850 which it wasn't since we were warming out of the LIA. So climate models don't prove anything.   

Why do keep regurgitating the same crap without backing it up with any peer reviewed material?

[blizzard1024]

Just now, Bhs1975 said:

Why do keep regurgitating the same crap without backing it up with any peer reviewed material?

Because the peer review process is corrupted. Scientists rely on the government for funding. If there are no serious problems, there is no funding. So climate scientists have to have a problem to get funding. The problem has to be more and more significant to keep getting funding. Since the climate is changing slowly and most Americans don't notice much change, they are trying to prove that weather events are now supercharged by CO2 and the media catches on and calls it a climate crisis and so on. Politicians now are worried and bingo more funding. 
Plus the folks that have all the power are of course biased to where the money is and referee the peer review process and won't let skeptical viewpoints publish. We saw that in the climategate emails and it continues more than a decade later. Follow the money, influence and power. Peer review doesn't mean much anymore. I have seen terrible papers get through when I was a reviewer. It depends on what the problem is. If it fits an agenda it gets published easier. This is just the truth and it unfortunately occurs outside climate science too. With blogs and open internet, peer review isn't what is was 20 years ago.

 

[skierinvermont]

2 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Because the peer review process is corrupted. Scientists rely on the government for funding. If there are no serious problems, there is no funding. So climate scientists have to have a problem to get funding. The problem has to be more and more significant to keep getting funding. Since the climate is changing slowly and most Americans don't notice much change, they are trying to prove that weather events are now supercharged by CO2 and the media catches on and calls it a climate crisis and so on. Politicians now are worried and bingo more funding. 
Plus the folks that have all the power are of course biased to where the money is and referee the peer review process and won't let skeptical viewpoints publish. We saw that in the climategate emails and it continues more than a decade later. Follow the money, influence and power. Peer review doesn't mean much anymore. I have seen terrible papers get through when I was a reviewer. It depends on what the problem is. If it fits an agenda it gets published easier. This is just the truth and it unfortunately occurs outside climate science too. With blogs and open internet, peer review isn't what is was 20 years ago.

 

lol those evil scientists are at it again!

Papers that present evidence for lower climate sensitivity or lesser impacts are published all the time.

[blizzard1024]

1 minute ago, skierinvermont said:

lol those evil scientists are at it again!

Papers that present evidence for lower climate sensitivity or lesser impacts are published all the time.

I never said they are evil. It is a human bias. That's all my friend. 

[skierinvermont]

14 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

I never said they are evil. It is a human bias. That's all my friend. 

So all humans are biased (I agree) but only climate science is basically completely wrong in your opinion. lol.

As I said before, and to which you did not respond, there are lots of papers and evidence published that suggest lower climate sensitivity or lower impacts from warming

 

The peer-review process is the best process science has to make sure mistakes aren't being made. Pointing out mistakes of your peers is also an easy way to fame and success in science. The oil industry has also been funding anti-climate change science for decades, but most of the papers published don't stand up to the test of time.

[blizzard1024]

11 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

As I said before, and to which you did not respond, there are lots of papers and evidence published that suggest lower climate sensitivity or lower impacts from warming

 

Please list them. I would like to read them.

[skierinvermont]

3 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Please list them. I would like to read them.

tip of iceberg.. all published in major journals and cited by IPCC.. there is no widespread effort to suppress contrarian views or views that play down the effect of climate change. These papers are taken seriously in the field. Internet drivel is not.

 

A lower and more constrained estimate of climate sensitivity using updated observations and detailed radiative forcing time series

https://zenodo.org/record/918270#.X2Kx42hKhPY

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ClDy...45.1009L/abstract  - published by Judith Curry and widely cited by climate science - good example of how using actual evidence and logic gets you published and respected

http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/76064/7/ngeo1836(1)_with_coversheet.pdf

https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/11/737/2020/esd-11-737-2020.pdf  -  demonstrates that models with high estimates of climate sensitivity are likely wrong