Phoenix Records its Hottest Summer on Record

[bdgwx]

59 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

The oceans are a store house for energy and damp any forcings. So a quieter sun would take a while to get into the climate system.

Sure. But...

What we observe is an acceleration of the heat uptake and warming rates and roughly at about the same time the Sun began a more quiescent period. At the very least a quieter Sun would result in a reduction of the trapping of energy.

[blizzard1024]

5 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

Sure. But...

What we observe is an acceleration of the heat uptake and warming rates and roughly at about the same time the Sun began a more quiescent period. At the very least a quieter Sun would result in a reduction of the trapping of energy.

That's because the 20th century has a stronger sun and the heat is taking is time to cycle through the oceans still. The 21st century just began the drop in solar activity. It takes time. 

[blizzard1024]

1 hour ago, blizzard1024 said:

As expected. CO2 is both in a forcing AND a feedback relationship with the temperature. When something else catalyzes the temperature change CO2 acts via its feedback first and then as a forcing agent second to amplify the temperature change. When CO2 itself catalyzes the temperature change it acts as a forcing agent first and then via its feedback it will amplify the change through the perturbation of existing source/sink fluxes. It would be rather odd if we had discovered that CO2 lead the temperature changes during the glacial cycles.

What is the something else?  How can CO2 remain constant or keep rising slowly when temperatures fall in ice core records? So at first something begins the process of cooling CO2 doesn't do anything and then after 1000 years or so it becomes dominant?  That doesn't doesn't make any sense at all. Its a thorn in the sides of alarmists. CO2 has stayed steady or even risen and temperatures plunge during glacial inception. Makes no sense. If CO2 was such a powerful control knob on climate that wouldn't happen. Plus the whole positive CO2-H20 feedback makes no sense either. So there is a little warming from ANY forcing, this warming leads to more water vapor which then leads to more CO2 from the oceans outgassing. Then the CO2-H20 feedback kicks in and you have an unstable climate system.  It doesn't happen. CO2 does not drive the climate system. It never did in the past and it won't in the future. We may see some minor warming 1.5C (or less)...but that is all. If there is a positive feedback it would be unstable and go out of control. What is the breaking mechanism? No one can answer that. Not even PHD climate "scientists". 

[bdgwx]

5 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

That's because the 20th century has a stronger sun and the heat is taking is time to cycle through the oceans still. The 21st century just began the drop in solar activity. It takes time. 

You've missed a crucial point.

Moving heat around does not change how much heat the Earth is accumulating. It just moves it around.

Heat accumulation/uptake is an instantaneous concept. It is not lagged in any significant way (with a caveat we can discuss later). Changes in solar radiation have an instant and immediately effect on Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI).

What is lagged are the individual responses that arise from that trapped heat. Atmospheric temperature is a lagged response due mostly to the thermal inertia of the oceans.

When you turn down the burner on a stove with a pot of water the water may continue to warm. But it will warm at a SLOWER rate if it continues to warm at all. Likewise, if you turn down the Sun the heat uptake of Earth will slow down if Earth continues to accumulate heat at all. All other things being equal of course. But what we observe is that both the total heat uptake and the atmospheric temperature have accelerated while EEI remains persistently high despite this warming since the Sun entered a more quiescent state. 

Energy trapping is instant. Atmospheric temperature response is what is lagged. The solar hypothesis is not being challenged from atmospheric temperature measurements alone. It is being challenged from total heat uptake, EEI measurements among other lines of evidence.

 

 

[BillT]

6 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

What is the something else?  How can CO2 remain constant or keep rising slowly when temperatures fall in ice core records? So at first something begins the process of cooling CO2 doesn't do anything and then after 1000 years or so it becomes dominant?  That doesn't doesn't make any sense at all. Its a thorn in the sides of alarmists. CO2 has stayed steady or even risen and temperatures plunge during glacial inception. Makes no sense. If CO2 was such a powerful control knob on climate that wouldn't happen. Plus the whole positive CO2-H20 feedback makes no sense either. So there is a little warming from ANY forcing, this warming leads to more water vapor which then leads to more CO2 from the oceans outgassing. Then the CO2-H20 feedback kicks in and you have an unstable climate system.  It doesn't happen. CO2 does not drive the climate system. It never did in the past and it won't in the future. We may see some minor warming 1.5C (or less)...but that is all. If there is a positive feedback it would be unstable and go out of control. What is the breaking mechanism? No one can answer that. Not even PHD climate "scientists". 

that is my simple terms concept, IF co2 was causing the earth to lose less heat to space that would be obvious and the earth would be a cinder in short order......OR as you posted it would be unstable and go out of control.

[blizzard1024]

2 hours ago, BillT said:

that is my simple terms concept, IF co2 was causing the earth to lose less heat to space that would be obvious and the earth would be a cinder in short order......OR as you posted it would be unstable and go out of control.

BillT,

CO2 and H20 redirect photons back to the Earth and also to space.  Alone they wouldn't lead to a positive feedback and scorch the Earth. It is natural. It cools above the troposphere and warms the troposphere. Balance is maintained by convection and weather which redirect enormous amounts of heat to space. So in effect, the greenhouse warming is offset from thunderstorms and weather. The amount of outgoing long wave radiation(OLR)  is around 239 W/m2 or so averaged over the globe.  That keeps us from frying since we get roughly the same amount of energy from the sun. If greenhouse gases increase (mainly H20), the effective radiating level of the planet increase to colder temperatures leading to less OLR and this will warm the planet until OLR increases back to 239 w/m2. CO2 is a weak GHG. Doubling only leads to a theoretical increase in temperature around 1.2-1.5C or so. Not much. Its the so called runaway positive feedbacks employed by the climate models that lead to the amplification of this modest warming which I thing are way overdone. You have to believe in the climate models to believe in these extreme scenarios. I don't. 

[BillT]

models assign a weight or power to different factors, that is how mann created the hockey stick assigning far more weight to the recent stats making them make moves the previous factors didnt and i agree the models are not reliable at all they dont really account for the most powerful ghg water vapor and when they do they call it a warming factor when it is clear rain cools the areas where it falls.

[donsutherland1]

26 minutes ago, BillT said:

models assign a weight or power to different factors, that is how mann created the hockey stick assigning far more weight to the recent stats making them make moves the previous factors didnt and i agree the models are not reliable at all they dont really account for the most powerful ghg water vapor and when they do they call it a warming factor when it is clear rain cools the areas where it falls.

Mann created his landmark temperature chart from multiple lines of proxy data and the instrument record.

[BillT]

1 minute ago, donsutherland1 said:

Mann created his landmark temperature chart from multiple lines of proxy data and the instrument record.

nice strawman, ignoring my post......he set up the program to produce a hockey stick regardless to which set of numbers was used.....my comment was about the program itself, NOT the numbers used......

[psv88]

5 hours ago, bdgwx said:

Let's be precise. The 2σ error on a 5yr centered mean 150 years ago is about 0.100C. 100 years ago it is about 0.085C. 60 years ago it is about 0.035C. Obviously everyone agrees that 0.1C error is larger than 0.035C of error. But I don't think many people are going to consider these measurements to be BS because of it. Source. 

Then it should have been easy to identify.

Of course, you'd still have the problem of figuring out where all of that accumulated (aka "trapped") energy that GHGs yielded went if not into warming the atmosphere and hydrosphere. This is tough nut to crack for sure. 

Yes and no. First...that's no different than using Kepler's model of planetary motion or Einsteins model of general relatively to "prove" that the Sun is the primary component of Earth's movement in the solar system for example. I mean science constructs models specifically to address to question like these. It's ubiquitous across all disciplines of science so I don't see what the problem is here. Second...there are many observational lines of evidence that corroborate CO2's role while simultaneously eliminating other candidates (like the cooling stratosphere simultaneous with the warming troposphere and hydrosphere). And the various models like radiative transfer schems, energy balance, and GCMs are developed from observational evidence themselves. So if the implication is that "model" means "no observations" then that's not giving the state of the science a fair shake. 

Science constructs models that approximate reality. That's kind of the point of science actually. And when more than one model exists scientists, engineers, or other decision makers typically choose the one that provides the best match to reality with no more complexity than is absolutely necessary for the task.

Ah...when you say model you actually mean "global circulation model". Not all climate models are GCMs, but GCMs are a type of climate model. The most primitive climate model came in the late 1800's (see Arrhenius 1896). Models got more sophisticated and by the 1950's were using radiative transfer schemes (see Plass 1956). By the 70's climate models achieved a level of sophistication requiring numerical weather prediction techniques via global circulation models. By the 1980's these GCMs were incorporating many GHG species, solar effects, aerosol effects, etc. (see Hansen 1988). Radiative transfer schemes themselves were improving as well (see Myhre 1998). We also have energy balance models (see Wild 2013). More to the point...in the GCM arena even the primitive ones from 30 years ago ended up performing reasonably well (see Hausfather 2020). So while they may be considered crude they still work well and are orders of magnitude more complex than their non-GCM counterparts appearing between 60-120 years ago. All models have problems. That's why they are only approximations of reality. 

It's a good thing scientists do not base their conclusions on future warming from GCMs alone.

As expected. CO2 is both in a forcing AND a feedback relationship with the temperature. When something else catalyzes the temperature change CO2 acts via its feedback first and then as a forcing agent second to amplify the temperature change. When CO2 itself catalyzes the temperature change it acts as a forcing agent first and then via its feedback it will amplify the change through the perturbation of existing source/sink fluxes. It would be rather odd if we had discovered that CO2 lead the temperature changes during the glacial cycles.

But there are other events in the paleoclimate record in which CO2 did lead the temperature. These include the hyperthermal events. The most notable of which and the one that is most analogous to the contemporary warning is the PETM. There was a sudden and dramatic release of carbon (possibly CH4 or CO2 or both) that preceded the hyperthermal just like the other ETMx events.

Because it is a radiative forcing agent and because it is being released during an era in which other modulating factors have remained relatively unchanged or may have actually caused a cooling tendency.

It has happened. Many times in fact. I would consider the glacial cycles of the Quaternary Period a flip from one extreme to another. But of course their have been snowball Earth and hothouse Earth conditions as well.

But remember...H2O is a condensing gas. CO2 is non-condensing. H2O produces a radiative forcing but due to its condensing nature it is not considered a forcing agent since it cannot, on its own, catalyze a long term change in temperature. It is happy to remain in its stable equilibrium with the temperature via the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship all other things remaining equal. In other words, H2O can amplify an already catalyzed change, but it cannot actually catalyze that change on its own.

Ocean currents are important. But not in terms in of Earth's Energy Imbalance (EEI). Ocean currents do not create energy or directly change EEI. Their contribution to the EEI is thus 0 W/m^2. CO2's contribution from 280 to 410 ppm is +2.0 W/m^2. That makes CO2 vastly more important to Earth's secular climate trends than ocean currents which only have a cyclic effect through their ebb and flow of heat transfer fluxes to/from the atmosphere and deep ocean and how this heat is distribution over the Earth.

Yes it does. Quite literally in fact. In the context in which it is used in climate science the word "trap" means energy (and by extension heat) is accumulating via a planetary scale energy imbalance. This imbalance is currently +0.6 W/m^2. Therefore 0.6 W/m^2 is being "trapped" in the geosphere. CO2's un-equilibriated radiative force is a significant contributor to this "trapped" energy.

The Sun not THE control know, but only A control knob. There are other factors that modulate the climate. It is the net effect of all of them matters. Sometimes the Sun does dominate. Sometimes volcanoes dominate. Sometimes orbital cycles provide the nudge to hit the tipping point. We just happen to be living in an era with GHGs are dominating.

BTW...it's really easy to falsify the "It's the Sun stupid" hypothesis. First...like all main sequence stars the Sun brightens and warms with age. The rate is about 1% every 120 million years see (Gough 1981). The paleoclimate record shows secular cooling over million year time scales despite solar luminosity increasing. If the Sun where THE control knob then we should have expected the Earth to warm. But that didn't happen. This is the crux of the faint young paradox. Why was Earth so warm in the distant past when the Sun was significantly less bright?  Second...over the contemporary warming period and especially since 1960 solar radiation has been mostly flat and has even started to decline in the most recent decades. Yet the warming rate didn't turn negative. In fact, the warming actually accelerated during this period and in complete opposition to total solar irradiance (see SORCE). This leaves only solar magnetic flux as a candidate for influence. But as I've pointed in other posts there are far too many problems with the galactic cosmic ray hypothesis to consider it a viable hypothesis at this point. I can provide references if necessary.

 

 

Holycrap you know your stuff and put a lot of effort into these posts. Kudos to you.

[psv88]

There should be a specific thread for climate change deniers to bounce ideas off of eachother. 

Being a red tagger or having a degree has no bearing on the accuracy of your position. There were many doctors working for the cigarette companies in the 1960s who claimed that the medical evidence showed that smoking did not cause cancer...they had an MD and abused it

[donsutherland1]

29 minutes ago, BillT said:

nice strawman, ignoring my post......he set up the program to produce a hockey stick regardless to which set of numbers was used.....my comment was about the program itself, NOT the numbers used......

His paper did not reach conclusions “regardless to which set of numbers was used.” As a result, the paper has largely withstood the test of time. Today, at least in the scientific field, it is considered among the breakthrough works that have informed the evolution of understanding of climate change.

If you can point me to peer-reviewed research that finds his basic conclusion was wrong, please share it. The studies that followed largely upheld the paper with some revisions for the 1400-1500 period. The most important part concluding that the warming during the late 20th century (which has now been exceeded in the early 21st century) was greater than anything that had occurred during the prior 600 years was reaffirmed in the follow-up research. Today, there is no serious debate that the current global temperatures are unprecedented during the current 1,000 years. Within a few decades or less, they will likely be the warmest of the entire Holocene Interglacial Period. Moreover, the warming is more abrupt and rapid than anything that took place in the Holocene.  

Taking potshots at modeling to evade the largely sound conclusions of Dr. Mann’s paper is the “strawman.” Moreover, the modeling from the 1970s and 1980s, even as it was fairly rudimentary at that time, has proved quite accurate. 

[psv88]

1 minute ago, donsutherland1 said:

His paper did not reach conclusions “regardless to which set of numbers was used.” As a result, the paper has largely withstood the test of time. Today, at least in the scientific field, it is considered among the breakthrough works that have informed the evolution of understanding of climate change.

If you can point me to peer-reviewed research that finds his basic conclusion was wrong, please share it. The studies that followed largely upheld the paper with some revisions for the 1400-1500 period. The most important part concluding that the warming during the late 20th century (which has now been exceeded in the early 21st century) was greater than anything that had occurred during the prior 600 years was reaffirmed in the follow-up research. Today, there is no serious debate that the current global temperatures are unprecedented during the current 1,000 years. Within a few decades or less, they will likely be the warmest of the entire Holocene Interglacial Period. Moreover, the warming is more abrupt and rapid than anything that took place in the Holocene.  

Taking potshots at modeling to evade the largely sound conclusions of Dr. Mann’s paper is the “strawman.” Moreover, the modeling from the 1970s and 1980s, even as it was fairly rudimentary at that time, has proved quite accurate. 

Good stuff don. You keep your cool as always. You are a better man than me.

[donsutherland1]

1 minute ago, psv88 said:

Good stuff don. You keep your cool as always. You are a better man than me.

Hopefully, others who read these pages will realize that, notwithstanding erroneous Social Media claims, Mann’s “Hockey Stick” has been validated by subsequent research. The good news is that the world has largely moved on from the past debate over whether climate change is occurring (it is) and whether it is principally driven by anthropogenic activities (it is). Those who reject the now near unequivocal consensus among climate scientists have had decades to provide a plausible and empirically robust alternative to AGW. They have not.

Among the Millennials and Generation Z, the fundamental basis of climate change is widely understood. The urgency of addressing that great global challenge is also well understood. It’s those generations that will, as their political influence and participation grows, put an end to efforts to thwart the policy making necessary to address climate change. 

[BillT]

i have made no comment about his "paper" or its conclusions i have only commented on the fraud of a hockey stick that ignores warming and cooling over the last time covered showing the warm period and the little ice age as a flat line then suddenly coming out of the little ice age a blade for the hockey stick almost going straight up for lesser warming that showed as a flat line on the same chart.....

[BillT]

7 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Hopefully, others who read these pages will realize that, notwithstanding erroneous Social Media claims, Mann’s “Hockey Stick” has been validated by subsequent research. The good news is that the world has largely moved on from the past debate over whether climate change is occurring (it is) and whether it is principally driven by anthropogenic activities (it is). Those who reject the now near unequivocal consensus among climate scientists have had decades to provide a plausible and empirically robust alternative to AGW. They have not.

Among the Millennials and Generation Z, the fundamental basis of climate change is widely understood. The urgency of addressing that great global challenge is also well understood. It’s those generations that will, as their political influence and participation grows, put an end to efforts to thwart the policy making necessary to address climate change. 

another strawman, ty, i have in no way denied climate change in fact i have noted the climate always changes because any set of stats derived from constantly changing numbers will also constantly change...no reasonable person looking at the science can deny the climate changes and strawman further is claiming those disagreeing that humans are the cause of climate change are denying climate change itself....you are correct the younger folks having been taught this fraud indeed accept it..........i have not made any political comment in this entire discussion only dealing in the real science....while your post in the last portion shows it IS politics to you trying to make political change for something unproven.....the younger folks will now "vote" on the science while i KNOW science is NEVER done by voting or consensus.

[psv88]

5 minutes ago, BillT said:

another strawman, ty, i have in no way denied climate change in fact i have noted the climate always changes because any set of stats derived from constantly changing numbers will also constantly change...no reasonable person looking at the science can deny the climate changes and strawman further is claiming those disagreeing that humans are the cause of climate change are denying climate change itself....you are correct the younger folks having been taught this fraud indeed accept it..........i have not made any political comment in this entire discussion only dealing in the real science....while your post in the last portion shows it IS politics to you trying to make political change for something unproven.....the younger folks will now "vote" on the science while i KNOW science is NEVER done by voting or consensus.

How old are you BillT?

[BillT]

25 minutes ago, psv88 said:

There should be a specific thread for climate change deniers to bounce ideas off of eachother. 

Being a red tagger or having a degree has no bearing on the accuracy of your position. There were many doctors working for the cigarette companies in the 1960s who claimed that the medical evidence showed that smoking did not cause cancer...they had an MD and abused it

nobody here is denying climate change......

[BillT]

1 minute ago, psv88 said:

How old are you BillT?

68 and my age has zero to do with any discussion of the science of our climate.......your comments so far have been personal in nature and had nothing to do with the discussion of science.

[psv88]

9 minutes ago, BillT said:

nobody here is denying climate change......

Fooled me.

[psv88]

7 minutes ago, BillT said:

68 and my age has zero to do with any discussion of the science of our climate.......your comments so far have been personal in nature and had nothing to do with the discussion of science.

Sure it does. You have limited time left on earth so care less than the younger generations who are the future stewards of our planet.

[donsutherland1]

20 minutes ago, BillT said:

another strawman, ty, i have in no way denied climate change in fact i have noted the climate always changes because any set of stats derived from constantly changing numbers will also constantly change...no reasonable person looking at the science can deny the climate changes and strawman further is claiming those disagreeing that humans are the cause of climate change are denying climate change itself....you are correct the younger folks having been taught this fraud indeed accept it..........i have not made any political comment in this entire discussion only dealing in the real science....while your post in the last portion shows it IS politics to you trying to make political change for something unproven.....the younger folks will now "vote" on the science while i KNOW science is NEVER done by voting or consensus.

Scientific understanding advances through research. That research is published in peer-reviewed journals. The topic at hand concerns anthropogenic climate change. No other alternative explanation can explain the recent dramatic warming that has occurred since 1950. Mann’s research has contributed to a solid scientific understanding. 

If anthropogenic climate change is “fraud,” one should have credible scientific research to expose it. Such credible research does not exist, because the scientific basis is sound. 

Earlier, I provided a link to subsequent research that validated Mann’s paper. No one has provided a link to any paper that overturns it. That’s where things stand.

Finally, the reference to policy was an illustration to show that the world is moving to applying the scientific understanding. The scientific question, with the exception of some nuances, residual uncertainties, and details about feedbacks is largely settled on the cause of the ongoing observed warming.

[donsutherland1]

30 minutes ago, BillT said:

i have made no comment about his "paper" or its conclusions i have only commented on the fraud of a hockey stick that ignores warming and cooling over the last time covered showing the warm period and the little ice age as a flat line then suddenly coming out of the little ice age a blade for the hockey stick almost going straight up for lesser warming that showed as a flat line on the same chart.....

Mann’s paper laid out the basis for the “hockey stick.” The basic findings and the temperature reconstruction (aka the hockey stick) were validated. Thus the reconstruction is not a “fraud.”

[BillT]

7 minutes ago, psv88 said:

Sure it does. You have limited time left on earth so care less than the younger generations who are the future stewards of our planet.

enough with your LYING about me as a person, i have grandchildren and great grandchildren, i care more about their future than my own....please discuss the science and make no more personal comments.

[BillT]

10 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Scientific understanding advances through research. That research is published in peer-reviewed journals. The topic at hand concerns anthropogenic climate change. No other alternative explanation can explain the recent dramatic warming that has occurred since 1950. Mann’s research has contributed to a solid scientific understanding. 

If anthropogenic climate change is “fraud,” one should have credible scientific research to expose it. Such credible research does not exist, because the scientific basis is sound. 

Earlier, I provided a link to subsequent research that validated Mann’s paper. No one has provided a link to any paper that overturns it. That’s where things stand.

Finally, the reference to policy was an illustration to show that the world is moving to applying the scientific understanding. The scientific question, with the exception of some nuances, residual uncertainties, and details about feedbacks is largely settled on the cause of the ongoing observed warming.

there has been no dramatic warming since 1950........you want dramatic warming look back and explain how humans caused warming enough to melt the ice covering most of the planet for a very long time?  you want ocean rising how about when the land bridges between russia and alaska are now under water?.....i need nothing to prove dramatic changes have happened with nothing to do with humans, YOU need to show how humans have overpowered all of those natural forces and now are in control by releasing co2!

[psv88]

5 minutes ago, BillT said:

enough with your LYING about me as a person, i have grandchildren and great grandchildren, i care more about their future than my own....please discuss the science and make no more personal comments.

Don has laid out a coherent argument supported by data and facts. You choose to ignore it. There is no reasoning with people like yourself. Wasted time and air. I could present a solid case and you will still argue that man made climate change is fake. Time for the millennials to take the helm.

[psv88]

1 minute ago, BillT said:

there has been no dramatic warming since 1950........you want dramatic warming look back and explain how humans caused warming enough to melt the ice covering most of the planet for a very long time?  you want ocean rising how about when the land bridges between russia and alaska are now under water?.....i need nothing to prove dramatic changes have happened with nothing to do with humans, YOU need to show how humans have overpowered all of those natural forces and now are in control by releasing co2!

Completely wrong grandpa. It's bedtime.

[BillT]

1 minute ago, psv88 said:

Don has laid out a coherent argument supported by data and facts. You choose to ignore it. There is no reasoning with people like yourself. Wasted time and air. I could present a solid case and you will still argue that man made climate change is fake. Time for the millennials to take the helm.

you are dismissed for lying about me as a person and refusing to take part in the discussion of science.

[psv88]

1 minute ago, BillT said:

you are dismissed for lying about me as a person and refusing to take part in the discussion of science.

From the guy who says the earth hasnt warmed since 1950. This is rich. There is no scientific discussion. Just an angry old man cursing at science. 

[donsutherland1]

16 minutes ago, BillT said:

there has been no dramatic warming since 1950........you want dramatic warming look back and explain how humans caused warming enough to melt the ice covering most of the planet for a very long time?  you want ocean rising how about when the land bridges between russia and alaska are now under water?.....i need nothing to prove dramatic changes have happened with nothing to do with humans, YOU need to show how humans have overpowered all of those natural forces and now are in control by releasing co2!

The rate of warming has been unprecedented for the Holocene. For a graph that goes well beyond the Holocene for even greater perspective:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/05/500-million-year-survey-earths-climate-reveals-dire-warning-humanity

Sea levels are rising as ice caps and glaciers are melting. 

Finally, the scientists have already demonstrated that anthropogenic factors are responsible for most of the recent warming.