Phoenix Records its Hottest Summer on Record

[bluewave]

The dust bowl was a localized rather than global event. The heat and drought were amplified by the poor land use practices which lead to the extreme soil erosion. The modern localized summer cooler high temperatures in the corn belt are also a result of farming practices. 
 

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/383102

Abstract

We provide a new and more complete analysis of the origins of the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, one of the most severe environmental crises in North America in the twentieth century. Severe drought and wind erosion hit the Great Plains in 1930 and lasted through 1940. There were similar droughts in the 1950s and 1970s, but no comparable level of wind erosion. We explain why. The prevalence of small farms in the 1930s limited private solutions for controlling the downwind externalities associated with wind erosion. Drifting sand from unprotected fields damaged neighboring farms. Small farmers cultivated more of their land and were less likely to invest in erosion control than larger farmers. Soil conservation districts, established by the government after 1937, helped coordinate erosion control. This “unitized” solution for collective action is similar to that used in other natural resource/environmental settings.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/america-s-corn-belt-making-its-own-weather

The Great Plains of the central United States—the Corn Belt—is one of the most fertile regions on Earth, producing more than 10 billion bushels of corn each year. It’s also home to some mysterious weather: Whereas the rest of the world has warmed, the region’s summer temperatures have dropped as much as a full degree Celsius, and rainfall has increased up to 35%, the largest spike anywhere in the world. The culprit, according to a new study, isn’t greenhouse gas emissions or sea surface temperature—it’s the corn itself.

https://news.wisc.edu/irrigated-farming-in-wisconsins-central-sands-cools-the-regions-climate/

New research finds that irrigated farms within Wisconsin’s vegetable-growing Central Sands region significantly cool the local climate compared to nearby rain-fed farms or forests.

Irrigation dropped maximum temperatures by one to three degrees Fahrenheit on average while increasing minimum temperatures up to four degrees compared to unirrigated farms or forests. In all, irrigated farms experienced a three- to seven-degree smaller range in daily temperatures compared to other land uses. These effects persisted throughout the year.

 

[blizzard1024]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

The idea that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have become the dominant forcing driving the observed warming is settled. That’s a fairly narrow point. There is no compelling alternative explanation in the literature. That’s why the IPCC is considering upgrading its assessment to 99%-100% confidence in that idea.

In the larger scheme of things, nuances and uncertainties exist. Questions about feedbacks persist. 

Finally, a newly published paper found that the earth’s energy imbalance has increased to +87 W/m^2 in recent years. That may seem small, but it’s a very large imbalance.

Wait a minute. 87 w/m2?  It was around .6w/m2. Now its 87? that's dramatic. where is this paper? that has to be a mistake. do you mean .87?

[blizzard1024]

1 minute ago, blizzard1024 said:

The idea that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have become the dominant forcing driving the observed warming is settled. That’s a fairly narrow point. There is no compelling alternative explanation in the literature. That’s why the IPCC is considering upgrading its assessment to 99%-100% confidence in that idea.

I will agree to disagree. It is not even close to being settled. We don't know enough about natural climatic forcings. You can't hide behind literature or IPCC. The literature or peer reviewed papers do not cover anything else because they use models to determine whether the forcing is natural or not. When you have an incomplete knowledge of natural forcings and cycles how can you make models that cover this?   There is nothing convincing (except for models) that points to CO2 as the main driver of climate. We are in a warming trend now. It is pretty small. 1-2C/century if it continues. That is pretty small considering the rapid changes that occured during the glacial-interglacial cycles, younger dryas and the 8.2 ky cooling event. These were drastic changes. What we are seeing now is benign warming. Of course coastal communities will continue to see sea level rise so living on the coast is a problem. But for most of us, any warming is beneficial.  Once the oceans go back to a cooling cycle we will see a drop in temperature. 

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Wait a minute. 87 w/m2?  It was around .6w/m2. Now its 87? that's dramatic. where is this paper? that has to be a mistake. do you mean .87?

.87. Small typo on my part, but a huge problem were the mistyped figure accurate.

[blizzard1024]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

.87. Small typo on my part, but a huge problem were the mistyped figure accurate.

okay!   That is what I thought. thank you. 

[blizzard1024]

4 hours ago, bluewave said:

The dust bowl was a localized rather than global event. The heat and drought were amplified by the poor land use practices which lead to the extreme soil erosion. The modern localized summer cooler high temperatures in the corn belt are also a result of farming practices. 
 

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/383102

Abstract

We provide a new and more complete analysis of the origins of the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, one of the most severe environmental crises in North America in the twentieth century. Severe drought and wind erosion hit the Great Plains in 1930 and lasted through 1940. There were similar droughts in the 1950s and 1970s, but no comparable level of wind erosion. We explain why. The prevalence of small farms in the 1930s limited private solutions for controlling the downwind externalities associated with wind erosion. Drifting sand from unprotected fields damaged neighboring farms. Small farmers cultivated more of their land and were less likely to invest in erosion control than larger farmers. Soil conservation districts, established by the government after 1937, helped coordinate erosion control. This “unitized” solution for collective action is similar to that used in other natural resource/environmental settings.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/america-s-corn-belt-making-its-own-weather

The Great Plains of the central United States—the Corn Belt—is one of the most fertile regions on Earth, producing more than 10 billion bushels of corn each year. It’s also home to some mysterious weather: Whereas the rest of the world has warmed, the region’s summer temperatures have dropped as much as a full degree Celsius, and rainfall has increased up to 35%, the largest spike anywhere in the world. The culprit, according to a new study, isn’t greenhouse gas emissions or sea surface temperature—it’s the corn itself.

https://news.wisc.edu/irrigated-farming-in-wisconsins-central-sands-cools-the-regions-climate/

New research finds that irrigated farms within Wisconsin’s vegetable-growing Central Sands region significantly cool the local climate compared to nearby rain-fed farms or forests.

Irrigation dropped maximum temperatures by one to three degrees Fahrenheit on average while increasing minimum temperatures up to four degrees compared to unirrigated farms or forests. In all, irrigated farms experienced a three- to seven-degree smaller range in daily temperatures compared to other land uses. These effects persisted throughout the year.

 

That is very interesting. Pielke has a lot of research on how changes in land-use can alter regional temperatures.  I wonder what the net change in climate for the northeast U.S is related to the large scale abandonment of farms and the resurgence of forests.  If you look at a visible satellite image in the midwest and plains in winter, snow leads to almost complete whiteness and very high albedo. In the northeast, after a snowstorm you still see a lot of forests which are very efficient at absorbing solar radiation. 100 -120 years ago much of the northeast was farmland and fields so after a snowstorm the albedo was higher. Did this lead to colder winters? Once the forest returned, like present day, our albedo is lower and theoretically we should have warmer winters. This would be an excellent research project for a PhD candidate. 

 

 

 

[skierinvermont]

12 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Yep, and people still argue about processed food and high fructose corn syrup, even though the twin pandemics of diabetes and obesity makes it all too clear.  The more things change the more they stay the same.

 

I mean most sane people don't really argue that corn syrup isn't bad for you, the argument I've seen is that it's no worse than sugar which is correct (there's little evidence corn syrup is any worse than sugar other than the fact that it's cheaper and more widely used in the food industry).

[skierinvermont]

4 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

I will agree to disagree. It is not even close to being settled. We don't know enough about natural climatic forcings. You can't hide behind literature or IPCC. The literature or peer reviewed papers do not cover anything else because they use models to determine whether the forcing is natural or not. When you have an incomplete knowledge of natural forcings and cycles how can you make models that cover this?   There is nothing convincing (except for models) that points to CO2 as the main driver of climate. We are in a warming trend now. It is pretty small. 1-2C/century if it continues. That is pretty small considering the rapid changes that occured during the glacial-interglacial cycles, younger dryas and the 8.2 ky cooling event. These were drastic changes. What we are seeing now is benign warming. Of course coastal communities will continue to see sea level rise so living on the coast is a problem. But for most of us, any warming is beneficial.  Once the oceans go back to a cooling cycle we will see a drop in temperature. 

'oceans go back to a cooling cycle' - wow the wonder of magical thinking. How are the oceans going to cool the planet when they are full of more heat than any time in thousands of years.

It's simple. There is a massive persistent energy imbalance of the whole planet. There is no possible mechanism by which the oceans could cause such a whole-system imbalance where the atmosphere and oceans - everything - are warming continuously and with a very large magnitude.

[skierinvermont]

6 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

 

 

I do appreciate the passion many of you bring to make for a better planet. I agree with this. We shouldn't be polluting the atmosphere. We need to go to renewables at some point BUT it can't be forced. I would love to see solar panels on all buildings, not solar farms that take up a lot of land. I would like to see bird friendly wind turbines if that is possible.  I would not like to see energy prices rise so much that poor people resort to deforestation and other environmental calamities that comes with poverty for basic survival. I would like to see climate accords that phase out fossil fuel use for ALL countries. What is the point if some countries are allowed to pollute?  That is ridiculous. It also needs to be phased in slowly as technology advances. Anyway, it is my nature as a scientist to question everything.  

 

 

'birds in turbines' is mostly winger nonsense given 100x more birds die from feral cats, communication towers, power lines, and household windows.

'but it can't be forced' is also winger nonsense given wind is cheaper than coal and has been largely adopted on economic grounds. Modest tax subsidies can speed the process with little to no impact on poor people (and much benefit in terms of a less polluted environment and more stable climate).

'all countries' is more winger bullshit since the U.S. uses far more CO2 per-capita than almost any country in the world. climate accords should allocate an equal amount of CO2 per person in every country. Just because the U.S. has been the worse offender historically doesn't mean it should get to keep being the worst.

'question everything as a scientist' lol - we see right through you - just another phony winger buying into right wing lies

ultimately you will lose this debate and the actions and words of people like you will be looked back upon with shame, because your side is founded on lies and the truth will ultimately win

I have no patience for people spreading lies. Shame on you.

[donsutherland1]

4 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

I will agree to disagree. It is not even close to being settled. We don't know enough about natural climatic forcings. You can't hide behind literature or IPCC. The literature or peer reviewed papers do not cover anything else because they use models to determine whether the forcing is natural or not. When you have an incomplete knowledge of natural forcings and cycles how can you make models that cover this?   There is nothing convincing (except for models) that points to CO2 as the main driver of climate. We are in a warming trend now. It is pretty small. 1-2C/century if it continues. That is pretty small considering the rapid changes that occured during the glacial-interglacial cycles, younger dryas and the 8.2 ky cooling event. These were drastic changes. What we are seeing now is benign warming. Of course coastal communities will continue to see sea level rise so living on the coast is a problem. But for most of us, any warming is beneficial.  Once the oceans go back to a cooling cycle we will see a drop in temperature. 

During 1971-2018, 89% of the earth's growing energy imbalance was stored in the oceans. That has led to rising oceanic heat content at all depths.

Source: https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2013/2020/essd-12-2013-2020.pdf

With the earth experiencing a persistent positive energy imbalance (now +0.87 W/m^2), of which the overwhelming share is being stored in the oceans driving rising oceanic heat content at all depths, what would trigger a large-scale sustained oceanic cooling cycle? Such an event is not realistic as long as the energy imbalance persists.

 

[blizzard1024]

2 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

'birds in turbines' is mostly winger nonsense given 100x more birds die from feral cats, communication towers, power lines, and household windows.

'but it can't be forced' is also winger nonsense given wind is cheaper than coal and has been largely adopted on economic grounds. Modest tax subsidies can speed the process with little to no impact on poor people (and much benefit in terms of a less polluted environment and more stable climate).

'all countries' is more winger bullshit since the U.S. uses far more CO2 per-capita than almost any country in the world. climate accords should allocate an equal amount of CO2 per person in every country. Just because the U.S. has been the worse offender historically doesn't mean it should get to keep being the worst.

'question everything as a scientist' lol - we see right through you - just another phony winger buying into right wing lies

ultimately you will lose this debate and the actions and words of people like you will be looked back upon with shame, because your side is founded on lies and the truth will ultimately win

I have no patience for people spreading lies. Shame on you.

I will be reporting you to the MODs. This is uncalled for. 

[rclab]

2 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

I will be reporting you to the MODs. This is uncalled for. 

Apparently climate change can be added to the topics that should be avoided if a civil discussion is desired. All of us are entitled to our opinions and a respectful listening. I find the ease of generic labeling based on an opinion troubling. If all voices cannot be heard respectfully than we are already living in Mr. Simons World. “Hello darkness my old friend”. As always ....

[donsutherland1]

On the issue of oceans, here’s a link to a paper that was published earlier this year:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00376-020-9283-7.pdf

 

[skierinvermont]

10 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

I will be reporting you to the MODs. This is uncalled for. 

You tell lies, I point out your lying and/or willful ignorance, you report me. Good luck. You don’t like being called a liar? Have you tried not spreading lies?

I don't have respect for lies and disingenuous behavior. Bless the people here who are willing to try and educate you despite this.

[skierinvermont]

7 hours ago, rclab said:

Apparently climate change can be added to the topics that should be avoided if a civil discussion is desired. All of us are entitled to our opinions and a respectful listening. I find the ease of generic labeling based on an opinion troubling. If all voices cannot be heard respectfully than we are already living in Mr. Simons World. “Hello darkness my old friend”. As always ....

Opinions are one thing. Repeating right wing lies that have been disproved a thousand times over are entirely another. Any remotely genuine engagement on the topic would be entirely a different matter and deserve a more engaged response. Anybody with an ounce of respect for the truth, science, human or environmental health wouldn't be repeating disproved falsehoods ripped straight from right wing disinformation sources. This isn’t some mr Rogers fairy land where everyone gets to have an opinion just because they were born. The truth and a rigorous disciplined pursuit of it is what counts.

One group is presenting facts and peer reviewed science. The only response is 'it's the oceans!!!' and a bunch of other lies. There is no genuine search for the truth. There is no discussion to be had with such an individual.

[skierinvermont]

3 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

On the issue of oceans, here’s a link to a paper that was published earlier this year:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00376-020-9283-7.pdf

 

Thanks Don. It's been educational to witness the tremendous rise in OHC and surface temperatures the last 15 years we've been following this. I can't remember if you were around when I first started following the issue on this forum (easternuswx back then) 13 years ago in college. In my arrogance and incomplete understanding of the science I did not believe that climate sensitivity was as high as it is. I didn't understand the multiple lines of evidence for climate sensitivity and I was skeptical of the atmospheric and oceanic temperature datasets. As I understood the science and data sources better, my thinking changed, but the nail in the coffin has been the massive rise in OHC and surface temperatures the last 15 years. Not that 15 years proves anything on its own, but when combined with the previous 100 years of warming and with the multiple lines of evidence for CO2s radiative forcing and for climate sensitivity, I quickly realized how mistaken and incomplete my understanding was. Back then the 'climate skeptics' universally predicted imminent cooling or at worst a leveling off. A more complete understanding of the science even 15 years ago would have proved them (and me) wrong, but the last 15 years have been a sort of real world test for those of us that had less than perfect understandings.

I'm not proud of my youthful mistakes, but I can say even when I was at my most mistaken and ignorant I never pretended that climate accords are too punitive against the U.S. when they allow higher per capita emissions in the U.S. than any other country. Or that the relatively low number of birds killed by windmills negate the numerous benefits. Or that wind power is too expensive when it's actually cheaper (even back then it was starting to get close in price).

It seems that the 'skeptics' have moved on from making any actual useful predictions of their own, since they got burned the first time, and have moved even further until the realm of magical thinking.

[chubbs]

20 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

.87. Small typo on my part, but a huge problem were the mistyped figure accurate.

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

CO2 forcing estimates from:

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

 

 

[blizzard1024]

6 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

Opinions are one thing. Repeating right wing lies that have been disproved a thousand times over are entirely another. Any remotely genuine engagement on the topic would be entirely a different matter and deserve a more engaged response. Anybody with an ounce of respect for the truth, science, human or environmental health wouldn't be repeating disproved falsehoods ripped straight from right wing disinformation sources. This isn’t some mr Rogers fairy land where everyone gets to have an opinion just because they were born. The truth and a rigorous disciplined pursuit of it is what counts.

One group is presenting facts and peer reviewed science. The only response is 'it's the oceans!!!' and a bunch of other lies. There is no genuine search for the truth. There is no discussion to be had with such an individual.

Where do you get "right wing" lies from?  I am not a right winger by no means. I am a realist on the climate system and its inherent uncertainties and complexities. It is NOT all figured out like many seem to think. Even the Earth's heat imbalance,  .87 W/m2?  We have a very hard time measuring with any certainty the solar constant and other heat flows. This could easily be in error. The Ocean heat uptake is not a problem at all.  If you do the math it shows that the increase in OHC equals a whooping .04C!   That means that the oceans can continue to take up heat and stabilize the climate system.  Anyway I could go on here but I won't.  

 

[donsutherland1]

6 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

Thanks Don. It's been educational to witness the tremendous rise in OHC and surface temperatures the last 15 years we've been following this. I can't remember if you were around when I first started following the issue on this forum (easternuswx back then) 13 years ago in college. In my arrogance and incomplete understanding of the science I did not believe that climate sensitivity was as high as it is. I didn't understand the multiple lines of evidence for climate sensitivity and I was skeptical of the atmospheric and oceanic temperature datasets. As I understood the science and data sources better, my thinking changed, but the nail in the coffin has been the massive rise in OHC and surface temperatures the last 15 years. Not that 15 years proves anything on its own, but when combined with the previous 100 years of warming and with the multiple lines of evidence for CO2s radiative forcing and for climate sensitivity, I quickly realized how mistaken and incomplete my understanding was. Back then the 'climate skeptics' universally predicted imminent cooling or at worst a leveling off. A more complete understanding of the science even 15 years ago would have proved them (and me) wrong, but the last 15 years have been a sort of real world test for those of us that had less than perfect understandings.

I'm not proud of my youthful mistakes, but I can say even when I was at my most mistaken and ignorant I never pretended that climate accords are too punitive against the U.S. when they allow higher per capita emissions in the U.S. than any other country. Or that the relatively low number of birds killed by windmills negate the numerous benefits. Or that wind power is too expensive when it's actually cheaper (even back then it was starting to get close in price).

It seems that the 'skeptics' have moved on from making any actual useful predictions of their own, since they got burned the first time, and have moved even further until the realm of magical thinking.

Thanks for sharing this personal account. 

I do remember some of the past discussions at Eastern on the topic of climate change. To be fair, even as the body of evidence at the time turns out to have been fairly substantial, there was much less access to research papers and data sets back then. I think that the biggest test for anyone intellectually is the capacity to change one’s view to fit the evidence. The easier and more destructive path is to filter or reject the evidence to maintain one’s view. Where one winds up based on the evidence is far more important than one’s starting point. The problem of climate change and its urgency is of even greater magnitude than what I had thought back then. 

IMO, with hindsight from what happened over the years, the skeptics never really had a body of scientific work on which to base their position. As each one of their hypotheses—bad temperature measurements, claims that the energy imbalance was an artifact of measurement limitations, the sun had caused the warming, the oceans were responsible, cosmic rays were to blame, etc.—were blown out of the water, the futility of their position was exposed. As that happened, they increasingly resorted to attacks on the climate scientists, with some even claiming that climate scientists are not real “scientists.” Their evasions of the issue grew more desperate. Today, their remaining shield is comprised of appeals to uncertainty in detail and appeals to hopeless complexity, along with labeling (attaching the prefix “catastrophic” to “AGW” to denigrate scientific understanding).

Uncertainties exist. Nuances exist. Details at the smaller-scale e.g., cloud responses, are still not well understood (although in this area, early evidence also does not favor the skeptics given data on northward shifts in clouds and high clouds forming at higher altitudes). For all that, the scientific verdict is unambiguous and unequivocal: the observed warming is real and significant and anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the prime driver of this warming. There is no other plausible alternative explanation.

Despite the lines of evidence in paleoclimatology (ice cores, coral, sediments, tree rings, pollen, leaf wax, etc.) and nature’s observed response to warming (shifting flora, receding glaciers, falling summer and annual Arctic sea ice extent, rising sea levels, increased frequency of extreme weather or fires), the reality is many of the loudest skeptics ignore all of this evidence. Many now principally found on Social Media (especially Twitter) have become prisoners of their own biases and wishes. 

Long story short, people who allow their thinking to evolve based on the growing body of evidence deserve credit. There is never any shame in one’s having changed or adjusted one’s positions in light of evidence. That is a courageous and enlightened intellectual approach. That’s what learning is. Defending and maintaining one’s positions despite the evidence—even when they are no longer sustainable in any reasonable examination of affairs—is the far worse course. 

 

 

 

[skierinvermont]

3 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Where do you get "right wing" lies from?  I am not a right winger by no means. I am a realist on the climate system and its inherent uncertainties and complexities. It is NOT all figured out like many seem to think. Even the Earth's heat imbalance,  .87 W/m2?  We have a very hard time measuring with any certainty the solar constant and other heat flows. This could easily be in error. The Ocean heat uptake is not a problem at all.  If you do the math it shows that the increase in OHC equals a whooping .04C!   That means that the oceans can continue to take up heat and stabilize the climate system.  Anyway I could go on here but I won't.  

 

Your points are superficial at best. The point demonstrated by ohc data isn’t that the oceans are getting hot and running out of their ability to absorb more heat. The oceans are vast and have substantially slowed the rate of atmospheric warming and will continue to do so. The point of ohc measurements is that they prove the earths energy imbalance of .87w/m2. You questioned the validity of the .87w/m2 earlier in your post, well the ohc data is one of the main independent lines of proof. For the oceans to warm by that much the earth must have a large and persistent energy imbalance. The only plausible cause of such an imbalance with any evidence is CO2.

[blizzard1024]

48 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

For the oceans to warm by that much the earth must have a large and persistent energy imbalance. The only plausible cause of such an imbalance with any evidence is CO2.

You can't say this unless you invoke a climate model. Maybe you trust models, I don't. 

[donsutherland1]

47 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

Your points are superficial at best. The point demonstrated by ohc data isn’t that the oceans are getting hot and running out of their ability to absorb more heat. The oceans are vast and have substantially slowed the rate of atmospheric warming and will continue to do so. The point of ohc measurements is that they prove the earths energy imbalance of .87w/m2. You questioned the validity of the .87w/m2 earlier in your post, well the ohc data is one of the main independent lines of proof. For the oceans to warm by that much the earth must have a large and persistent energy imbalance. The only plausible cause of such an imbalance with any evidence is CO2.

Great point regarding the energy imbalance. The recent paper revealing the energy imbalance had an error bar of 0.12 w/m2. That the earth has already experienced dramatic and sustained warming is evidence of that imbalance. The idea that a significant imbalance might not exist (be an error) is implausible.

[skierinvermont]

5 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

You can't say this unless you invoke a climate model. Maybe you trust models, I don't. 

My statement has absolutely nothing to do with climate models. The warming of the whole earth system is based on data. Nothing else with a radiative effect in our atmosphere has changed to cause such an imbalance, except CO2. Water vapor has increased, but this cannot be the cause of such a large and persistent change or else we would be stuck in an infinite warming trend.

[blizzard1024]

1 minute ago, donsutherland1 said:

Great point regarding the energy imbalance. The recent paper revealing the energy imbalance had an error bar of 0.12 w/m2. That the earth has already experienced dramatic and sustained warming is evidence of that imbalance. The idea that a significant imbalance might not exist (be an error) is implausible.

When the Earth's OLR is around 239 W/m2 explain to me how .87 w/m2 is significant? especially if the oceans are absorbing most of it? 

 

 

[skierinvermont]

2 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

When the Earth's OLR is around 239 W/m2 explain to me how .87 w/m2 is significant? especially if the oceans are absorbing most of it? 

 

 

The oceans are absorbing the vast majority of it. If the atmosphere was forced to absorb .87W/m2, the atmosphere would be warming at like 10C per year (of course once it warmed up a couple degrees C the energy imbalance would disappear). 

[blizzard1024]

1 minute ago, skierinvermont said:

My statement has absolutely nothing to do with climate models. The warming of the whole earth system is based on data. Nothing else with a radiative effect in our atmosphere has changed to cause such an imbalance, except CO2.

So you know what the Earth's climate has been like for the Holocene? last 2000 years?  Proxy data is coarse and can't be stitched to high resolution real measurements with accuracy. You can invoke statistics but you can get what you want when playing with stats.  How do you know today's climate is unusual?  We don't have enough data to understand ocean temperatures or land temperatures more than 100 years and really more than 60 years ago. 

[skierinvermont]

2 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

So you know what the Earth's climate has been like for the Holocene? last 2000 years?  Proxy data is coarse and can't be stitched to high resolution real measurements with accuracy. You can invoke statistics but you can get what you want when playing with stats.  How do you know today's climate is unusual?  We don't have enough data to understand ocean temperatures or land temperatures more than 100 years and really more than 60 years ago. 

My statement had absolutely nothing to do with what has happened in the past.

We know it's CO2 because of changes in the atmosphere's absorption spectrum.

[donsutherland1]

8 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

You can't say this unless you invoke a climate model. Maybe you trust models, I don't. 

Argo floats, satellite measurements of solar irradiance, satellite measurements of ice melt, etc. all provide data for measuring the energy imbalance.

[blizzard1024]

Just now, skierinvermont said:

My statement had absolutely nothing to do with what has happened in the past.

Propose a mechanism, other the CO2, to cause a .87W/m2 imbalance.

ENSO cycles. Since the late 1970s we have had stronger El Ninos vs La Ninas. This would easily increase OHC in a cyclical fashion. The 1970s had predominately strong La Ninas. Now we are seeing stronger El Ninos. Also there hasn't been a major volcanic eruption in almost 30 years. The 1960s, 80s and early 90s had major eruptions. Plus the clean air act has reduced soot and other pollution in many western societies which thermometer data is dense. This had led to warming. Regional changes in forest cover.  Ocean current changes. The Sun. The sun reached a grand maximum in the 20th century and it is waning now. There is a lag since the sun heats the oceans significantly vs IR radiation. Cooling could be on the way this century. There is so much more to natural variability that is understudied because the tail wags the dog in climate science.  It is assumed CO2 is the thermostat so all papers and studies have to show this or show how today's warming is unprecedented. They even adjust temperatures upward recently and downward in the past.  Anything that proves CO2 is the driver of the climate. They have a conclusion so now the research is done to back it up. This is backwards IMO. Respectively-  Blizzard1024 

 

[donsutherland1]

7 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

When the Earth's OLR is around 239 W/m2 explain to me how .87 w/m2 is significant? especially if the oceans are absorbing most of it? 

 

 

It seems like a tiny number, but it’s cumulative impact has been profound: dramatic rise in global temperatures since 1950, large rise in OHC, sea level rise (thermal expansion and melting ice from Greenland, Antarctica, etc.), loss of mass from Greenland/Antarctica, diminishing Arctic sea ice extent, shifts in flora, etc. All of this has happened within a few decades, not a long geological timeframe. These changes in a compressed timeframe are astonishing.