Phoenix Records its Hottest Summer on Record

[skierinvermont]

2 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

This is counter intuitive to me. We had two major volcanic eruptions one in 1982 (El Chicon) and Pinatubo in 1991 early in these records and we have had three intense El NInos 1983, 1998 and 2015. How can removing all this lead to a strong warmer trend? Volcanos cool the atmosphere and strong El Ninos warm the atmosphere. I will read in more detail. Thanks. 

It didn't say a stronger warming trend. Read the language again.

[skierinvermont]

1 hour ago, blizzard1024 said:

your anger in your posts shows that you are insecure about your position related to the whole CO2 CAGW viewpoint.  I am totally secure in my position. Basic physics. Not computer models and analyses based on computer models that have a high degree of uncertainty.  

Classic. You did not respond to the point I made 3 times. Yes that makes me angry. You still have not responded. You are not here for a good faith discussion. I will repost it for you to give you yet another opportunity. And I will keep reposting it and not move on to another point until you have responded in good faith.

[blizzard1024]

54 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

I don't see how you can say UAH is the best. What dataset/model are you comparing UAH to to assess its "bestnest". And why did you select that dataset/model for comparison to begin with? Why not just call that chosen dataset/model the best?

RSS used to use a GCM to make diurnal bias corrections. The academic community criticized them for it. They changed their methodology in this regard in v4. The warming trend went up. Perhaps the GCM method was more correct afterall? (see Mears 2017).

Karl did not adjust SSTs upward. He gets SSTs from ERSST (see Karl 2015). I read the ERSSTv4 papers (see Haung 2015 part 1 and part 2 and supplemental). Now, understanding that I'm not an expert, I did not see any adjustments documented that I felt were mistakes. In fact, quite the opposite. I think it would be a mistake to omit these adjustments and not publish v4 of ERSST. BTW...I believe ERSST is now up to v5. And GISTEMP and others also uses ERSST as well.

I don't know about the early 1800's but at least since the 1880's the unadjusted data show MORE warming; not less. (see figure 2B Karl 2015). And again...show me a dataset/model that you feel best characterizes reality so that we can make objective comparisons between it and UAH (or any dataset really). Justify why you think that chosen dataset/model best characterizes reality.

 

UAH doesn't retain data from NOAA-14 which has a warming bias. Also UAH agrees best with radiosondes and reanalysis vs the other datasets. 

[skierinvermont]

3 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

Ok sure make up some magic lag with no plausible physical explanation. I'll play. I've heard it all before and believed half of it myself.

There is NO period with decreasing OHC. If there was a lag from ENSO to OHC, we would still see periods of OHC going down when lagged to the periods of decreasing ENSO.

What you seem to not understand is OHC is climbing relentlessly with no perceptible affect from ENSO whatsoever over periods more than a year or two. 

ENSO can tank for a decade as it did from 2003-2013. OHC marches higher with no decrease - not even a slowdown - with a lag or without a lag.

ENSO literally tanked from 2003-2013. OHC skyrocketed. Throw in a lag. It still skyrocketed whatever lag period you pick. There was no significant effect whatsoever. All aspects of the system warmed. The cooling must by hiding in the earth's core only to magically reappear in the year 2053!

 

At least the skeptics back when I was in college had the intellectual honesty to predict that decreases in ENSO would lead to a decrease in OHC. Some of the very people you idolize made such predictions. I made such predictions. They failed because they are based on faulty science.

 

Reposting for blizzard to respond to. The earth's energy imbalance, it's multiple lines of evidence, and the implications of this imbalance are critical to any basic understanding of this topic.

[skierinvermont]

34 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

UAH doesn't retain data from NOAA-14 which has a warming bias. Also UAH agrees best with radiosondes and reanalysis vs the other datasets. 

 

I have been deep down this road of UAH vs RSS, GISS, Hadley etc. Keep digging and you will learn why UAH is likely the one in error. I don't have time to address all of it now and provide all the appropriate references. Especially since you have not responded to the point about OHC increasing when ENSO decreases over a decade or more. 

https://journals.ametsoc.org/jtech/article/34/1/225/342433/A-Comparative-Analysis-of-Data-Derived-from

The above touches on some of the errors Spencer and Christy have made over the years and the revisions they have been forced to make to correct for those past mistakes and some of the error that remain unaddressed.

One basic point on RSS vs UAH. The satellite data after the mid 2000s requires less adjustments. After the mid-2000s both RSS and UAH show rapid warming. It's oddly suspicious that as soon as the satellites themselves got better, suddenly UAH find rapid warming. The inferiority of their algorithms for correcting for diurnal drift etc. is documented extensively and explains why they did not show warming until the satellite themselves improved.

[bdgwx]

1 hour ago, blizzard1024 said:

UAH doesn't retain data from NOAA-14 which has a warming bias. Also UAH agrees best with radiosondes and reanalysis vs the other datasets. 

Right. Okay. So that comes from Dr. Spencer's blog here and references their paper here. Note the following.

1. It is not independent.

2. This is not a comparison of the global surface mean temperature. It is a comparison of the more narrowly focused tropical region at the mid troposphere layer (which is probably contaminated by the cooling stratosphere BTW).

3. The radiosonde dataset is IGRA whose maintainers specifically warn against using for this type of comparison.

4. The reanalysis dataset is ERA.

So based on this chart I'm left with the impression that ERA is the next "best" characterization of reality; according Dr. Spencer anyway. And guess what...ERA says the global surface warming trend is +0.19C/decade which is more inline with Berkeley Earth, GISTEMP, NOAA, RSS, etc.

So while UAH may (I question the use of IGRA) have superior skill in the mid troposhere layer in the tropical region it is certainly an outlier on the broader and more widely disseminated global mean surface temperature measure. 

Given Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy's history of focusing on the tropical mid troposhere I think this makes sense. But the thing is...most of the other datasets are designed to estimate the global surface temperature instead.

 

[skierinvermont]

This article is specific to tropical TMT, which is the image posted above.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/article/28/6/2274/35327/Removing-Diurnal-Cycle-Contamination-in-Satellite

[donsutherland1]

A paper on the performance of the climate models:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378

[skierinvermont]

2 hours ago, bdgwx said:

 

RSS used to use a GCM to make diurnal bias corrections. The academic community criticized them for it. They changed their methodology in this regard in v4. The warming trend went up. Perhaps the GCM method was more correct afterall? (see Mears 2017).

 

 

A relevant quote from this paper:

"The radiosonde datasets cannot be thought of as “ground truth” because the uncertainty in long-term signals from the radiosonde datasets is likely to be as large as or larger than the long-term uncertainty in the satellite datasets (Haimberger et al. 2012; Thorne et al. 2011; Titchner et al. 2009).

 

Unfortunately, the historical radiosonde measurements are plagued by numerous changes in instrumentation, observing practice, and time of observation that lead to nonclimatic changes in the archived measurements"

 

 

[bdgwx]

5 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

A relevant quote from this paper:

"The radiosonde datasets cannot be thought of as “ground truth” because the uncertainty in long-term signals from the radiosonde datasets is likely to be as large as or larger than the long-term uncertainty in the satellite datasets (Haimberger et al. 2012; Thorne et al. 2011; Titchner et al. 2009)."

 

Unfortunately, the historical radiosonde measurements are plagued by numerous changes in instrumentation, observing practice, and time of observation that lead to nonclimatic changes in the archived measurements

 

 

Exactly. Which is why IGRA especially should not be used for climate research and the type of comparison's presented in the graph above.

[blizzard1024]

41 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

Unfortunately, the historical radiosonde measurements are plagued by numerous changes in instrumentation, observing practice, and time of observation that lead to nonclimatic changes in the archived measurements

This is exactly like the surface temperature data which is the gold standard to many. 

[blizzard1024]

So reanalysis datasets are bad then too because they rely on upper air soundings. So the only records that are valid are the one's that are heavily "homogenized".  Of course this introduces a massive warming trend in the data.  That is very convenient. Like I said, in climate science the conclusion is CO2 is causing warming and all the research is to support that conclusion. This is backwards. 

[blizzard1024]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

A paper on the performance of the climate models:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378

This paper suggests a TCR of 1-2C for a doubling of CO2. That seems reasonable and is in line with the observations. Theoretically speaking a doubling of CO2 should produce a modest warming within this range with neutral feedbacks.  Its the 3-6C projections that I think are out of the bounds of reality.  The Oceans provide too much of a buffer. 

[donsutherland1]

31 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

This paper suggests a TCR of 1-2C for a doubling of CO2. That seems reasonable and is in line with the observations. Theoretically speaking a doubling of CO2 should produce a modest warming within this range with neutral feedbacks.  Its the 3-6C projections that I think are out of the bounds of reality.  The Oceans provide too much of a buffer. 

No. Implied TCR should not be confused with TCR associated with a doubling of CO2. From the paper’s supporting information:

Implied TCR is defined as the ratio between the change in temperature and the change in external forcing over the model projection period, for both models and observations. It is referred to as ‘implied’ as it differs from the traditional definition of TCR, which is typically based on idealized experiments where CO2 is increased by 1% per year (IPCC 2001).

[skierinvermont]

20 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

This paper suggests a TCR of 1-2C for a doubling of CO2. That seems reasonable and is in line with the observations. Theoretically speaking a doubling of CO2 should produce a modest warming within this range with neutral feedbacks.  Its the 3-6C projections that I think are out of the bounds of reality.  The Oceans provide too much of a buffer. 

The paper does no such thing. You have confused TCR (transient climate response) with ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity). TCR is commonly estimate to be 1.5-2C while ECS is roughly double. This is for precisely the reason you mention - the buffer the oceans provide - as well as the continuing feedback cycle. The buffering effect of the oceans slow the warming down considerably - but the oceans will continue to warm until equilibrium is reach which takes much longer.

https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/d3a8654f-e1f1-4d3f-85a1-4c2d5f354047/files/factsheetclimatesensitivitycsiro-bureau.pdf

[skierinvermont]

38 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

No. Implied TCR should not be confused with TCR associated with a doubling of CO2. From the paper’s supporting information:

Implied TCR is defined as the ratio between the change in temperature and the change in external forcing over the model projection period, for both models and observations. It is referred to as ‘implied’ as it differs from the traditional definition of TCR, which is typically based on idealized experiments where CO2 is increased by 1% per year (IPCC 2001).

Implied and actual TCR likely would not differ dramatically. Implied TCR is basically the same as TCR but measured over a shorter period. It's ECS he's confusing it with.

Warming .5C in 30 years @ 1.1% CO2 per year (implied TCR) is about the same as warming 1.8C in 100 years @ 1% CO2 per year (true TCR). Either way, even if the CO2 increases cease, the temperature continues to rise until ECS ~(3C).

[skierinvermont]

44 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

So reanalysis datasets are bad then too because they rely on upper air soundings. So the only records that are valid are the one's that are heavily "homogenized".  Of course this introduces a massive warming trend in the data.  That is very convenient. Like I said, in climate science the conclusion is CO2 is causing warming and all the research is to support that conclusion. This is backwards. 

There are examples such as the one bdwx cited where the adjustments are done downwards as well. The skeptic sites you read just focus on the instances of adjusting upwards. There really is no argument to be had until you actually read the papers documenting the adjustments in detail which takes many weeks of heavy reading.

[skierinvermont]

1 hour ago, blizzard1024 said:

This is exactly like the surface temperature data which is the gold standard to many. 

Except the authors of surface temperature datasets have documented why they believe their adjustments produce a highly accurate result, whereas the authors of the radiosonde data do precisely the opposite. They explicitely state that they have little confidence in their own data. 

Citing radiosonde data is to ignore the cautions of the authors of the data. It makes no sense and is another example of Christy's intellectual dishonesty. It's like me making some best guesses about the temperature in my hometown over the past year and then you holding it up to the whole world as some sort of gold standard for temperatures in Denver. It's called lying.

[skierinvermont]

5 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

 

There is NO period with decreasing OHC. If there was a lag from ENSO to OHC, we would still see periods of OHC going down when lagged to the periods of decreasing ENSO.

What you seem to not understand is OHC is climbing relentlessly with no perceptible affect from ENSO whatsoever over periods more than a year or two. 

ENSO can tank for a decade as it did from 2003-2013. OHC marches higher with no decrease - not even a slowdown - with a lag or without a lag.

ENSO literally tanked from 2003-2013. OHC skyrocketed. Throw in a lag. It still skyrocketed whatever lag period you pick. There was no significant effect whatsoever. All aspects of the system warmed. The cooling must by hiding in the earth's core only to magically reappear in the year 2053!

 

At least the skeptics back when I was in college had the intellectual honesty to predict that decreases in ENSO would lead to a decrease in OHC. Some of the very people you idolize made such predictions. I made such predictions. They failed because they are based on faulty science.

 

I've made this very simple yet very important point 5 times now blizzard. It clearly refutes any theory that your or Spencer or Anthony Watts (lol) come up with that ENSO is responsible for OHC increases. Until you address it is quite clear you are not here to engage genuinely.

[donsutherland1]

13 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

Implied and actual TCR likely would not differ dramatically. Implied TCR is basically the same as TCR but measured over a shorter period. It's ECS he's confusing it with.

Thanks Skierinvermont.  I made the correction.

[skierinvermont]

14 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Thanks Skierinvermont.  I made the correction.

I was confused too having been away from climate discussions for a few years I forgot what TCR is. 

[buckeyefan1]

11 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

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. 

 

 

 

^^^^^^^ well said Don 

[blizzard1024]

1 hour ago, skierinvermont said:

Except the authors of surface temperature datasets have documented why they believe their adjustments produce a highly accurate result, whereas the authors of the radiosonde data do precisely the opposite. They explicitely state that they have little confidence in their own data. 

Citing radiosonde data is to ignore the cautions of the authors of the data. It makes no sense and is another example of Christy's intellectual dishonesty. It's like me making some best guesses about the temperature in my hometown over the past year and then you holding it up to the whole world as some sort of gold standard for temperatures in Denver. It's called lying.

Christy and Spencer are heros in the climate debate. So is Dr Curry. Brilliant and courageous people who are standing up for real science. 

[blizzard1024]

1 hour ago, skierinvermont said:

I've made this very simple yet very important point 5 times now blizzard. It clearly refutes any theory that your or Spencer or Anthony Watts (lol) come up with that ENSO is responsible for OHC increases. Until you address it is quite clear you are not here to engage genuinely.

Plus you assume that we can measure ocean temperatures with precision needed for OHC. That started really with the Argo floats in 2003. the data gets coarser and less reliable the farther you go back, especially before the satellite era. You seem to have problems with radiosonde data ; well I would say ocean temperature data is rife with inconsistencies, measurement errors etc too. BUT if it supports increasing CO2 = warmer Earth, it is accepted. If it doesn't, then it can't be correct. What about clouds huh? The NASA cloud project shows an inverse relationship between global average temperature and cloud fraction between 1983-2009. This suggests clouds modulate the climate system or have a significant effect. Why is this ignored too?  This whole CO2 is the Earth's temperature control knob is on shaky ground and that is why you become so belligerent.  You can't have a reasonable debate because you are insecure about this whole theory. So you attack and become angry. Chill out. Life is good.... 

[donsutherland1]

4 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Plus you assume that we can measure ocean temperatures with precision needed for OHC. That started really with the Argo floats in 2003. the data gets coarser and less reliable the farther you go back, especially before the satellite era. You seem to have problems with radiosonde data ; well I would say ocean temperature data is rife with inconsistencies, measurement errors etc too. BUT if it supports increasing CO2 = warmer Earth, it is accepted. If it doesn't, then it can't be correct. What about clouds huh? The NASA cloud project shows an inverse relationship between global average temperature and cloud fraction between 1983-2009. This suggests clouds modulate the climate system or have a significant effect. Why is this ignored too?  This whole CO2 is the Earth's temperature control knob is on shaky ground and that is why you become so belligerent.  You can't have a reasonable debate because you are insecure about this whole theory. So you attack and become angry. Chill out. Life is good.... 

It’s far too soon to conclude that clouds will alleviate some of humanity’s burden of addressing climate change. In a few years, the answers to key cloud-related questions might become clearer.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2936/clouds-arctic-crocodiles-and-a-new-climate-model/

[bdgwx]

5 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

This article is specific to tropical TMT, which is the image posted above.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/article/28/6/2274/35327/Removing-Diurnal-Cycle-Contamination-in-Satellite

I had not read through that publication yet. Thanks.

It is from the University of Washington in Seattle. It is an independent review.

Summarizing the trends for the mid-troposphere in the tropical region...

          as-is  tls-corrected   
UW-obs    0.115  0.160
UW-gcm    0.124  0.170
NOAAv3.0  0.105  0.149
RSSv3.3   0.089  0.125
UAHv5.6   0.029  0.064

UW deployed two analysis methods for handling the diurnal bias: obs for observational and gcm for global circulation model. They also corrected for the stratospheric cooling contamination in the tls-corrected column.

UAH is clearly the outlier here. 

[skierinvermont]

3 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Plus you assume that we can measure ocean temperatures with precision needed for OHC. That started really with the Argo floats in 2003. the data gets coarser and less reliable the farther you go back, especially before the satellite era. You seem to have problems with radiosonde data ; well I would say ocean temperature data is rife with inconsistencies, measurement errors etc too. BUT if it supports increasing CO2 = warmer Earth, it is accepted. If it doesn't, then it can't be correct. What about clouds huh? The NASA cloud project shows an inverse relationship between global average temperature and cloud fraction between 1983-2009. This suggests clouds modulate the climate system or have a significant effect. Why is this ignored too?  This whole CO2 is the Earth's temperature control knob is on shaky ground and that is why you become so belligerent.  You can't have a reasonable debate because you are insecure about this whole theory. So you attack and become angry. Chill out. Life is good.... 

As I've said (6 times now!!!) the ONI trend from 2003-2013 (post-Argo) is very negative. The OHC increase didn't slow down at all, even if you apply some bogus lag. OHC continued its persistent and rapid increase.

I'm not going to respond to your other bogus points until you respond to this one. As I've said before, I become impatient with you because you are here to troll and not to actually learn anything. This is demonstrated by your sidestepping of the above point 6 times now. I'm not going to waste time explaining the scientific rebuttals to your other points just so you can ignore the responses as you have ignored the above point.

Life is good for you. Not for the millions of people whose displacement, starvation and/or death is directly related to climate change. This is a moral issue and you are here to troll and spread lies. I find that disgusting. Sorry if you don't like it. That's MY opinion.

 

[LibertyBell]

On 9/9/2020 at 12:58 PM, skierinvermont said:

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).

the fact that it's cheaper and more widely used makes it worse, that's a major reason why there is a diabetes pandemic going on in minority communities.  More limbs have been lost to diabetes in the past 20 years than to being in the military.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/why-high-fructose-corn-syrup-is-bad

Read up.

By the way artificial sweeteners have their own issues.  Diet soda consumption isn't a good idea either, it affects the gut biome negatively.

You might also be interested in this

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/books/salt-sugar-fat-by-michael-moss.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/health/23well.html

 

Shows why obesity and diabetes type 2 have risen so quickly in the past 20 years.  And a concurrent rise in insulin prices.....

 

 

[LibertyBell]

6 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

It’s far too soon to conclude that clouds will alleviate some of humanity’s burden of addressing climate change. In a few years, the answers to key cloud-related questions might become clearer.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2936/clouds-arctic-crocodiles-and-a-new-climate-model/

it's ridiculous.  The rise in humidity and dew points only makes things FAR worse, as we've experienced here on the east coast.  It traps pollutants closer to the ground and the air quality has been getting worse.

[LibertyBell]

9 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

Implied and actual TCR likely would not differ dramatically. Implied TCR is basically the same as TCR but measured over a shorter period. It's ECS he's confusing it with.

Warming .5C in 30 years @ 1.1% CO2 per year (implied TCR) is about the same as warming 1.8C in 100 years @ 1% CO2 per year (true TCR). Either way, even if the CO2 increases cease, the temperature continues to rise until ECS ~(3C).

if anything it's going to be worse than what the climate models show- look at the sea level rise forecasts, verification seems to be on the side of the more extreme climate models.