Global Warming Makes Weather In Boreal Summer More Persistent

[Hailstoned]

22 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

So are you going to stop telling your lies about wind and solar or just ignore this blizzard? Again evidence you are not here in good faith to learn but just spout off your opinions and ignore fact based correction of your mistakes.

He demonstrates all  the signposts of a MAGA troll, or perhaps a creepy-crawly comrade based in St. Petersburg.

[bdgwx]

21 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

 

This is an excellent paper by two brilliant atmospheric scientists... 

https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/CO2 coalition Lindzen On Climate Sensitivity.pdf

In 1997 he put the 2xCO2 sensitivity at 0.3-0.5C (see Lindzen 1997). There is some equivocation in the paper above, but it sounds like he is now entertaining a value on the lower end of the IPCC range at about 1.5C. The rate at which his estimates have increased is about +0.45C/decade...faster than the actual warming rate.

I will say that at least Lindzen proposes a legitimate hypothesis for supporting lower climate sensitivities...the iris effect. The question is...does Earth really have a mechanism like this that makes it resistant to climate change? The paleoclimate record seems to suggest that the Earth is quite amendable to large changes given the proper nudge and with each passing decade in the contemporary warming era we are constraining the lower the bound of sensitivities to higher and higher values. Each passing decade of warming is making Lindzen's iris effect and change resistant hypothesis appear less and less likely.

BTW...A recent comprehensive style study puts the range at 2.6-3.9C and 2.3-4.7C for 1-sigma and 2-sigma confidence respectively (see Sherwood 2020 and free). 

Also, I just want to say that I do not condone the tone and rhetoric used against you. I do not think you are a liar, troll, or Russian (not that nationality matters). And while I do not think the body evidence supports the position you advocate for I still think you've handled yourself respectfully nonetheless. I think if you and I sat down for a beer (or coffee) we'd probably get along just fine. I still think you're wrong about climate science though

 

 

[skierinvermont]

6 hours ago, bdgwx said:

In 1997 he put the 2xCO2 sensitivity at 0.3-0.5C (see Lindzen 1997). There is some equivocation in the paper above, but it sounds like he is now entertaining a value on the lower end of the IPCC range at about 1.5C. The rate at which his estimates have increased is about +0.45C/decade...faster than the actual warming rate.

I will say that at least Lindzen proposes a legitimate hypothesis for supporting lower climate sensitivities...the iris effect. The question is...does Earth really have a mechanism like this that makes it resistant to climate change? The paleoclimate record seems to suggest that the Earth is quite amendable to large changes given the proper nudge and with each passing decade in the contemporary warming era we are constraining the lower the bound of sensitivities to higher and higher values. Each passing decade of warming is making Lindzen's iris effect and change resistant hypothesis appear less and less likely.

BTW...A recent comprehensive style study puts the lower bound at 2.6-3.9C and 2.3-4.7C for 1-sigma and 2-sigma confidence respectively (see Sherwood 2020 and free). 

Also, I just want to say that I do not condone the tone and rhetoric used against you. I do not think you are a liar, troll, or Russian (not that nationality matters). And while I do not think the body evidence supports the position you advocate for I still think you've handled yourself respectfully nonetheless. I think if you and I sat down for a beer (or coffee) we'd probably get along just fine. I still think you're wrong about climate science though

 

 

If you don’t think he’s a liar you haven’t been paying attention. He’s literally claimed to have read a paper when he didn’t know what paper it was that he was saying he read. But he read it! Whether you want to say it or not, that is a lie. I used to teach middle schoolers, caught them in the same sort of lie all the time. Did you turn in your assignment? Yes. Which one? Oh I don't know.

we might disagree on the productivity or civility of pointing out somebody’s lies. That’s fine. I've never been one to tolerate lying. But it doesn’t change the fact that his deliberate deceptions are quite clear and I will always point out when someone is here to lie, make political points, and ignore the scientific rebuttals to their statements. His statements that wind mills are devastating to birds are particularly dishonest especially given he has been informed of the fact 5 times now that wind turbines kill a very small number of birds compared to many other human causes. He has completely ignored these facts and continued posting that wind turbines are devastating to birds.

He claimed that to power the U.S. would require a land area 4x the area of solar (a completely made up figure that doesn't even pass the smell test). When I provided evidence that the actual figure is 1/8th of that (to go 100% solar which of course nobody is proposing), he issued no mea culpa. It's quite clear to me that he made the 4x figure up and doesn't care what the truth is.

I also found it disingenuous that when don and I presented evidence of the earths energy imbalance he ignored the merits of the evidence and quite clearly deliberately changed the subject.

 

if he would like to apologize for these particular lies, I would be happy to stick to the merits or lack thereof of his other arguments. But as it stands I have no choice to point out that these are lies, and the deliberate intent is clear.

[skierinvermont]

1 hour ago, bdgwx said:

In 1997 he put the 2xCO2 sensitivity at 0.3-0.5C (see Lindzen 1997). There is some equivocation in the paper above, but it sounds like he is now entertaining a value on the lower end of the IPCC range at about 1.5C. The rate at which his estimates have increased is about +0.45C/decade...faster than the actual warming rate.

I will say that at least Lindzen proposes a legitimate hypothesis for supporting lower climate sensitivities...the iris effect. The question is...does Earth really have a mechanism like this that makes it resistant to climate change? The paleoclimate record seems to suggest that the Earth is quite amendable to large changes given the proper nudge and with each passing decade in the contemporary warming era we are constraining the lower the bound of sensitivities to higher and higher values. Each passing decade of warming is making Lindzen's iris effect and change resistant hypothesis appear less and less likely.

BTW...A recent comprehensive style study puts the lower bound at 2.6-3.9C and 2.3-4.7C for 1-sigma and 2-sigma confidence respectively (see Sherwood 2020 and free). 

Also, I just want to say that I do not condone the tone and rhetoric used against you. I do not think you are a liar, troll, or Russian (not that nationality matters). And while I do not think the body evidence supports the position you advocate for I still think you've handled yourself respectfully nonetheless. I think if you and I sat down for a beer (or coffee) we'd probably get along just fine. I still think you're wrong about climate science though

 

 

Estimates of sensitivity based off of modern warming actually haven’t tended to confirm higher estimates of sensitivity. They have pointed to the lower estimates of 1.5-2.5. The ipcc addressed why they though these methodologies yielded lower results. So I don’t think each passing decade of warming has done much to constrain other than reaffirming above 1.5. It is other lines of evidence that point even higher.

also the biggest problem with lindzens paper isn’t that it’s inconsistent with other lines of evidence. The biggest problem, as I pointed out before, is that he makes some of the numbers up out of thin air. Such as 3w/m2 of forcing total by 2010. Wrong and no evidence provided. He converts forcing plus sensitivity to temperature change with no evidence. Then he works backwards to say that well since we haven’t seen that much warming the sensitivity is wrong. Except it’s not the sensitive that’s wrong. It’s the forcing that he got wrong. And he got the transient temperature response to forcing wrong as well. His assumptions are just made up.

Judith curry uses the exact same method but gets the numbers for forcing and transient temperature response per forcing correct and comes up with a higher answer.

 

[blizzard1024]

3 hours ago, bdgwx said:

In 1997 he put the 2xCO2 sensitivity at 0.3-0.5C (see Lindzen 1997). There is some equivocation in the paper above, but it sounds like he is now entertaining a value on the lower end of the IPCC range at about 1.5C. The rate at which his estimates have increased is about +0.45C/decade...faster than the actual warming rate.

I will say that at least Lindzen proposes a legitimate hypothesis for supporting lower climate sensitivities...the iris effect. The question is...does Earth really have a mechanism like this that makes it resistant to climate change? The paleoclimate record seems to suggest that the Earth is quite amendable to large changes given the proper nudge and with each passing decade in the contemporary warming era we are constraining the lower the bound of sensitivities to higher and higher values. Each passing decade of warming is making Lindzen's iris effect and change resistant hypothesis appear less and less likely.

BTW...A recent comprehensive style study puts the range at 2.6-3.9C and 2.3-4.7C for 1-sigma and 2-sigma confidence respectively (see Sherwood 2020 and free). 

Also, I just want to say that I do not condone the tone and rhetoric used against you. I do not think you are a liar, troll, or Russian (not that nationality matters). And while I do not think the body evidence supports the position you advocate for I still think you've handled yourself respectfully nonetheless. I think if you and I sat down for a beer (or coffee) we'd probably get along just fine. I still think you're wrong about climate science though

 

 

Thank you.  I appreciate that.  Just because someone has a difference in scientific opinion doesn't mean you should be nasty to them. This really shouldn't be tolerated on this forum.

I follow the work of Lindzen, Curry, Spencer, and Christy all smart PhDs. I agree with their viewpoints and their uncertainties. I am not a climate change "denier". I just don't think that CO2 is as dominate in the climate system as mainstream climatologists think. An ECS of between 1C and 2C for doubling is pretty much where I stand. I don't see the doomsday scenarios. I also am concerned about the water vapor feedback not being as strong as modeled. I don't like that ERA5 is inconsistent in its specific humidity in the lower atmosphere and that it is so well correlated to temperature at high levels. This is a problem to me. It really all depends on how strong the water vapor feedback is and if that can be proven with REAL data,  not models, I then will accept higher ECS. Anyway, take care and thanks for being professional in your response. 

 

 

 

[skierinvermont]

1 hour ago, blizzard1024 said:

I don't like that ERA5 is inconsistent in its specific humidity in the lower atmosphere and that it is so well correlated to temperature at high levels. This is a problem to me.

It's a problem to you based on what actual evidence? It is based on observations, peer-reviewed for quality, and matches atmospheric theory that has been around for over a century. Where is your evidence of your problem?

[chubbs]

2 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Thank you.  I appreciate that.  Just because someone has a difference in scientific opinion doesn't mean you should be nasty to them. This really shouldn't be tolerated on this forum.

I follow the work of Lindzen, Curry, Spencer, and Christy all smart PhDs. I agree with their viewpoints and their uncertainties. I am not a climate change "denier". I just don't think that CO2 is as dominate in the climate system as mainstream climatologists think. An ECS of between 1C and 2C for doubling is pretty much where I stand. I don't see the doomsday scenarios. I also am concerned about the water vapor feedback not being as strong as modeled. I don't like that ERA5 is inconsistent in its specific humidity in the lower atmosphere and that it is so well correlated to temperature at high levels. This is a problem to me. It really all depends on how strong the water vapor feedback is and if that can be proven with REAL data,  not models, I then will accept higher ECS. Anyway, take care and thanks for being professional in your response. 

 

 

 

Reposting chart from 2019 AMS climate report. There is REAL data. Two separate and independent satellite measurements: infared (HIRS) and microwave. Also, relinking the paper which showed that satellite upper troposphere humidity data is in good agreement. The data is there if you really want to partake.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015JD024496

 

[chubbs]

Here is a chart from the paper I linked above. Three separate satellite measurements in close agreement - 40 years of data. Note brightness temperature is a measure of relative humidity.

[blizzard1024]

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

Here is a chart from the paper I linked above. Three separate satellite measurements in close agreement - 40 years of data. Note brightness temperature is a measure of relative humidity.

So brightness temperature is a measure of relative humidity. That is why there is a one-one correlation then between temperature and specific humidity. This still doesn't rule out enhanced tropical or global convection for these short term variations. 

[blizzard1024]

You also don't address why ERA5 has declining specific humidity in the convective mixed layer between the late 1970s and 2000, a time of warming. This makes no meteorological sense. This data looks suspect to me. At high levels, you are seeing the results of enhanced convection with heat and moisture fluxes to the upper troposphere. This does not prove a positve water vapor feedback from increasing CO2.  It's global convective processes. 

[blizzard1024]

2 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

It's a problem to you based on what actual evidence? It is based on observations, peer-reviewed for quality, and matches atmospheric theory that has been around for over a century. Where is your evidence of your problem?

Again, the 850 mb specific humidity declines from the late 1970s to 2000, a time of warming. This is within the convective mixed layer. Warming oceans should lead to more evaporation. This doesn't make physical sense. At upper levels, temperature and specific humidity are almost 1:1 correlation. What process would cause that other than changes in global convection? Increased global convection leads to vertical transport of heat and moisture and hence this basically linear correlation. You don't need peer review literature here. You think for yourself. This is very basic meteorology. That is why most meteorologists don't buy all the hype related to this so-called climate crisis. Most if not all meteorologists I know agree CO2 doubling will lead to modest warming but not the hyped up scenarios portrayed by the mainstream climate scientists.  These folks are looking out for their careers, egos and fame. I have followed this topic for 30 years and I have seen many folks in atmospheric sciences leave research because of this scientific "corruption". The climate emails of the late 2000s were classic and really the tip of the iceberg in this field. So to answer your question, there is no peer review on this. The atmospheric theory for upper tropospheric moistening in the ERA5 is global convection changes. And the ERA5 data is flawed in that there should be more evaporation off the oceans with a warmer Earth from insolation and the convective mixed layer. This is really basic stuff here. I attached the 300 and 850 mb q and T, q by the way is specific humidity if you didn't know that. 

[skierinvermont]

1 hour ago, blizzard1024 said:

Again, the 850 mb specific humidity declines from the late 1970s to 2000, a time of warming. This is within the convective mixed layer. Warming oceans should lead to more evaporation. This doesn't make physical sense. At upper levels, temperature and specific humidity are almost 1:1 correlation. What process would cause that other than changes in global convection? Increased global convection leads to vertical transport of heat and moisture and hence this basically linear correlation. You don't need peer review literature here. You think for yourself. This is very basic meteorology. That is why most meteorologists don't buy all the hype related to this so-called climate crisis. Most if not all meteorologists I know agree CO2 doubling will lead to modest warming but not the hyped up scenarios portrayed by the mainstream climate scientists.  These folks are looking out for their careers, egos and fame. I have followed this topic for 30 years and I have seen many folks in atmospheric sciences leave research because of this scientific "corruption". The climate emails of the late 2000s were classic and really the tip of the iceberg in this field. So to answer your question, there is no peer review on this. The atmospheric theory for upper tropospheric moistening in the ERA5 is global convection changes. And the ERA5 data is flawed in that there should be more evaporation off the oceans with a warmer Earth from insolation and the convective mixed layer. This is really basic stuff here. I attached the 300 and 850 mb q and T, q by the way is specific humidity if you didn't know that. 

 

Let me make sure I understand. Your argument is that warmer oceans should show more specific humidity at 850, not 300. Since the increase in specific humidity is only at 300 (according to ERA5), this shows that the there is no feedback and the increase at 300 is due solely to convection, not warming?

I can think of a number of problems with this but I want to make sure I understand you first.

 

[blizzard1024]

16 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

also the biggest problem with lindzens paper isn’t that it’s inconsistent with other lines of evidence. The biggest problem, as I pointed out before, is that he makes some of the numbers up out of thin air. Such as 3w/m2 of forcing total by 2010. Wrong and no evidence provided. He converts forcing plus sensitivity to temperature change with no evidence. Then he works backwards to say that well since we haven’t seen that much warming the sensitivity is wrong. Except it’s not the sensitive that’s wrong. It’s the forcing that he got wrong. And he got the transient temperature response to forcing wrong as well. His assumptions are just made up.

Judith curry uses the exact same method but gets the numbers for forcing and transient temperature response per forcing correct and comes up with a higher answer.

So you can criticize these PhDs and that is OK, but when someone criticizes peer reviewed work from Mann, Soden, Schmidt, Dessler etc that is wrong and you get very nasty. Basically, if you agree with the scientist they are right if you disagree they are wrong. I am an atmospheric scientist for more than 30 years. I don't have a PhD but I have an MS and have been working in the field like I said 30 years. What is your background? 

[blizzard1024]

8 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

Let me make sure I understand. Your argument is that warmer oceans should show more specific humidity at 850, not 300. Since the increase in specific humidity is only at 300 (according to ERA5), this shows that the there is no feedback and the increase at 300 is due solely to convection, not warming?

I can think of a number of problems with this but I want to make sure I understand you first.

 

Warmer oceans should lead to more evaporation and higher specific humidity, not this weird drop from the late 70s to 2000 and then a rise. Precipitation processes like convection are a sink of water vapor and easily could dry the upper troposphere. The ERA5 data shows a lockstep almost 1:1 correlation between q and T at 300 and 500 mb which is suspect in my opinion. There is only one process that could do this, convection which transports heat and moisture  to the upper troposphere.  

[bluewave]

Katharine Hayhoe

September 4, 2017 · 

Is there such a strong consensus in the scientific community on climate change simply because anyone proposing alternate explanations is black-balled and suppressed?

This is one of the most frequent questions I get here on Facebook.

It's a lot easier for someone to claim they've been suppressed than to admit that maybe they can't find the scientific evidence to support their political ideology that requires them to reject climate solutions and, to be consistent, 150 years of solid, peer-reviewed science, too.

But over the last 10 years, at least 38 papers were published in peer-reviewed journals, each claiming various reasons why climate wasn't changing, or if it was, it wasn't humans, or it wasn't bad. They weren't suppressed. They're out there, where anyone can find them.

So we took those papers and - thanks to the superhuman efforts of my colleague Rasmus Benestad - recalculated all their analyses. From scratch.

And you know what we found?

Every single one of those analyses had an error - in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis - that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus.

It's real, it's us, it's serious.

Learning from mistakes in climate research

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

 

 

[blizzard1024]

11 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Katharine Hayhoe

September 4, 2017 · 

Is there such a strong consensus in the scientific community on climate change simply because anyone proposing alternate explanations is black-balled and suppressed?

This is one of the most frequent questions I get here on Facebook.

It's a lot easier for someone to claim they've been suppressed than to admit that maybe they can't find the scientific evidence to support their political ideology that requires them to reject climate solutions and, to be consistent, 150 years of solid, peer-reviewed science, too.

But over the last 10 years, at least 38 papers were published in peer-reviewed journals, each claiming various reasons why climate wasn't changing, or if it was, it wasn't humans, or it wasn't bad. They weren't suppressed. They're out there, where anyone can find them.

So we took those papers and - thanks to the superhuman efforts of my colleague Rasmus Benestad - recalculated all their analyses. From scratch.

And you know what we found?

Every single one of those analyses had an error - in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis - that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus.

It's real, it's us, it's serious.

Learning from mistakes in climate research

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

 

 

Read this paper....  https://thebulwark.com/why-i-dont-believe-in-science/ 

basically, climate "science" has evolved into calling it real science if it aligns with your beliefs. If it doesn't, even if it is an accomplished PhD's work, it get dismissed.  Tribalism, group think etc. prevails.  

 

see also this from Judith Curry, a hero in this climate change debate IMO.... https://judithcurry.com/2019/03/26/why-i-dont-believe-in-science/

 

 

 

 

 

[A-L-E-K]

i can't believe blizzard#s is a denier weenie

 

[blizzard1024]

2 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

It's real, it's us, it's serious.

Learning from mistakes in climate research

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

 

Are you serious about this paper? It is full of bias supporting dangerous climate change. There is no objectivity. Come on. This is not good science here....

[bluewave]

8 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

see also this from Judith Curry, a hero in this climate change debate IMO.... https://judithcurry.com/2019/03/26/why-i-dont-believe-in-science/

Why are you citing Curry after her global temperature projection in 2013 was shown to be unrealistically low?

https://news.gatech.edu/2013/10/10/‘stadium-waves’-could-explain-lull-global-warming

The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s," said Wyatt, an independent scientist after having earned her Ph.D. from the University of Colorado in 2012.

Curry added, "This prediction is in contrast to the recently released IPCC AR5 Report that projects an imminent resumption of the warming, likely to be in the range of a 0.3 to 0.7 degree Celsius rise in global mean surface temperature from 2016 to 2035." Curry is the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

 

 

[blizzard1024]

15 minutes ago, A-L-E-K said:

i can't believe blizzard#s is a denier weenie

 

nice try. But it's not going to work. You are attempting to get me to say something to get me banned. I won't fall for the bait. I know a lot of you don't like me on this forum because I challenge mainstream climate science. have a nice day.

[blizzard1024]

7 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Why are you citing Curry after her global temperature projection in 2013 was shown to be unrealistically low?

https://news.gatech.edu/2013/10/10/‘stadium-waves’-could-explain-lull-global-warming

The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s," said Wyatt, an independent scientist after having earned her Ph.D. from the University of Colorado in 2012.

Curry added, "This prediction is in contrast to the recently released IPCC AR5 Report that projects an imminent resumption of the warming, likely to be in the range of a 0.3 to 0.7 degree Celsius rise in global mean surface temperature from 2016 to 2035." Curry is the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

 

 

I wasn't talking about the 2013 paper, this was 2019 blog post.... her recent work suggest a climate sensitivity around 1.7K for doubling CO2 which seems reasonable. She is a brilliant courageous atmospheric scientist who didn't bow down to the dogma that has overtaken climate science. That is why she left her chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.  I knew her many years ago when she did think that CO2 was dangerous to the climate system. I too was of similar thinking back in the 90s. But after looking at the data, studying paleoclimatology and learning how the climate system works, I too came to a similar conclusion as her. The only difference is that I am not a professor at a university and I don't risk getting fired at my real job of forecasting the weather.  She did and left. And the reality is she probably was getting paid well, had tenure and all. She walks away from that because of her beliefs. That is courage. 

[blizzard1024]

Just now, blizzard1024 said:

Curry added, "This prediction is in contrast to the recently released IPCC AR5 Report that projects an imminent resumption of the warming, likely to be in the range of a 0.3 to 0.7 degree Celsius rise in global mean surface temperature from 2016 to 2035." Curry is the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

How is this unrealistically low? .3 to .7C between 2016-2035 seems reasonable if not a bit on the high side. You just don't agree with her work so you chastise her.  She would tear you apart in a debate. I would love to see that. 

[donsutherland1]

39 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Read this paper....  https://thebulwark.com/why-i-dont-believe-in-science/ 

basically, climate "science" has evolved into calling it real science if it aligns with your beliefs. If it doesn't, even if it is an accomplished PhD's work, it get dismissed.  Tribalism, group think etc. prevails.  

 

see also this from Judith Curry, a hero in this climate change debate IMO.... https://judithcurry.com/2019/03/26/why-i-dont-believe-in-science/

 

 

 

 

 

That’s not a paper, at least not something one would find in a scientific journal. It is political commentary by a political writer on a political blog. At the same time, the author’s argument extends to arguments made by political candidates e.g., Andrew Yang, not scientists, much less climate scientists.

As noted previously, climate scientists have made an overwhelming and evidence-based case that the climate is warming and that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant reason for that warming. In contrast, those who reject the AGW explanation have offered no plausible evidence-based framework that could explain the warming, especially after the natural forcings and global temperature trend diverged. Yet, they place a burden of proof on climate scientists that amounts to a call for certainty.

In discussing the troubling persistence of “flat earth” claims, Lee McIntyre, Philosophy professor at Boston University explained, “Flat-Earthers seem to have a very low standard of evidence for what they want to believe but an impossibly high standard of evidence for what they don’t want to believe.” That description could well describe today’s climate change denial movement, which is out of scientific ammunition, and demands impossible levels of proof from climate science. In fact, that movement likely makes such demands precisely, because it has nothing on which to base its rejection of AGW except for wishes, preferences and beliefs.

 

[donsutherland1]

31 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

How is this unrealistically low? .3 to .7C between 2016-2035 seems reasonable if not a bit on the high side. You just don't agree with her work so you chastise her.  She would tear you apart in a debate. I would love to see that. 

The 0.3 to 0.7C increase is the IPCC projection, not Curry’s. The idea that the “pause” or “hiatus” would continue into the 2030s appears to be on track to be wrong. In 2013, when the paper was published, the global temperature anomaly was +0.68C (GISS). The 2009-13 range was +0.61C to +0.72C. In 2019, the anomaly was +0.98C (2020 will finish in that vicinity). The 5-year range was +0.85C to +1.02C.

[blizzard1024]

17 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

In contrast, those who reject the AGW explanation have offered no plausible evidence-based framework that could explain the warming, especially after the natural forcings and global temperature trend diverged.

Respectfully, I disagree. We don't understand the climate system enough to make such bold proclamations that CO2 is driving ALL the warming. Why was there a LIA or MWP? What caused those changes in climate? It was natural. Nobody fully understands that. They have tried to link solar cycles with said changes and there seems to be a correlation but the changes in TSI are too small. What causes the Ice Age cycles? Something else triggers them, i.e solar insolation at 65N but even this isn't enough to explain the full glacial cycle. The atmosphere in general is understood to some extent but there is a LOT we don't know.  We still don't know what exactly causes tornados. Why do some mesocyclones produce tornados and others don't. We have ideas but we don't know for sure. I see climate scientists being way too overconfident in their conclusions. And now they are using the media hype machine and politicians to potentially change our way of life. This is very dangerous. 

The simple fact that CO2 never dominated the climate system in the ice core data and lags temperatures in lock step fashion should be enough to know that it doesn't dominate the climate.  Why would it now vs back then. This is especially true because of the logarithmic nature of radiative forcing from CO2 increases. The climate system in theory should have been more sensitive to changes in CO2 back then when it fluctuated from 180 to 280-300 ppm or so. But it didn't. So what physical property of the CO2 molecule has changed?  This is not how physics works. 

[bluewave]

2 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

I wasn't talking about the 2013 paper, this was 2019 blog post...

The most recent paper contains errors just like the 2013 stadium wave one which predicted that the hiatus would last into the 2030s.

 

[donsutherland1]

5 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Respectfully, I disagree. We don't understand the climate system enough to make such bold proclamations that CO2 is driving ALL the warming. Why was there a LIA or MWP? What caused those changes in climate? It was natural. Nobody fully understands that. They have tried to link solar cycles with said changes and there seems to be a correlation but the changes in TSI are too small. What causes the Ice Age cycles? Something else triggers them, i.e solar insolation at 65N but even this isn't enough to explain the full glacial cycle. The atmosphere in general is understood to some extent but there is a LOT we don't know.  We still don't know what exactly causes tornados. Why do some mesocyclones produce tornados and others don't. We have ideas but we don't know for sure. I see climate scientists being way too overconfident in their conclusions. And now they are using the media hype machine and politicians to potentially change our way of life. This is very dangerous. 

The simple fact that CO2 never dominated the climate system in the ice core data and lags temperatures in lock step fashion should be enough to know that it doesn't dominate the climate.  Why would it now vs back then. This is especially true because of the logarithmic nature of radiative forcing from CO2 increases. The climate system in theory should have been more sensitive to changes in CO2 back then when it fluctuated from 180 to 280-300 ppm or so. But it didn't. So what physical property of the CO2 molecule has changed?  This is not how physics works. 

Greenhouse gases have played the dominant role in driving the observed warming, particularly since the late 20th century. They have not produced all the warming since the mid-20th century.

Recent literature has suggested that the Medieval Warm Period was regional, not global in nature. The western Atlantic region was cold. The eastern Atlantic region was warm. The NAO has been suggested as a plausible explanation for the regional temperature variation during the MWP.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/11/e1500806

Also, climate models should not be viewed as serving the same function as weather models. They are not intended to make day-to-day forecasts. They should not be viewed in such a context. Some of the major uncertainties that constrain weather model forecasts are largely irrelevant at the longer timescales used by the climate models. Their forecasts are of a more general nature over longer periods of time. Globally, they have been skillful in projecting the warming that has occurred.

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

They have even done a reasonable job in projecting seasonal temperatures at a regional scale. As Phoenix was had a record-breaking summer, let's take a look at the last 5 summers as an example (bearing in mind that one should not use the climate models to make year-to-year forecasts, which are subject to a lot of internal variability). Below are RCP 4.5 projections (run in 2005) and the actual outcomes for Phoenix's June-August high temperatures:

2016: Projection: 106.3 (Range: 103.5-108.9); Actual: 106.2
2017: Projection: 106.4 (Range: 103.6-109.0); Actual: 106.5
2018: Projection: 106.4 (Range: 103.6-109.1); Actual: 106.0
2019: Projection: 106.5 (Range: 103.7-109.2); Actual: 106.8
2020: Projection: 106.6 (Range: 103.7-109.2); Actual: 108.6

Five-Year Averages:
RCP 4.5 Projection: 106.4
2016-2020 Average: 106.8

Despite the extreme outcome of 2020--a glimpse of summers to come by 2050 according to the projections--the idea of summer high temperatures over a 5-year period, shorter than the decade-scale that is even more meaningful when dealing with climate projections, was very good.

 

 

 

[donsutherland1]

For purposes of further comparison, below are RCP 4.5 projections (run in 2005) and the actual outcomes for Denver’s June-August high temperatures:

2016: Projection: 88.0 (Range: 83.7-92.3); Actual: 87.9
2017: Projection: 88.1 (Range: 83.7-92.4); Actual: 87.6
2018: Projection: 88.2 (Range: 83.8-92.5); Actual: 88.6
2019: Projection: 88.3 (Range: 83.9-92.6); Actual: 87.3
2020: Projection: 88.4 (Range: 83.9-92.7); Actual: 91.2

Five-Year Averages:
RCP 4.5 Projection: 88.2
2016-2020 Average: 88.5

[blizzard1024]

3 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Recent literature has suggested that the Medieval Warm Period was regional, not global in nature. The western Atlantic region was cold. The eastern Atlantic region was warm. The NAO has been suggested as a plausible explanation for the regional temperature variation during the MWP.

My gosh, this is not how the atmosphere works!  You can't maintain anomalies for centuries in either directions. Basic fluid dynamics refutes that. You have uneven heating on a rotating oblate spheroid known as the Earth.  How can you maintain a positive anomaly one place and negative another given the current configuration of continents and ocean currents. This is inconsistent with atmospheric science and it is a cop out. The MWP and LIA are very inconvenient to the alarmists.  And by the way, Dessler is an alarmist. He doesn't have an atmospheric science background. His work on moistening in the upper troposphere is wrong based on the fact that ENSO can explain his moisture variations at high levels. This actually is similar to the ERA5. 

[blizzard1024]

3 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

The NAO has been suggested as a plausible explanation for the regional temperature variation during the MWP.

So basically the Arctic stayed extremely cold during the MWP because of a +NAO for centuries? Eventually this would break down. Likewise a -NAO for centuries would mean large high pressure systems up there which eventually by radiational cooling would break down. This shows a deep lack of understanding of the NAO and atmospheric fluid dynamics.