blizzard1024

Meteorologist
  • Content Count

    850
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About blizzard1024

Profile Information

  • Four Letter Airport Code For Weather Obs (Such as KDCA)
    KBGM
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Best modeled? what? The whole theory of CAGW is based on trust in modelling the climate system. I distrust atmospheric models. They are often way wrong. The paleorecords disprove that CO2 is the primary control knob on the climate. It has some effect but not a dominate effect. Certainly not enough to destroy the Earth's ecosystems.
  2. Behind a paywall. It doesn't make sense in the Paleo Records. I would like to see how they came up with this. If it has anything to do with climate modelling, its not credible.
  3. CO2 has an absorption band in the IR between 13 and 17 microns with a peak at 15 microns. Water vapor has multiple bands in the IR in fact most of the emission spectra in the IR from the Earth resembles the H20 bands. CO2 absorbs IR between -50c and -110C so it has little to no effect directly on the lower and middle troposphere. Also water vapor dominates the lower and middle troposphere and thins out dramatically in the upper troposphere. So CO2 does have the most influence in the upper troposphere where cold temperatures are affected. But how can a weak GHG dominate the entire choatic non-linear climate system? Water vapor and clouds are the primary GHGs. CO2 theoretically leads to some warming in the upper troposphere which in theory would warm the lower troposphere and cool the stratosphere. But if H20 increases in the lower troposphere its emission cools the upper troposphere. CO2 if all else remains equal leads to 1.2C of warming per doubling. But clouds, a negative water vapor feedback could easily drop the sensitivity to less than 1C. The paleo records clearly show that CO2 is not the control knob on the climate system. A doubling of CO2 likely is less than 1C and possiblly even less.
  4. There is no way that one can emphatically make this statement that understands how the atmospherics works. You have proven your ignorance.
  5. No it's not. There is a lot of uncertainty as to how much CO2 was in the atmosphere plus even bigger was the positioning of the continents was different than today or the last few million years. There was no Gulf Stream or warm current to the North Atlantic. This is really important to the climate system since warmth and moisture that far north leads to snowfall at high latitudes. With the continents closer together the Pacific Ocean was even more massive than today and the continents were closer. Glaciations were not present which made the Earth warmer than today. Once the continents drifted enough to close off the Isthmus of Panama 2.6 million years ago the Gulf stream formed and the "present" glacial to interglacial cycles began and the Earth began to cool. This tells us that its the glaciation and especially ice albedo effect that dominate the climate system. Look at the temperature reconstructions from ocean core forams and you can see this downward trend after 2.6 million years ago. Furthermore, large continental glaciers also means less water vapor in the atmosphere and it is much drier. More and more precipitation falls out as snow and builds the glacier. So water vapor levels drop and hence the world cools more. CO2 passively follows the Earth's temperature. It never drove the climate before. Why does it now?
  6. "Since 1960 the surface has warmed by 0.9C with very little if any of that being convincingly attributable to naturally modulated forcing agents. The hydrosphere has taken up heat equivalent to 0.6 W/m^2 of forcing for decades. If a natural (and non-GHG) forcing agent were a significant contributor of this uptake then given this magnitude it should have been quite easy to identify. Meanwhile the observed uptake of heat is a close match to the consensus theory which includes all known radiative forcing agents in their appropriate proportions including GHGs" How do you know this? Climate models? The ice core data clearly reveals that CO2 never dominated our climate system in the past 2.6 million years. So what is different now? It is a weak GHG with a small absorption band. H20 and clouds are 95% of the Earth's greenhouse effect. The whole theory, which is based on models, that CO2 drives the climate NOW is unfounded. Explain to me how a highly non-linear chaotic system is linear in its dependence on CO2 level vs. temperature as is reflected in the ice core data? The easy solution is that the oceans are more soluble to CO2 and other gases when they are colder by sucking CO2 in and outgas it when the Earth warms. This explains the lag in CO2 levels vs temperatures very well. Solar activity was at a 1000 year max in the late 20 century and was at a minimum during the Little Ice Age. How can anyone rule out solar variability in our modern warm period? There is some connection there. There has to be. The hubris that folks on this board and climate scientists have about their understanding of the climate system is crazy. The earth is NOT warming up rapidly either. Where do you get this from? It is a slow rise well within the bounds of previous climate change in the Holocene. The Pleistocene has far larger climate swings. We live in a tranquil time of climate with slow modest warming. Many areas including where I live have not seen any changes in the last 100+ years. Take a look at average annual temperature for several U.S states(best observing network) as an example(below). If we are rapidly warming we certainly would have seen something significantly positive by now. States like NY, ME, MI and ND show small warming to NO changes. Any small warming is night time lows in winter where UHI dominates too. There are many more states that I can run that show the same thing. The climate really hasn't changed much in the U.S since the 1890s based on the raw un-adjusted data. Anyway climate sensitivity has to be low since ice core data shows that temperatures begin to fall as CO2 still climbs. If there were significant positive feedbacks ANY warming that takes places increases CO2 from the Oceans which then would kick in the so-called positive water vapor feedback which would amplify the warming leading to more CO2 from the oceans and more water vapor and so on. What is the breaking mechanism? What is being proposed is the CO2 modulates the hydrological cycle and sets a level for water vapor. Where are the equations for this? I have never seen this. Climate models are woefully inadequate. They don't handle clouds or convection which have a major role in the Earth's energy budget. If you put your faith in this, your nuts. To destroy the energy sector which sets the high standard of living we enjoy is suicide as a species. That is where we are headed. Environmentalism is not helping the planet, it is destroying it by keeping third world countries poor by not allowing access to cheap energy from fossil fuels. Poor people live miserable short lives in third world countries and are desperate so they destroy their environment by hunting and unsustainable farming methods. Environmentalists has brought tons of wind farms which have wrecked loads of wild areas in the northeast U.S and other places. They kill birds and bats. Its horrible. People suffer and the environment is wrecked.
  7. This peer reviewed paper has a climate sensitivity of 0.7C per doubling of CO2.... https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2017/9251034/
  8. This is a political document to try to pressure the Trump administration to do something about climate change. The solutions to go renewable are very damaging not only to the world economic system but also the environment. Wind farms ruin wild forests and fields, kill birds and bats. Solar farms use up precious land that was once wild. The insanity is destroying our environment. Given that the Earth was warmer 6000-8000 years ago and our wildlife survived, I don't think a little warming over century long time scales would do any harm if it happens, nature will adapt to slow changes. It always has and always will.... I have to turn off the email notifications from this site. This stuff is just insanity. I'm done with this.
  9. SMH. Really? you believe this? Of course it is "worse than we thought". If the Earth's climate were this sensitive we wouldn't be here. Life would not exist as rapid changes in the past would have ended up as either a hothouse Earth or an ice house. This is simply propaganda.
  10. How do you know that? Climate models? Really? Come on. That's lame. Its related to the AMO cycles. It was as warm as in the 1930s and 1940s in the Arctic. Looking at the raw untouched rural data.
  11. Ok. First of all I am not saying the scientists themselves are necessarily not into science per se, but there is no objectivity left in climate science. 30+ years of work tunnel visioned on CO2 leads to warming means massive group-think, which gets into the peer review process. They have been re-enforcing "the CO2 thermostat" hypothesis for 30+ years. If you disagree you are banned. Censored as a scientist. Excellent award winning brilliant scientists like Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Willie Soon and more recently Judith Curry have been ostracized. That is why climate science isn't real science anymore IMO. The people that are in it are smart but there is too much inertia to go against the basic "CO2 is the world's thermostat" theory. In summary this is based on computer models only which an objective scientist would question especially given the non-linearities in the atmosphere and climate system.
  12. Look at the data bluewave. The upper troposphere is drying. Since it doesn't fit the narrative they dismiss it. Look at the cloud data from NASA 1983-2009, when there were more clouds on the planet temps cools and vice versa. That dataset is dismissed too. Heck look at the U.S temperature record, NCDC has fudged so much data that many states which show no warming trend in the past hundred plus years after adjustments are now showing 2-3F or more rises per century. And the time of ob has nothing to do with this. High temperature data shows the same trends as low temperature data...none until they adjust the data. I could go on, but the real science deniers are the folks who buy into CAGW and won't even look at the real data or understand rad tran or even understand the earth's atmosphere.....
  13. How can you say this so confidently? You don't understand the non-linearlities inherent in the Earth's atmosphere. Come on. All your argument is based in climate models. Mine are based on observations. It was warmer before and it could easily warm more.