blizzard1024

There is no way that CO2 can be blamed for the magnitude of this heat wave. Peer reviewed means squat in this political era of climate science. The heat wave just occurred and there is already a peer reviewed paper out? Really? That speaks volumes on the quality of peer review! And yes CO2 does affect the very high altitudes but only a small amount due to the low concentration. Temperatures in the higher troposphere have shown some limited warming but this could be related to natural causes as we rebound out of mid 20th century cool period. Additionally, there is some contribution from CO2 but it is small. Additionally, if the Earth warms , regardless of cause ,then yes there will be a a higher chance for more heat but how can you attribute it to CO2? How do we know the climate was in stasis in 1900 or even 1950? The earth's temperatures go up and down varying on different time periods There is no science anymore in this field. It is all computer simulations that scientists think model the climate system extremely well. This is a joke. There is no way a climate model can predict changes in climate unless it has cloud cover correct and tropical convection which are major sources of the earth's energy balance. Even with these correct there are loads of other feedbacks too. These are all parameterized which means there could be massive errors in time. The UHI is no doubt a major contribution to this record heat. Why is this so hard to see? It is so obvious. Climate science is dead and a whole generation of younger scientists have been mislead. This is going to go down as one of the biggest scientific blunders in history. Mark my words. Progress in climate science has been set back at least 30 years from all this nonsense as scientists feed at the global warming funding trough....

This is called weather, not climate. We get heat waves, it rains, it gets dry, there are tornadoes and even hurricanes at times. In the winter, it snows and gets cold too. Why does climate change have to be blamed for everything? The climate is always changing and has been for the existence of the earth. The records broken could be related more to UHI which has a profound effect on surface records. I highly doubt CO2 concentrations ( which is a weak GHG )had anything to do with this. I looked at the observations the day Paris broke its all time high and dewpoints were in the 50s so it was pretty dry. There is no water vapor feedback going on here locally. It was related to downsloping off mountains and UHI. CO2 absorbs and emits radiation centered around 15 microns which by Wien's Law affects temperatures between -50C and -110C (centered around -80C). CO2 had little to do with the temperatures related to this heat wave. This is basic physics. And for scientists to already be writing papers about this is disingenuous or just plain ignorant.

Based on the latest map from University of Maine's "climate change institute" todays global anonmaly is + 0.2C. This dataset uses a 1979-2000 climo. It is has been running negative at times lately. The UAH was at 0.32C for May. If the equivalent CO2 is now at 560 ppm because of other GHGs then we have doubled since pre-industrial era. It is a little warmer now than before. Not much to see here. This is why action is very slow to go to renewables. So climate scientists are trying to relate weather events to climate change which is ridiculous. Hurricane Harvey stalled over Texas because it was unusually cold aloft and hence an upper level low captured a tropical cyclone, then it stalled. That will give you 60" of rain.

Appreciate your polite response. Can you show me where you are finding this temperature data for the Arctic pre-1950s? If you have done this on another thread I apologize. I am just curious because like ocean SSTs in the far regions of the world, I have a hard time comparing such old data in the Arctic versus the more comprehensive data of today. Below is the Hadcrut Arctic temperatures I posted. It shows that the Arctic is a little warmer now than in the 1940s but not by much, not enough to decimate the sea ice. Of course this is the HADCRUT dataset which does have its biases...

Infilled data has a lot of problems.... see climate etc. blog. Plus before 1930 the variability doesn't look right....it changes to less inter annual variability. Something doesn't look right here in my opinion....

One more thing on Skeptical Science, they use the heavily warm-biased GISS temp dataset and then match it to a reanalysis data to reconstruct Arctic temperatures. Reanalysis data for the Arctic has been shown to unreliable for long term temperature trends... see https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/era40 Hence no real conclusions can be made with the present arctic warmth vs the 1930s....

I am very skeptical of any climate model for this problem which all of these studies rely on. Bengtsson et al. [2004] states "This study suggests that natural variability is a likely cause, with reduced sea ice cover being crucial for the warming." But the data does not show this. You can't have it both ways. Either sea ice was amazingly steady in the Arctic despite warmer temperatures in the 1930s and then started falling when the temperatures fell from the 1950s to 1970s or indeed as Bengtsson et al. [2004] suggest sea ice was lower in the 1930s which makes more sense suggesting that sea ice is cyclical in coverage based on arctic temperatures and ocean temperatures (as the AMO would suggest)...

Strong El Nino's warm the planet, this leads to a warmer Arctic. A warmer Arctic winter leads to less sea ice volume which makes it more susceptible to melt. Lingering planetary warmth leads to a slow recovery this fall. If we didn't have the strong el nino that peaked last winter/early spring I doubt the sea ice would have been so low in the winter-spring time frame and recovery slow this fall. Also the Little Ice Age peaked between 1600 and 1800 roughly so we have warmed out of this in the 1900s. The 20th century and early 21st century are not out of the bounds of the last several thousand years based on paleo data. So that is why I state that there is nothing unusual about today's climate. The Holocene climatic "optimum" was warmer than today based on pollen samples from cores 6000-8000 years ago. That is pretty well accepted. So again it has been warmer in the present Holocene so we are within the bounds of the climate of this most recent interglacial.

I respect your opinion and appreciate your polite response. The biggest confusion in my mind and others with my viewpoint is how can the Arctic have warm temperatures in the 1930s similar to today's and yet the sea ice does not response and drop. This is counter intuitive. See With falling Arctic temperatures between the 1930s and 1970s, sea ice minimums in the summer time frame are falling. This does not make any sense. Please advise. I am all ears...

I respect your opinion and appreciate your polite response. The biggest confusion in my mind and others with my viewpoint is how can the Arctic have warm temperatures in the 1930s similar to today's and yet the sea ice does not response and drop. This is counter intuitive. See With falling Arctic temperatures between the 1930s and 1970s, sea ice minimums in the summer time frame are falling. This does not make any sense. Please advise. I am all ears...

The AMO has been in the warm phase since the late 1990s so little by little sea ice coverage shrinks. Then this year we had a strong El Nino and hence a low sea ice year. We only have about 40 years worth of reliable sea ice coverage data and the satellite monitoring began during a known cool period in the 20th century when sea ice likely was at a maximum in coverage. So we are seeing the downward trend of a cyclical process. And the Vize, Russia observation is just weather, not climate. There has been tremendous cold in Asia this fall. The average global temperature from the satellites is around +.4C which is not that big of a deal and we are in a cooling trend as the effects of the strong El Nino fade. There is nothing unusual about our current climate. CO2 may be leadling to some of the observed warming but climate scientists, in my opinion, underestimate the natural variability of our climate system.

Arctic sea ice likely has been low and declining because of the warm phase of the AMO which started in the 1990s and is still peaking. Notice from the diagram below that the cold phase of the AMO was in the 1970s when satellites began measuring sea ice accurately Hence waters going into the Arctic Basin from the north Atlantic have been warmer than normal. Thus sea ice is affected and Arctic temperatures are higher, sea ice lower. Once this reverses sea ice will recover in the Arctic Basin and Arctic temperatures will fall off again. This is strong evidence that the sea ice is cyclical and related to the AMO. This years warmth as seen from the reanalysis data and even the more accurate satellite data is related to the very strong El Nino we just had and there is a lag effect. Land temperatures have fallen about 1C since peaking from this El Nino. So its all downhill from here. Also remember that reanalysis data, especially in the Arctic regions is unreliable, and even the satellite data is not as good for the Arctic because of the skewed angle of the satellite at our high latitudes.

Based on your definition who defines the "truth"? The "truth" is very elusive when it comes to the atmosphere. That is another reason why the "denier" name calling is offensive.

Don't call people denialists. Many are the real scientists who understand enough about science to question climate change. Plus how do you know that someone on this forum did not have a relative killed in the holocaust. The idea behind denialist is to equate them to the holocaust deniers. IMO this is a very serious ad hominem attack on certain people. This person and others should be warned IMO. This is a very serious allegation and could be quite offensive.

behind a paywall of course. I love how our tax dollars support this stuff and we now have to pay for it again. what a scam.

can anyone explain these energy diagrams?? This one is from Stephens et al 2012. see If one looks at the error bars its outrageous!!! The total greenhouse effect is 345.6 W/m2 according to this. But the error is plus or Minus 9 W/m2!!!!! Doubling CO2 concentrations leads to 3.7 W/m2 barely 1% and within the error bar range!!! Also look at the surface imbalance of .6 w/m2 plus or minus 17 W/m2!!! are you kidding?? Look at all the error bars and they are all at least as high as the effect of doubling Co2 if not much greater. How can climate scientists explain this uncertainty? Plus a 1% change in the natural greenhouse effect really is going to spiral the climate off the rails??? The more I look into this the more I realize how bad the science is. The Earth may be warming some but it could be mostly natural as there is plenty of evidence of a medieval warm period and LIA. We are coming out of the LIA. How can you disapprove this when there is so much uncertainty in the energy balance diagram??? And to top it off the TOA imbalance is deemed as .6 w/m2 with a very small error bar of .4 w/m2? How can this be?? does anyone have access to this paper? I would like to read it. UGH.

Hoth- amen brother. Now wait for the attacks. I just laugh at the blind faith many have on this forum. ORHwxman is the only reasonable poster of recent times on this board. Have fun.

You have no clue. Ocean PH values vary and coral reefs actually thrive in warmer NOT colder waters. Get your facts straight.

The following graphic sums up why it is difficult to believe that a trace gas like CO2 can drive the climate system. This is basic common sense here. The ice cores show the lag in CO2 signalling that it never drove climate in the past. That should be proof enough. But there is too much money to be made and also the proposed transfer of wealth from 1st world nations to the 3rd world. This era in climate science will be known as the dark ages of discovery in my opinion 100 years from now. I am not alone. There are many Mets and PHD atmospheric scientists who agree with me that the climate will NOT go off the rails if CO2 doubles. If you look at this image, you can see that back radiation is 333 w/m2 from Greenhouse gases. Ok, so now we increase forcing from CO2 by about 3-4 W/m2. That's around a 1% increase!!! Meanwhile, if convection increases say from warmer ocean temperatures you will release more heat. Thermals can get stronger. Also, the snow-ice albedo effect at least globally (not locally) is very small, only 23 W/m2 and it is doubtful that Antarctica and Greenland are going to collapse. And during winter when the mid to high latitudes of the NH are covered in snow, the sun angles are low or there is no sun at all and farther south you have vegetation(forest). So it is hard to imagine a scenario where this feedback could sway the whole Earth out of balance, unless there are large glaciers covering the land masses that eventually melt!!! Also Clouds reflect 79 w/m2 and cloud coverage (especially low clouds) varies and is inversely proportional to the global temperatures as per NASA ISCCP project. NASA's ISSCP global cloud coverage project showed that cloud cover can vary by up to 7%!! This temporarily increases albedo by 7%!!! Stronger convective overturning in the tropics easily can dry the subtropical regions from compensating subsidence and compensate for higher evaporation rates. La Ninas often do this!! Lindzen's studies clearly showed that increased temperatures led to increased OLR, not decreased like the climate models show. Plus, entities that have a lot of "stock" in the global warming catastrophe have been tampering with the temperature data to increase the warming trend. This is a no brainer. They are finding methods to make it seem warmer since 1998 to bust the pause!!! See Why 1998??? Plus, we are in a warming phase anyway since the little ice age. Glaciers have been receding since before CO2 increased. There were also warm periods, like the Medieval Warm Period in the past. The climate will continue to change. Please people wake up!!! Look deeper into the science!!! The climate science literature is rife with "group think", and especially politics and is shutting down real climate research which is almost non-existent. We are entering a totalitarian view on climate science, just look at Texas A and M's climate change "facts" (dogma) that atmospheric science professors have to sign!!! I would never send a child to this school for meteorology!! Anyway, Merry Christmas.

You have gotten very drunk on the cool aide I see. wow. Unfortunately most posters on this forum know very little about radiative transfer and how the atmosphere really works. I feel sorry for you. The climate will change....it ALWAYS changes...warming....cooling...warming etc. CO2 is a small component of this system...maybe 1% at best. we can get to 600 ppm and there will be no significant changes to our climate. no doubt in my mind. the ice core data is very clear...temps warm CO2 goes up and vice versa in an almost one-to-one correlation which clearly illustrates that CO2 passively follows the climate system. The notion that it is the thermostat is ludicrous and shame on the PHD climate "scientists" who are pushing for this....follow the grant money my friend.

It is NOT a free market when government subsidies,( i.e your tax dollars) are assisting energy companies with renewables. All these "BIG OIL" companies which are demonized want to do is make money. That is all they care about and this is what they should care about. If government subsidies help them make money they will develop renewables and you and I will pay the price....higher energy costs. If we decarbonize our energy sources it will be more expensive and punishing for the middle class and downright evil for the poor. The BIG OIL companies still make tons of money. Its the middle class scleps like you and I that foot the bill and 3rd world nations that suffer the most. This is all over a trace gas that has very little influence on the climate. This will go down as the biggest scam in the 21st century which ultimately will lead to more worldwide poverty and with that environmental destruction!!! Ever see the treeless country of Haiti?? Check out google earth sometime...this once was an island full of tropical rainforests....just look at Dominican republic which is not as poor they still have some tropical forests left. Such fools...

See more recent run. These are computer models projections. They vary widely as you get out to 16 days. Look at all the COLD on this one. That means global warming is false. /sarc

This is only additions. Renewables are not near natural gas or oil/coal yet are they as a sum total? Government has to subsidize renewables because they aren't profitable. If they ever become profitable enough you will see a rapid shift. Look at natural gas usage....

sources??? Where did you get this info? I have said many times that if solar is affordable to the average person there would be a revolution in how we energize our homes. We could get off the grid or less dependent on the grid which would save the average person a lot of money. Last I heard a while back (from the news), solar still was quite expensive like 20,000 for a 2000 sq foot home. Is that still true?

It doesn't surprise me that a meteorologist has a different opinion about the atmosphere. Its very common and we disagree with each other on all kinds of storms, etc. However with climate there IS censorship. You have to "believe" or be silenced. This is like going back to the ages of Galileo. How sad.