blizzard1024

who do you think YOU are? Why should I listen to YOU! Say it 100 times. You are highly biased and very arrogant. You are a bully on this forum and should have been removed a long time ago. have a nice day.

You are assuming scientists understand the climate system enough to predict all the non-linear effects. You don't understand how modeling works. GCMs are full of assumptions, parameterizations and can't even handle convection or clouds explicitly. These are major factors in the Earth's climate. So many of us with experience in atmospheric science who understand this can't believe the hubris presented by climate scientists who think they have it all figured out. The debate is over they say. That is anti-science itself. I have seen the corruption in climate science firsthand too.

Don't you get it? Science is corrupted. Climate has been changing for millions of years. There have only been mass extinction events related to either massive volcanic eruptions or asteroid or comet impacts. Do you really believe a small amount of warming, similar to what we saw 8000 year ago is going to cause mass extinctions? Why is it different now? It's the people of the third world destroying tropical forests, mangroves, other habitats and unregulated hunting that is the biggest threat to biodiversity. It is urgent that this is addressed. Instead scientists go off on this tangent of climate change which takes away from the REAL efforts to improve conditions in the third world. It's terrible. Like I said, all the "go green" bullshit and other "save the planet" crap is distracting us from what really needs to be done. We need to be helping the third world get out of poverty and have access to cheap energy (fossil fuels). By denying them that, you destroy the planet and more importantly people's lives. Its awful.

yeah that's because in the third world they are wrecking the environment. deforestation mainly. nothing to do with CO2.

Our bird species evolved 2 million years ago and have seen massive swings in climate, plus at least in North America it was 2-4C warmer 8000 years ago and the birds we see today survived. This is not true and is part of absolute junk science. The land use of proposed wind and solar farms will decimated a lot of our bird species. Plus it destroys the aesthetics of the rural countryside. God knows we have already done enough to destroy this with current forms of energy extraction but now this too??? Just add it on to the plethora of threats our birds face to save them? It won't save them it will lead to further declines. If an energy company truly starts to see profits from renewables they will go on a binge in development and this will be disastrous. There has to be lands that are off limits. But we know how that all works. Ask the Ivory Billed Woodpecker ghosts that persisted in the Singer Tract in the 1940s...look how that turned out. Extinction.

You seriously want the landscape covered in solar and wind farms? That is what would be needed. I don't. I like wildlife and nature.

And one more thing, when the price of energy goes sky high because of wind and solar which now dots the landscape and degrades the environment, people resort to burning wood because they can't afford to heat their homes. Deforestation goes up. We have been seeing this in Europe. It's a huge problem in the 3rd world when they don't have access to cheap fossil fuels. So they raze their environment causing massive deforestation and mass extinctions. So yeah the green new deal or anything similar before the technology and cost supports it is the biggest threat to our environment in so many ways. If you are an environmentalist like me don't let the name fool you. It is a disaster for our wildlife and natural habitats.

Carbon pollution? CO2 is not pollution. If it is, then we should stop breathing. I noticed everyone is ducking the potential environmental degradation from wind and solar. A disaster.

This is a HUGE threat to our environment, way more than a small rise in global temperature. I fear a landscape riddled with solar and wind farms decimating natural habitats. What a disaster this is going to be! And because a minor GHG CO2 will cause a small rise in global temperature. This actually benefits mankind. This renewable energy push is too early and will cost us dearly. Energy rates will soar and the environment will suffer. It's not green, its anti-human and anti environment. Save the Planet? what a joke.

How can you prefer the RSS? It shows way more way warming than the surface record. It shows about .9C since 1979 with the surface records showing around .6C or so. UAH is pegged at .6C since 1979. Plus your graph is land only. Look at the entire planet since the late 1970s. You can see how much RSS diverges from UAH and Hadcrut4 especially after 1998. UAH has a better track record.

If the Earth cooled by .6C in the last 40 years there would be way more hardship world-wide. Crop failures, food shortages, higher energy cost. How can a small amount of warming cause all these disasters? Cooling would be far worse. Extreme cold especially for the poor kills more than extreme heat. Even if the GCM projections are correct and we indeed see another 2-3C warming in a 100 years ( I doubt this), it would be better to adapt as a species to the changes than to replace fossil fuels with alternative "green" energy sources before its cost effective. Where does the materials for all this "green" energy come from? It takes extraction and ENERGY to produce wind turbines and solar panels. Plus the waste, where does this go? Fracking has been a huge success in our energy spectrum as it has reduced our dependency on foreign oil. It keeps energy costs down. In PA the fracking has brought a boom to rural wastelands and the economies and people are doing very well. AND so is the environment. I grew up in northern PA and there are 3 fracking sites on the mountain that my childhood home is on. After they finished putting these well pads in, you don't even notice them! The wildlife is as plentiful as it was 40 years ago. The well pads are in farm fields that are fenced in and they return the land to what it was prior to the well pad being installed. So its back to fields. Water quality hasn't changed as I know people up there who have wells and get their water tested yearly. NO changes. The whole area is booming and you don't even notice the fracking going. This is in stark contrast to the areas that are now full of wind farms. They build roads through untouched mature forest which destroys habitat and put these ugly turbines on once scenic mountains in PA. Many birds and bats are killed by the turbines and the habitat is now fragmented. Solar farms are starting to cover farmland and fields which takes out natural habitat for field birds which are struggling already. The solar farms I fear are going to destroy so much habitat that many field bird species likely will be endangered or even go extinct if the green new deal gets passed. The GND is a disaster for natural habitats and a disaster for humanity as the cost of electricity will soar. This will hit poor people the worst. Adapting to slow warming (if this occurs) would be the best course of action for humanity as we gradually change over to renewables when it is more cost effective and less damaging to the environment. Right now renewables are a disaster for natural habitats. It is far from "green".

peer reviewed in climate science is biased. The gate keepers of the CAGW theory are the reviewers. Just saying...

First of all, climate is never stable. How can you say a cooling climate doesn't produce extremes also? In fact I strongly argue that if the Earth were cooling at the rate it has been warming human suffering would be much worse. Record cold, early and late frosts, crop failures. more widespread drought and lack of water. The paleo records prove that a cold earth is a drier one because the oceans cool and there is less evaporation and less precipitation. So to say a slightly warmer Earth is more dangerous than a colder Earth is crazy. More baroclinicity exists with a cold planet since the Arctic sees the widest swings in climate. The extratropical storms during the colder times were ferocious. After Pinatubo, there was a global cooling and we had the superstorm of 1993. After Krakatoa, there was cooling and the Blizzard of 1888. After Tamboria there was the year without a summer. During the Little Ice age, starvation and plague was the norm. The dark ages were dark because of the cold. The MWP brought on the Renaissance and age of enlightenment. To say a cooling climate is a better climate is insane. This is common sense that is lost in today's world.

This is all BS. sorry. A small change in climate does not lead to more weather extremes. Weather extremes always exist. So you are saying that if we cool .6C in 40 years we are going back to a perfect climate? Yes indeed warmer air can "hold" more water vapor but that doesn't mean it does. You need processes. In the lower atmosphere evaporation off the oceans is the process, but this could lead to more cloud cover, more rainfall, more convection which reduces the water vapor content. So anytime the climate has warmed around.5C there happens to be more extreme weather regardless of the cause? Also if the temperatures warm just a little, then we get more water vapor which amplifies the process and so on. It doesn't matter the cause? You guys just don't get real science. You are fooled by what passes as science now a days. What happens when it cools .5C? my point is weather has always been extreme....its not getting worse. What IS getting worse is people's vulnerability to extreme events. I will give you that. Plus 24 hour media hype, social media insanity and you get this impression of more extreme weather. Science is not really science anymore at least when I was actively publishing 25 years ago... I am glad I don't have to anymore. Its insanity out there.

This shows how hard it is to come up with a globally consistent temperature trend over the oceans. Too many adjustments, uncertainties, methods of measurements, coverage etc back to the 1800s. 70% or so of the planet is covered in Ocean. This uncertainty makes the extent of the warming since the 1800s uncertain too... The UAH dataset especially is good since the late 1970s but it doesn't go farther back. Its very hard to find radiosonde data from the 1950s and 60s for some reason. I would love to see this dataset. UAH temperature trends are consistent with the surface records temp trends since the late 1979s despite Karl et al 2015. RSS is the only dataset that is showing too much warming as I stated above. since the late 1970s and is above the surface records. So it should be discounted as an outlier. But everyone on this forum with few exceptions of course likes RSS because it verifies the narrative better that CO2 drives the climate (after feedbacks of course).

Here's another great article from Dr. Judith Curry on the wildfires.... This is common sense. https://judithcurry.com/2020/09/15/fire/#more-26553

After watching this 60 minutes interview it's pretty clear Michael Mann has gone political. He obviously is a liberal democrat and is pushing hard now with the election less than 1 month away. This is shameful for a scientist to get into politics. Do you really believe burning of fossil fuels is now supercharging the weather? This is fantasy. Fires are normal out west. What is not normal is man's suppression of fires for many decades. Now we are paying the price. We have warm years, there is often a big ridge out west which is not unusual. We had record cold plunge down into the Rockies and western Plains which produces a large high pressure system over the Rockies leading to dry downslope winds earlier this fall into the Pacific NW. THIS began these fires. This is hardly related to global warming. Record cold still can happen because the climate hasn't warmed enough to preclude such events. To blame this on CO2 is political and anti-humanity. I feel sorry for the folks in CA and other places out west. But if you live in areas which are prone to fires you have to accept the risk and have a plan in case a fire breaks out. The same goes for people living on the coast. Hurricanes will strike eventually. You need a plan and have to be willing to accept that a hurricane could destroy your house. That is why there is insurance. To say record hurricane season is caused by CO2 also is false. Global ACE is running 390.88 for 2020 so far, normal YTD is 597, thats 35% below normal. For the Atlantic, it is running 30% above normal but the NH is running 34% BELOW normal YTD. see http://climatlas.com/tropical/ NHC has been on a naming binge that is all. There is nothing unusual about the tropics. Its a La Nina year so we expect more in the Atlantic. Normal variations that are being hyped up by the media and scientists like Michael Mann. The Earth has warmed around .6C since the late 70s. UAH has .6C warming, RSS has .9C warming, HADcrut has .6C, NCDC and GISS have around .6-.7C warming looking at the graphs. This was after a global cooling trend from the 1940s so we have rebounded out of that cool period. The trend per decade is roughly .15C decade. That really isn't much and the Earth is not that fragile. Of course RSS has a much higher trend after its massive adjustments and it doesn't even agree with the surface records since the late 1970s. UAH is more in line with the surface records since the late 1970s. GISS/NCDC/HadCrut all use different normal periods that is why there anomalies are higher than UAH. UAH uses 1981-2010. I believe GISS uses 1951-80, HadCrut uses 1961-1990 and NCDC uses 1901-2000. My beef with the surface records begins before the 1940s. They also have adjusted up temperatures over the Oceans; Karl et al 2015. This just happen to cause more warming after 1998 when climate scientists were puzzled by a pause in global warming. Hmmm. If you think the climate is that fragile you know very little about paleoclimatology. We are living in good times globally. Food production is at an all time high. There is no reason for poverty and starvation but you can't blame that on climate change.

I always have disagreed with subsidies for any energy industry and I would agree with your assessment that fossil fuel companies shouldn't be getting subsidies. They make billions and billions in profits....

Wind and solar are not nearly as efficient as natural gas. Natural gas probably is the best source of energy at the moment as it burns much cleaner than oil or coal. Wind has to be blowing and the sun needs to be shining for wind and solar. That isn't always the case. Plus storing energy from these sources is problematic. Also the materials to make wind farms and solar farms takes energy. Where does that energy come from? Burning fossil fuels. The electric car mandate in CA will be a disaster. If the fleet of electric cars reaches 25% the amount of power needed to charge these vehicles will surpass the ability of renewable energy to power these vehicles. Fossil fuels will be needed to power these electric cars. Fossil fuels are positively correlated with an increased standard of living. Cheap reliable power leads to prospering economies. If we go to renewables too soon, it will be a disaster. I don't care how many times you tell me wind and solar are cheaper. That is your opinion. If they were cheaper and efficient the free market would embrace them to increase profits. Energy companies would adopt this new untapped energy source and make a fortune. Remember CFCs? Dupont made alternatives to CFCs and made a fortune selling the alternatives. Energy companies would do the same thing if it were profitable. But it obviously isn't.

For hundreds of years parts of the Earth stay warmer and are compensated by colder parts of the Earth for a very balanced climate state. That is not how the atmospheric works. Ocean currents transport warm and cold across the hemispheres over times scales of decades. The Earth stuck in different "modes" for centuries it just off. It doesn't jive with fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, convection, cloud cover or even radiative transfer. Somehow today everything is different now because of a minor GHG CO2 which needs amplifying effects of H20 to really impact the climate. This is just not logical. So by this logic, insolation increases a little bit, cloud cover decreases a little bit by natural causes which warms the Earth a little, then more evaporation takes places and enhances this warming. The enhanced warming, then leads to more evaporation and more H20 which further warms the planet and so on. What is the breaking mechanism? There has to be something or the Earth's climate goes off the rails. Anyway, a minor GHG with a small absorption band, CO2 does not drive the climate. Total solar output, convection, cloud cover, water vapor and ocean currents do. CO2 is a small component. Without climate models, you can't prove that it does. The paleo studies assume a larger role of CO2 which is unproven. The tiring fact that CO2 did not drive the climate back then based on ice core data should have put this all to rest more than a decade ago. But the climate change gravy train had too much momentum and money to stop so it continues today. The insanity grows more and more so that all weather, and anomalies are basically now affected by this minor trace gas through a feedback mechanism. But this narrative is working...the politicians are listening and this could fundamentally change the western world into a socialist hell. Cheap energy is good for the environment. Again, look at Haiti where there is barely a tree standing because they use charcoal and wood for cooking and heat. Life expectancies are very low. Poverty means destruction of the environment. In Venezuela, they are poached wild animals, birds and even eating their own pets to survive. Again, extreme poverty because of socialism is decimating their environment. People live shorter brutal lives. We don't want that in America. Going to renewables by 2035 would destroy our economy. And if you like the fact that countries like Haiti have minimal carbon emission why don't you move there? In fact, why do you folks even drive cars? You shouldn't use electricity either, or heat your home. I bet you can find a cave to live in and go back to the stone age. That would help and make you guys FEEL better.

Yep. That is what climate scientists typically do, they shut down or ignore "the other side" when they are confronted with inconvenient facts. Even though at times one or two posters have been rude, the majority of them have not and it has been interesting and informative.

It is logarithmic. This is from the climate activist blog realclimate RF = 5.35 ln(CO2/CO2_orig). In math "ln" means natural logarithm in case you didn't know this. So indeed lower amounts of CO2 have more of an influence so the statement that CO2 was too low so other effects dominated the climate system and now it is dominating the system is false mathematically.

This drives my crazy. How can this be? This is NOT how the atmosphere works! You don't have centuries of persistent intense anomalies in one part of the world that don't eventually change due to basic fluid dynamics. It is a cop out for the climate alarmists. So basically Greenland was warmer and habitable for centuries as well as Europe and North America and these same areas got much colder during the LIA. The rest of the planet got colder during the MWP to balance the warmth out and then got warmer in the LIA to balance the cold out? I know a geologist who specializes in tree rings proxies in Alaska and he clearly can see both MWP and LIA in his data. Here are some examples... https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1191/095968399672825976 clearly warm periods and cold periods coincident with MWP and LIA. Lüning, S., M. Gałka, F. Vahrenholt (2019): The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Antarctica. Palaeogeogr., Palaeoclimatol., Palaeoecol., doi: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2019.109251 Lüning, S., M. Gałka, F. García-Rodríguez, F. Vahrenholt (2019): The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Oceania. Environmental Reviews, online Just-IN, doi: 10.1139/er-2019-0012 Lüning, S., M. Gałka, F. P. Bamonte, F. García-Rodríguez, F. Vahrenholt (2019): The Medieval Climate Anomaly in South America. Quaternary International, 508: 70-87. doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2018.10.041. Lüning, S., M. Gałka, F. Vahrenholt (2017): Warming and cooling: The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Africa and Arabia. Paleoceanography 32 (11): 1219-1235, doi: 10.1002/2017PA003237. On 29 June 2019, a paper by Lüning et al. 2019 on the Medieval Warm Period in Antarctica appeared in the trade journal Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. Here is the abstract: So here is peer reviewed papers on the MWP and LIA in other parts of the world that are probably ignored because it is very inconvenient to mainstream climate folks. How do we not know that we are just rebounding from the LIA with some added CO2 forcing and of course UHI effects which are often ignored too.

Proxy data that ignores known roman, medieval warm periods and the dark age and little ice age cold periods and then stitched higher resolution observations at the end. The Hockey Stick. There is no way the Earth's climate has been this steady for almost 2000 years. CO2 never lead temperatures in the past, why now? explain. You need a strong water vapor feedback too. There is plenty of evidence that this is not the case.

Sea levels have been rising well before mass burning of fossil fuels. What caused this? The climate supposedly was in a perfect stasis before man made fossil fuel burning began en-masse mid 20th century. Plus according to many of you the Little Ice Age was just a regional phenomenon? So I have never heard a good explanation for why sea levels and presumable OHC has risen since the mid 1800s.