blizzard1024

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.

Its UHI... see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0924271620302082#!

How can we be certain this is related to CO2 levels and not natural variability? What about the warmth of the 1930s? Did we really know what the ocean heat content was back then? Plus this site in Hawaii that is on this guys twitter only has data back to 1954. This is not long enough to make such sweeping conclusions that manmade greenhouse gases are causing this. A recent paper actually is showing continued declines the upper tropospheric absolute humidity even the ERA5 data at 200 mb... see https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/TPW-and-GHE.pdf This suggests that CO2 is not the driver of the current warming trend. So to blame all this on CO2 levels is a stretch.

Hurricanes have been ravaging the Gulf Coast for eons. How do we know that all of the sudden now they are getting stronger before landfall? How did we measure that 100 years ago? It's not just ocean heat content that drives Hurricanes. Interaction with the westerlies, wind shear and frictional effects all are important before landfall. You can't say that global warming causes this. The warmer ocean waters can't even be proven to be related to global warming from CO2. This is all hype right before a presidential election. They want voters to believe the weather is getting more severe because of CO2 levels. This is insanity. CO2 levels have little to do with storm severity. Climate scientists want there to be a link so all this research is coming out trying to tie severe weather events to global warming. And Michael Mann is not even an atmospheric scientist. He basically is a climate activist and that is what passes for academia now in atmospheric science departments at major universities. sad.

Abrupt warming? compared to what? how do we know how quickly the climate changed in the MWP or LIA? tree rings? really....

Don't you dare call me a denier. I am not denying climate change and even contribution from CO2. I just am not on board with the climate crisis crowd. there is no way that doubling CO2 is going to destroy our climate system. It will warm it by 1-2C. I know the IPCC has set 1.5C as the danger point but I totally disagree with this. During the Holocene climatic warm period it is known that at least the mid and high latitudes were between 2C and 4C warmer than today based on pollen samples and the fact that tree lines were farther north than today or higher up in the Alps. A warming of 1-2C in the next 50 to 100 years (assuming there is no natural climatic variability) will benefit mankind. of course those who live near the ocean will have problems. But if you build on the beach, mother nature is gonna take it back anyway either from a storm or rising sea levels which have been on-going since the 1800s. Another thing, saying that there was no global MWP and LIA is saying the climate system was in almost complete stasis since the year 1000. That is crazy. the climate is always changing. In a sense, those who believe that the climate was stable from 1000-1900 are actually denying climate change!

Oh I am so sorry.

It's actually common sense. A minor greenhouse gas which never dominated the climate system in the past now does. Lindzen is a brilliant scientist. he would eat you alive in a debate. And no, they are not just siding with common sense to protect the fossil fuel industry. In fact, the mainstream climate scientists are protecting their billions of dollars worth of taxpayer funded research money. You can say the same thing for these climate "activists" who are supposed to be objective scientists. They own the peer review process. If you don't conform, you either don't get your MS, PhD, or your tenure. President Eisenhower warned about this kind of behavior in his farewell presidential address back in 1961. We are living it today.

Like what for instance....

Overall century time periods, it is very unlikely that climatic features are "regional". There is also a lot of evidence of a MWP and LIA in the SH. I will dig those papers. But we know that Dessler and company are the gatekeepers of peer review which shuts down anything they don't agree with.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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/

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.

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?

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.