blizzard1024

I have read the abstracts and conclusions so far. I knew about the Norway papers from Oslo and of course I read the Lewis and Curry paper a while ago. These papers both are around 1.64 to 1.8K ECS. So most of these papers seem to converge on roughly 1.5 to 2.0K, again I read the Oslo one and Curry's before. And you state there are many more. OK, that is fine. But these folks don't get the splashy news headlines and hype. It is the researchers who promote their work to the media hype machine that get all the attention. These papers (except for the second and last one) don't really suggest much reason for alarm. Curry has been banished which is a big loss, the Oslo folks I saw years ago get crushed. I am not familiar with the other papers. I do thank you for your patience and providing these. The first paper uses the highly uncertain OHC and surface record back to preindustrial times which also is very uncertain as a metric. The second paper uses data from HadCRU, GISS and MSU TMT and this is probably why there is such a big range. GISS is an outlier in having too much warming. This paper doesn't really add much to the oft quoted 1.5 to 4.5K ECS for doubled CO2. It is just a little lower. Lewis and Curry talk about base periods in the 1800s, I can't remember what they used for temperature record since I don't have access right now to the full paper. But it has to be the very unreliable earlier datasets. The 4th paper uses HadCrut4 which again has a lot of uncertainties in the early predindustrial era. The last one constraints the ECS to above 1.5K but lowers the top more to 3.4K. They use CMIP models since 1975 a known global cool period. Natural processes were a part of the 1960s and 70s cool period and to assume all the warming since 1975 is from CO2 is erroneous. They also mention the uncertainties with aerosol forcing which I agree. There is a lot of uncertainties there. The biggest issues I see with all of this is 1) we really don't know what the global average temperature was in the late 1800s. 2) None of these papers account for natural processes that would affect the climate that are not understood, i.e clouds, convective overturning etc and 3) feedbacks and forcings can get messy in untangling see spencer and christy's work on this. The problem is extremely complex and to make policy decisions based on higher sensitivity or even 1.5K (the so-called danger mark) is nuts IMO. Plus we have warmed about .6C to .7C from both surface data and UAH since just before the El Chichon eruption in 1982. (RSS has too much warming compared to these datasets having .8 to .9C) Again the 1970s was globally a cool period so much of this warming could be related to interdecadal variability. To blame fires, heat waves, intensifying hurricanes, winter storms, arctic outbreaks, floods and individual weather events on climate change or a "climate crisis" right now on a small amount of warming is absurd and basically part of the ever worsening media-hype campaign. This hype is because the competition for news is extreme now with all the different sources. Climate change has become part of this hype and even weather forecasting too. The NHC is naming everything now and continues to overdo wind estimates of storms/hurricanes before landfall. I have seen this first hand. They want to get people to take action so they overdo the intensity of the storm as it approaches land to make sure people take the storm seriously and don't let their guard down. I have seen this on several occasions, but not all. So even weather forecasting has become part of this media-hype machine. This plays back into a university researcher trying to make a name for themselves or their institutions with research especially climate research. There is bias. I question everything that is my nature. If that offends people on this forum I apologize. But I do agree with all of you that we should stop polluting the atmosphere and environment (this includes pesticides herbicides too), help 3rd world countries have a decent quality of life and respect everyone no matter what your race, color, or creed is. If we can do this, it would solve many environmental problems and help calm down the insanity the world is going through right now. The media needs to STOP hyping everything and politicians need to start representing US. This utopian view unfortunately probably will never happen.... Thank you skier for a nice discord. Stay safe.

Please list them. I would like to read them.

I never said they are evil. It is a human bias. That's all my friend.

Because the peer review process is corrupted. Scientists rely on the government for funding. If there are no serious problems, there is no funding. So climate scientists have to have a problem to get funding. The problem has to be more and more significant to keep getting funding. Since the climate is changing slowly and most Americans don't notice much change, they are trying to prove that weather events are now supercharged by CO2 and the media catches on and calls it a climate crisis and so on. Politicians now are worried and bingo more funding. Plus the folks that have all the power are of course biased to where the money is and referee the peer review process and won't let skeptical viewpoints publish. We saw that in the climategate emails and it continues more than a decade later. Follow the money, influence and power. Peer review doesn't mean much anymore. I have seen terrible papers get through when I was a reviewer. It depends on what the problem is. If it fits an agenda it gets published easier. This is just the truth and it unfortunately occurs outside climate science too. With blogs and open internet, peer review isn't what is was 20 years ago.

Sorry I don't agree. How can something else kick off a global warming event during the last glacial maximum, CO2 remains constant or even falls as it lags this initial forcing and then all of the sudden after several hundred years it becomes a positive feedback? That makes no sense. Obviously it is not the control knob of the climate if it doesn't kick off climate change. How can CO2 be still falling and global warming occurring and vice versa? Then after a lag it all of the sudden becomes a feedback? If that is the case, it is only a feedback to the warming we see today. Warmer oceans outgas CO2 and humans add some too. There is some effect from increasing CO2 but whatever kicked off the warming from the Little Ice Age to present is the dominant forcing. Since CO2 increases have a logarithmic effect radiatively CO2 should have more influence during ice ages and less so now as CO2 has rise to above 400 ppm. There is less warming for each additional ppm of CO2. So even if there is unnatural rises in CO2, the effects are diminishing on the climate system. All told 3.7 w/m2 of extra forcing for doubled CO2 vs OLR of 239 w/m2 is 1-2%. That is very little. There is SOME effect but it is not driving the climate. Climate models are flawed and do not account for natural processes well. They also assume the climate was in stasis in 1850 which it wasn't since we were warming out of the LIA. So climate models don't prove anything.

It's not CO2 entirely.CO2 always lags T in ice cores. It never drove the climate in the last 2.6 million years with the present ocean currents and geography. Why would it all of the sudden change? That's not physics. There is more to the climate system and we just don't understand enough about natural processes. But we shouldn't be polluting our atmosphere, so in the long run we need to go to renewables and cleaner energy sources. CO2 is a weak GHG. That is basic physics. The feedbacks can't be significantly positive or our climate would have gone off the rails a long time ago and it simply didn't. You need major positive feedbacks and high climate sensitivity. The observations are not showing this. If you pick warm biased data sources you get 2C per century or so. UAH is 1.4C per century. So split the difference... 1.5C to 2.0C increase over 1880 leads to another .5C to 1C for a doubling CO2 assuming the climate was in stasis in the 1800s. This is a BAD assumption since we were coming out of a global LIA. It is very possible that much of the 20th century warming is natural with some smaller CO2 component. Climate models are tuned to be sensitive to CO2 and have positive feedbacks which in nature likely doesn't exist. See Spencer's work on ERBE satellite data. Anyway, I am done. I don't buy your CAGW. It is hype. I see modest warming. I am finished here. You got your wish. No dissenters, no debate. No learning. Have a nice life.

By models. That is not proof.

Yeah this is what happens when the world warms. But it easily could be mostly natural too. You can't prove CO2 is the cause for the millionth time.

I am trying to get off this radical CAGW site. You are not a decent human being. I never lied. How dare you say I lied. That is offensive and you are attacking me and I won't leave it this way. I am going to stay on this forum until you are removed. You should be removed for personally attacking me. I will see to it.

This is my last post. You guys win. It is like talking to a brick wall. Skier you should be removed from this forum. period. The mods have done nothing and that is shameful. Keep living in your fantasy world. I know you think I live in one, but NO.... it is you guys. Mother Earth is just fine and modest warming will be beneficial. To think otherwise is just plain HYPE.

I have and don't agree with the methods. Others feel the same way. But of course they don't agree with the consensus so they are shunned. This is not science. This is shutting down the scientific process. people like you and others do this. Many of us folks who believe there is moderate warming not catastrophic warming are getting lumped in with the Alex Jones types, Trumpers etc. That is so wrong.

You are losing your mind my friend.... Its the highs and lows that matter. If they didn't do highs or lows prior to 1920 which I believe is true how can you stitch that together.

Its the highs and lows that matter. how can you stitch data together if they didn't do highs and lows before 1920? come on. that is vodoo statistics.

The IEM data source has unadjusted measured data which is the best. It should no warming AT ALL in my climate division. NONE. BUT NCEI reports 3F warming since 1893. It is MADE UP. It is NOT measured. How can you trust this MADE UP DATA. This is beyond silliness and common sense.

This paper was not reviewed by Spencer or Christy who are the EXPERTS at satellite retrievals. They don't match up with the inflated surface temperatures records so they are not warm enough to conform. they don't RETAIN the warm bias of NOAA-14. That is your answer. Its is a WARM bias. How many times do I have to tell all of you this.

Yeah, because it doesn't support their theories which would threaten their funding and credibility. You need to homogenize it to get it to conform

You fail to see what is really going on. Not much. Some mild warming. You rely on peer reviewed adjusted upward, retain warm biased data. Warm the present, cool the past! These folks are exaggerating the data. You know it too.

NOAA-14 has a known warming bias. which is it? I believe spencer and christy who pioneered these measurements. Why don't you? They are the experts at satellite retrievals.

Here's NCAR/NCEP reanalysis graph of daily/monthly anomalies based on a 1994-2013 average period. It also confirms UAH .43C and modest warming. August was about .175 or so above the 1994-2013 average period which is lower because UAH uses 1981-2010 which has a lower mean. In the end, not much going on that suggests extreme warming. Two different datasets.

Also if you look globally you can see the warmth of Asia but Antarctica has been very cold and even North American has been a little cool except the west. Global anomalies have been running .2C to .4C daily for a while and this is using the 1979-2000 normal period before the supposed rapid Arctic warming. There really isn't anything terribly unusual and it is in line with UAH .43C anomaly. Modest warming from increasing GHGs on top of unknown natural variability. Nothing to see here that suggests we are doomed or our climate is spinning out of control.

Yes it is when you pick a cold decade starting point. Look before that. It was warmer. That is cherry picking IMO.

Here is the data for NJ avg-temp 1893 71.9 1894 72.4 1895 72.4 1896 72.4 1897 70.6 1898 73.6 1899 72.6 1900 74.2 1901 73.8 1902 70.4 1903 68.7 1904 70.6 1905 71.4 1906 73.3 1907 69.8 1908 72.6 1909 71.0 1910 71.3 1911 72.7 1912 70.8 1913 72.4 1914 71.4 1915 70.5 1916 71.1 1917 72.4 1918 71.3 1919 71.3 1920 71.5 1921 72.4 1922 71.8 1923 71.9 1924 70.3 1925 72.4 1926 70.4 1927 68.5 1928 72.1 1929 71.0 1930 72.3 1931 73.1 1932 72.3 1933 72.5 1934 73.1 1935 72.8 1936 73.0 1937 73.7 1938 73.2 1939 73.4 1940 71.0 1941 71.8 1942 72.4 1943 74.5 1944 73.9 1945 71.8 1946 70.4 1947 72.2 1948 72.5 1949 75.0 1950 71.2 1951 72.0 1952 74.1 1953 72.8 1954 72.2 1955 74.7 1956 71.6 1957 73.0 1958 71.5 1959 73.7 1960 72.1 1961 72.7 1962 71.2 1963 71.6 1964 71.6 1965 71.2 1966 73.6 1967 72.1 1968 72.9 1969 72.6 1970 72.7 1971 72.2 1972 71.3 1973 74.1 1974 71.6 1975 72.6 1976 72.1 1977 72.2 1978 72.2 1979 71.2 1980 73.5 1981 72.6 1982 70.5 1983 73.9 1984 72.9 1985 71.3 1986 72.1 1987 73.5 1988 74.3 1989 72.6 1990 72.3 1991 73.9 1992 70.2 1993 73.8 1994 73.8 1995 73.9 1996 71.9 1997 71.6 1998 73.0 1999 74.8 2000 71.2 2001 73.0 2002 74.6 2003 72.8 2004 71.9 2005 75.5 2006 74.1 2007 73.0 2008 73.6 2009 71.7 2010 75.5 2011 74.5 2012 73.7 2013 73.2 2014 71.5 2015 72.7 2016 74.5 2017 72.1 2018 74.2 2019 73.9 2020 74.6 That added .7 degrees to 2020 and subtracted .9 degrees from 1983. What? Look at the data. What NCEI is NOT what is being measured. They have manipulated the data. They show a 3F rise in temperature in NJ. Here is an excel graph of the data I got from IEMCOW climodat. Is indeed shows a warming trend of 1.5-2F but before 1940. From 1940-2020 there is virtually no trend.

This data is seriously cherry-picked. It was cool in 1971 and a warm summer in 2020. How come this gets a pass? Here is the summer average temperatures JJA for several states that are showing warming in this graph. You can see there is virtually no trend since 1893 in summer temperatures except the western States which recently have been warmer. How come you don't call out these folks? Clearly anything that conforms is not questioned. I say question everything. That is what a good scientist does IMO.

I am going to get you removed from this forum. You are a bully and are offending me. I never call you names. You basically assume I have half a brain? That is an insult and has no place on a forum like this. You keep digging a deeper hole for yourself. Please think about this before you are removed. You do have good points. You just don't tolerate others who see things differently. And then you insult them.

Keeping digging your hole deeper.