blizzard1024

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.

Climate scientists and their followers are so insistent that they have it all figured out and don't tolerate dissenting scientific opinions. So they need patience? These folks above engage in civil debate. Science generally welcomes debate with the exception of climate science. And yes these folks indeed are intelligent and I enjoy reading their posts. They are also civil which I appreciate. And you are not open to any debate at all or any uncertainty at all when there is a lot of holes and downright bad science in this climate "crisis" mantra. Almost every major storm or hurricane, wildfires, record heat, record cold, snowstorms etc are now somehow enhanced by CO2? Okay I will give you the USHCN adjustments are needed but the different way daily average temperatures were calculated I believe before 1922 (correct me if I am wrong) and after, leads to datasets that are measuring two different things. So the error bars are much larger. Comparing apples to oranges. I don't agree with Karl et al 2015 who erased the inconvenient pause between 1998 and 2015 right before the super El Nino of 2016. I don't agree with the RSS who again warmed up 1998-2015 also to erase the pause before the super el nino by retaining the warmer NOAA-14 satellite. Both of these methods are controversial in climate science. But let's look at what we agree on. I agree with the basic physics of the infrared active molecule CO2. It absorbs IR radiation in a small IR band around 15 microns and emits radiation in all directions. All else holding equal, a doubling of concentration of CO2 will lead to around 1.2C of warming. No one debates this. The feedbacks are where the problems begin and disagreements start. You know where I stand on this and other climate scientists on "my side" for lack of a better term. I do agree with you that we should be looking toward other cleaner energy sources for the future. So I am all for that. The disagreement is on how quickly we divest from fossil fuels and its impacts on economies. Plus peer review literature is not proof of anything. It is the concepts that are the proof. Many un-peer reviewed blog posts are actually very scientific and in fact a new way to communicate science. Judith Curry is a credit to this. Look I will remain civil and on this forum. I question everything it's my nature. I have been studying this problem for 30 years and I too was once a strong believer in dangerous global warming until I dug deeper. I have NO stocks or any funding at all from fossil fuel companies. Ziltch. I have reviewed many papers too in atmospheric science for scientific journals for many years. I have seen a noticeable decline in quality of what is accepted and now passes as peer reviewed literature. Journals have gotten fatter and fatter these days vs 25 years ago. The process was extremely rigorous back in the day. Now it has become much more lax. That is so these journals can publish more and more papers and get more and more money. I also find it interesting that in meteorology two scientists can completely disagree on something and yet maintain a civil and open discussion and actually work together. In the end more is learned by this collaborative approach. Climate science shuts down anyone that doesn't agree with their narrow minded view that CO2 drives the climate. And that is the main reason why I didn't leave this forum. I will not be shut down. Many on "my side" have left this forum and that is a shame. No other science that I know of does this. Why is that? Anyway, I am skeptical of a lot of peer reviewed stuff not just climate science but in the broader atmospheric science and meteorological fields. Ok that is enough for now. Have a good day.

I decided not to let folks like you chase me off this forum like you did with many others in years past. This should be a climate change forum not a climate activist forum. That is ultimately why I changed my mind. Laugh all you want. But I won't let people that attack others chase me away. Have a nice night

Well this statement clearly violates policy and this user is going. And your rudeness should not be tolerated either. This is very classic since you can't back up your claims or are insecure about the science (which is FULL of holes) you resort to attacks. I don't attack you. You can believe what you want. That is your free choice. My scientific opinions ARE valid and really common sense. But you can see things your way. I won't attack you. Why should I?

You're done on this forum. You will get banned now. I will make sure of it.

If there was a warming or cooling spike of similar magnitude as today's say in the 1300s would the proxy data be able to detect it given how coarse the dataset is and that it is in fact proxy data? The proxy data shown in this first paper of this topic shows little change in global average temperature during the Roman Warm Period, Dark age cold period, Medieval Warm period, It does show LIA cooling to some extent. The greenland ice core data clearly shows these temperature fluctuations back for much of the holocene with an overall trend similar to the first paper's results. However as you can see there are a lot of rapid fluctuations. How can we be sure this wasn't global in nature?

You have too much faith is peer reviewed climate literature. There is a lot of bias. The gatekeepers are alarmists. They have brought the field of climatology to a standstill by focusing on a small portion of the climate system, CO2. This has put back real research in climate at least a generation.

But wait, why doesn't the initial warming lead to increases in water vapor which then amplifies the initial warming? H20 is the primary GHG. This is the reason by the climate alarmists that doubling CO2 leads to more than 2C of warming. So why does the water vapor feedback do nothing or very little? Why isn't this mentioned. CO2 forcing is relatively weak. So you are relying on two feedbacks really. The warming is kicked off by the amount of solar radiation at 65N due to Milankovitch cycles and then CO2 increases which leads to H20 increases which then warms the Earth and dominates? But somehow CO2 lags the temperature through the whole Ice core records. This should have ended this insanity 20 years ago. "The observed ongoing warming is consistent with what one would expect when atmospheric carbon dioxide increases." Correlation does not imply causation. There are dozens of other processes that could cause the ongoing warming which really isn't that extreme.

This is central to the reason why CO2 doesn't drive the climate. As many times as it takes. The hand waving explanations are not scientific. An objective climate scientist would seriously reconsider the role of CO2 in our climate since its levels follow temperature trends. CO2 is not the world's thermostat. It leads to a little warming. The whole house of cards upon which billions and billions of dollars rests on a shaky foundation. That is why people like you, mainstream climate scientists the media and left wingers are so defensive. They know it. They also have the gall to question seasoned sincere atmospheric scientists thinking they know more or ....that these scientists are being "paid off" by big oil. This is not true. It's an excuse. The mainstream climate scientists need there to be a climate crisis or else their funding will eventually dry up. You know this. Everyone does.

No person making projections/predictions in atmospheric science more than a 5 days in advance is this confident. For the IPCC to be this confident, shows the political nature of this organization.

How do you know it is not ocean currents now? Oh yeah I forgot...climate models. /sarc

And this is not how atmospheric physical processes behave. Something else kicks off warming. Obviously this is more dominant than CO2. If CO2 was such a dominant factor, then how could the Earth cool while CO2 rises? So some other processes kicks off the warming of the planet, CO2 is passively following the temperature trends with a lag. So warming occurs while CO2 is falling, then magically the CO2 molecules decide that they have to warm the planet and said feedback begins. The Earth's atmosphere doesn't behave like a combustion engine either. Basically when they release the data from the Vostok ice cores in the late 1990s and 2000s and this lag effect was found, objective scientists would have realized that CO2 is not the driver of the climate. It never was before, why now? It is a minor greenhouse gas. I have said this a million times. So you have a minor greenhouse gas CO2 that needs a strong water vapor feedback to really affect the climate system and somehow dominate it? What you are saying is that some other mechanism causes warming, then CO2 after several hundred to thousand years or so starts rising, then this kicks off the water vapor feedback? It makes more sense if you have warming or cooling from some other process that kicks off the water vapor feedback. Why is it just CO2? That is why the water vapor feedback is probably small because initial warming would have led to increased water vapor which then would warm the Earth. You don't even need CO2 in this argument. The water vapor feedback probably is small and natural mechanisms change the amount of clouds, water vapor, precipitation, and convection and this drives the climate. CO2 is on the sidelines with a small contribution. This is common sense. The objectivity of mainstream climate scientists is gone because of money, fame, power and egos.

Thank you for the papers. I read both of them. The first paper does show a Holocene warm period in the higher latitudes of the NH of between 2 and 4C which I have read about before. It is also consistent with pollen samples in the northeast U.S which showed a more Oak, hickory, sweet gum like forest north into NY state the lower elevations of New England. The climate in these northern areas was more like Virginia or even north Carolina somewhere 6-8 thousand year ago. Tree line was farther north at least in Canada too. Spruce and fir retreated northward and up the slopes of the Appalachians and New England all based on pollen samples. But I find it very confusing that the global temperature anomaly only reached only +.7C globally during this time with such dramatic local climate changes. Plus neither paper described how they stitched the ERA20C measured data which is much better and higher resolution to this proxy data(it is not perfect due to the various adjustments as discussed before). Apples are being compared to oranges here. These Hockey Stick looking graphs go back to MBH 98. Also they even admit that their proxy data showed ":This cooling trend occurred while the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases were increasing. Liu et al. (ref. 3) coined the term “Holocene temperature conundrum” to highlight the contradiction between the cooling indicated by proxy evidence versus the warming simulated by global climate models, a trend reinforced in the most recent generation of climate models4." So we had falling temperatures for millenia with rising CO2 levels. This was counter to the global climate models. Hmmm. So was this a time when CO2 didn't drive the climate? Was it "inactive" like it was the previous 800,000 years in the ice core data as it passively followed the global temperatures and lagging them by 1000s of years? In fact, the rise in CO2 in the mid to late Holocene probably was related to the rapid warming that occurred prior to 10,000 year ago. The lag effect was present suggesting CO2 had little to do with the climate system. But in 1900 or so, all that changed and it suddenly became the dominant driver in the global climate system!! Yeah that makes a lot of sense. / sarc. And the rapid rise in temperature in the 1900s to early 2000s is superimposed on a very coarse and uncertain PROXY dataset. This is peer reviewed and I am not impressed or convinced. And it is NOT PROOF just because it is peer reviewed! People don't understand that. In fact, the lagging CO2 response seen during the mid to late Holocene cooling period just further proves that CO2 is a small component of the climate system. That is "conveniently" ignored as one of their conclusions is "The GMST of the past decade (2011–2019) averaged 1 °C higher than 1850–190011. For 80% of the ensemble members, no 200-year interval during the past 12,000 years exceeded the warmth of the most recent decade." If this wasn't a conclusion this paper would have NEVER made it through the peer review gatekeepers who are climate alarmists.

interesting. thanks.

Use the proxy data into the 21st century. You are comparing apples to oranges here. Why not look at the proxy data to the 21st century? I think there is a divergence issue around 1960 though when proxy data shows a fall in temperature. That was Michael Mann's hide the decline "trick". He wasn't hiding a real temperature decline as is often portrayed on other blogs. For some reason tree ring data diverge from temperatures around this time. I have seen this stitching of 20th century data to proxy data for over 20 years. I will research this by reading those papers again. I didn't get it before back 15-20 years ago. It looks fishy to me. But I will approach it with an open mind. Thanks.

I read this and it looks interesting. But, the adding of the 20th century data statistically is not convincing. Low resolution proxy data vs better (although not perfect) data from the 20th century. This is the crux of this paper and it is weakest link. But thanks for the paper.

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.