blizzard1024

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.

You also don't address why ERA5 has declining specific humidity in the convective mixed layer between the late 1970s and 2000, a time of warming. This makes no meteorological sense. This data looks suspect to me. At high levels, you are seeing the results of enhanced convection with heat and moisture fluxes to the upper troposphere. This does not prove a positve water vapor feedback from increasing CO2. It's global convective processes.

So brightness temperature is a measure of relative humidity. That is why there is a one-one correlation then between temperature and specific humidity. This still doesn't rule out enhanced tropical or global convection for these short term variations.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Just because someone has a difference in scientific opinion doesn't mean you should be nasty to them. This really shouldn't be tolerated on this forum. I follow the work of Lindzen, Curry, Spencer, and Christy all smart PhDs. I agree with their viewpoints and their uncertainties. I am not a climate change "denier". I just don't think that CO2 is as dominate in the climate system as mainstream climatologists think. An ECS of between 1C and 2C for doubling is pretty much where I stand. I don't see the doomsday scenarios. I also am concerned about the water vapor feedback not being as strong as modeled. I don't like that ERA5 is inconsistent in its specific humidity in the lower atmosphere and that it is so well correlated to temperature at high levels. This is a problem to me. It really all depends on how strong the water vapor feedback is and if that can be proven with REAL data, not models, I then will accept higher ECS. Anyway, take care and thanks for being professional in your response.

So what did the ancient people think when there was tremendous periods of warming and cooling? How can you explain these century plus long warming or cooling periods. CO2 didn't have anything to do with this variability. We could easily be naturally warming with some added effect from CO2. see graph below which is for Greenland ice core data but overall reflects rapid warming and cooling periods of the planet. And yes this is peer reviewed. It is Richard Alleys work.

How do you know that? Keep cats indoors don't kill them. Keep screens on your windows. Comms tower use white strobe lights instead of red lights. There are many things. But dotting the landscape with turbines is going to be an environmental disaster not to mention the aesthetics. Plus where do you get the energy to build them and solar panels...fossil fuels. But solar panels have a lot of hazardous materials that will have to go somewhere when the panels need to be replaced. This whole thing is dangerous to the environment right now. We are not ready for a wholescale overhaul of our energy infrastructure especially with such an uncertain science.

This is an excellent paper by two brilliant atmospheric scientists... https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/CO2 coalition Lindzen On Climate Sensitivity.pdf

This will be a disaster for seabirds. How can they tell how many are killed when they drop to the bottom of the ocean. Wind farm lower the energy of incoming TCs? Smh.

Where is tropospheric water vapor in all this? That is the PRIMARY GHG. Everyone knows that. And don't tell me it is a feedback. That is a cop out. Plus the Earth cools a substantial amount from convection. If the Earth didn't have convection, the Earth's Greenhouse effect would be a 75C instead of 33C. This goes all the way back to Manabe and Strickler (1964). So convective air currents and weather, reduce the Greenhouse effect by 42C. So it is weather and convection that ultimately controls the natural greenhouse effect. Precipitation is a sink of water vapor if you think of it.

Yeah stitching together coarse sparse proxy data set with much higher resolution actual measurements works really well. / sarc. Greenhouse gases only are significant if there is a positive water vapor feedback and this is very much uncertain from scientists that are objective.

So from roughly 950 AD to 1350 AD there was 4 centuries of warming culminating in the Medieval Warm Period globally. What natural factors caused that? What natural factors caused the Little Ice Age? What about the Dark Age cold period, the roman warm period? There is about a 1000 year or so cycle. What natural factors caused that? We just don't know enough about natural forcings to make such bold statements. Overwhelming body of evidence? What evidence? Its climate models. That's not evidence. Estimating all the energy flows with such certainty? This is junk science in my opinion.

What about ocean currents? What about global cloud cover? What about global convection? You left off a bunch of stuff. That is why they invoke the use of climate models. But these models don't handle said clouds or convection explicitly. So it is a leap of faith to believe them....

Really, try 4 times the state of SC for solar farms and wind energy. Green energy companies downplay bird deaths to make a money. They are just like any other big corporations. Solar farms same thing. Why not have panels on people's homes and buildings? Because there would be no grid to sell you power. The "green" corporate folks are looking to cash in on this exaggerated climate change predictions. You think they really care about the environment? Naive. Any who the heck do you think you are? I have explained to you dozens of times that CO2 does not drive climate and you don't listen. You say I am propagating lies? I could say the same thing about you. But I am not stooping to your level. This is unfair and malicious of you. I continue to try to get you removed from this forum. This forum has no place for climate activists that are abusive and offensive to others. People like you are shutting down science. I hope I am successful in getting you removed. Maybe you can start you own forum and I won't be on it.

Yep. I actually agree 100%. can you believe that?

I respectfully disagree here. How do they know? Climate models do not have this level of precision to make such claims. If you believe the models yes, you are correct. I am skeptical of atmospheric models especially ones that don't forecast convection or clouds explicitly.

Yes I agree that a doubling of CO2 would bring around 1.2C or so of warming. Modest warming, not a crisis.