blizzard1024

How? How do you know that? Let me guess...climate models. yeah right! Climate models are insufficient like weather forecast models. They have some usefulness but not this kind of precision. So this is all based on climate models. I know this. That is where I have to disagree. I want to see data, that proves a water vapor feedback first and foremost. So far, I haven't seen anything convincing. ERA5 was very interesting to look at but a 1:1 relationship of high level T and specific humidity? What is the mechanism? The only I can think of is tropical convection. That is NOT a positive feedback. It is the prevalence of El Ninos over La Ninas since 1977 the great climate shift.

How do you know the modest warming isn't natural? The Earth likely has been in an energy imbalance since the 1800s, the end of the Little Ice Age. That's all.

ANYTHING that doesn't go along with the "CO2 is the thermostat of the planet narrative" is dismissed. UAH for instance doesn't include the spurious warmth of NOAA14. BUT the other satellite datasets keep it. So they must be right /sarc. The surface record is rife with changes in instrumentation, land use and even location changes over 100s of sites across the planet. Plus the way SSTs were measured has changed so much in 150 years. BUT it shows a lot of warming especially after "homogenization"....i.e adjusting upward in the present and cooling the past. So this dataset is better than UAH? Of course it is /sarc because we already know that CO2 is our global thermostat. Cloud datasets show that cloud fraction seems to correlate well with global average temperature. Whoops, wait a minute.... NO it can't be correct /sarc. We know what Arctic sea ice was like in the 1930s without satellite data. It had to much higher than today, of course is was /sarc. Now NCEP reanalysis data which matches up with NASA NVAP specific humidities at high levels is wrong because it shows a negative feedback. But ERA5 is correct because it shows a linear almost 1:1 relationship with temperatures in the upper troposphere. It doesn't matter that the low levels don't make sense at all. Just sweep that under the rug. What is the mechanism besides convection for the upper tropospheric T and q 1:1 correlation? What is the mechanism? Just because temperatures warm doesn't mean the air moistens. So basically the entire "science" is dedicated to prove CO2 is the global thermostat. The tail is wagging the dog.

Nevertheless the data shows an inverse relationship between temperature and cloud fraction. But they ignore this because it explains the recent temperature trends quite nicely. More lunacy.

Wind is terrible for the environment. It destroys natural habitats, fragments forests, and yes it does kill birds, especially raptors which include eagles. The eagles finally make a comeback due to the environmental movements of the 1970s. Now ironically it is the same groups that will cause their demise. Solar farms take up so much land that destroys habitats. So we wreck the planet to save the planet? This is lunacy.

Plus this ERA5 dataset doesn't even make sense showing drying at 850 mb when the Earth was warming from the late 1970s to 2000? This dataset is obviously flawed. Plus the correlation with temperature and specific humidity at 500 and 300 mb is striking. Something isn't correct with this dataset. BUT it fits the narrative of the climate crisis so IMO climate scientists are being disingenuous. They overlook such things because they are inconvenient. If a dataset goes against their preconceived notions, of course it HAS to be wrong. NASA's cloud fraction from 1983-2009 is a great example. This dataset shows an inverse relationship to global average temperature and global cloud fraction. Hmmm. So of course this can't be accurate too. It goes on and on. NCEP water vapor shows moistening down low where there is convective mixing and slight drying above suggesting precipitation processes are leading to a negative water vapor feedback. Nope. Can't be. You see where I am going? There is no objectivity anymore. I want to see data and I thank you for sharing this KNMI explorer site. And no I don't trust the peer review process it is very flawed.

Seriously? You have got to be kidding me. You have a highly non-linear dynamical climate system with clouds, and convection and a one to one relationship between temperature and specific humidity at high levels in the troposphere and you compare this to something simple like gravity? Shows a deep lack of understanding of atmospheric science....

ERA5 reanalysis data specific humidities, q, at 500, and 300 mb show almost a 1:1 correlation with temperature. 200 mb q looks like 500 and 300 mb but the temperature trends are contaminated by the fact that 200 mb is in the stratosphere farther north and south on the globe and especially in the winter months (both hemispheres). So the cooling of the lower stratosphere offsets some of the warming in the upper troposphere and there is no temperature trend at all. But 500 and 300 mb are pretty much wholy in the troposphere. 500 mb looks similar. Look at 850 mb... But for some strange reason, the 850 mb temperature and specific humidities decline from the late 1970s to around 2000 and then increase. If anywhere in the atmosphere there should be a nearly 1:1 correlation it IS at 850 mb because warmer(colder) temperatures leads to more(less) evaporation off the oceans and land since 850 mb is well within the diurnal convective mixed layer. Once you get above 700 mb, you are well above the mixed layer for most of the planet. So at 500, and 300 mb a 1:1 correlation looks fishy. There is no mechanism that would describe this very short term strong correlation that I could think of except global convection. If the temperature increases at 300 mb for instance, yes it CAN support more water vapor but some mechanism has to get the water vapor up there. Conversely at 850 mb, there IS a mechanism that explains why more warmth = more water vapor, it is insolation and convective mixing. So this ERA5 data is either suspect IMO in the lower troposphere and is more likely is showing increased global convection causing more water vapor at high levels. This would not be proof that there is a long term positive feedback as has been described by many authors. In many respects NCEPs reanalysis data does show increasing water vapor at the lower levels up to 600 mb and then decreasing water vapor above. This actually makes more sense in the low-levels because of the warming planet and more evaporation. Precipitation processes and enhanced convection would eventually lead to drying in the upper troposphere and a negative feedback. Radiosondes also show this too of which I believe NCEP uses in their reanalysis data. The fact that the NASA NVAP satellite retrieval data showed drying upper troposphere too until 2001 (data never released to 2009) which agreed with the radiosondes also suggests NCEPs data could be more accurate. In any event, I wish I could see the AIRs datasets which supposedly support the positive feedback but I wonder if they would show the same thing as ERA5. A while back, I read from Spencer and Christy a criticism of AIRS (I can't find it yet, I believe it was a blog post) that there is a lot of difficulty in retrievals of water vapor due to clouds and even radiances from temperatures at high levels. I wonder if that also is why this ERA5 data looks suspect. In any event, it is far from certain that there is a significantly positive water vapor feedback. That is a reasonable statement IMO based on the data so far.

Ok. I will look again.

I totally agree that nuclear energy would be the way to go assuming it is safe and there is where the fear is. But yes ultimately it's too bad there was Three Mile island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. These accidents/disasters I think really hurt nuclear energy proliferation.

Don't they have specific humidity? Plus this is a reanalysis dataset. It is nice to see another dataset and I thank you but where did you get this from? I would like to explore it. Thanks

The paper on increasing stratospheric water vapor is relevant to enhancing the Greenhouse effect. But what is odd, is that the stratosphere has been cooling mainly due to ozone loss and lack of volcanic eruptions,and CO2 increases as well. This increase in water vapor has to be from another mechanism and not a positive water vapor feedback. It is likely related to more tropical convection from increased El Ninos since 1977 from overshooting tops into the stratosphere. It also (I believe) is related to increased air travel through the decades. This increase in water vapor does enhance the Greenhouse effect but it likely is not related to CO2 increases directly. That is your opinion which you are entitled too. Here are two other peer review papers. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226349531_Trends_in_middle-_and_upper-level_tropospheric_humidity_from_NCEP_reanalysis_data Paltridge et al. (2009) and https://judithcurry.com/2015/01/08/miskolczi-discussion-thread/ Miskolczi's paper What is your opinion of these papers? They are peer reviewed too. Also spencer and christy have published a lot too. Judith Curry as well. But if these don't conform they are dismissed and indeed I agree that especially Miskolczi may have some problems. Paltridge et al. (2009) is important in that it shows how much uncertainty there is in upper level tropospheric water vapor. You may not agree with NCEP reanalysis and NASA NVAP satellite data which show a drying upper troposphere and that is fine. I happen to think there is validity since they are independent datasets, but that is my opinion. My main question is where can we find a time series of upper tropospheric AIRs data? That showed a positive feedback trend with higher temperatures from Dessler's research a while ago. I want to see if it is ENSO related or not. It is difficult to find such a time series anywhere. Global cloud fraction is very important too. Both of these are critical to assessing the Greenhouse effect and feedbacks in real-time and it is shame that they aren't available. I want to see this data. If this data indeed shows an enhancement to the Greenhouse effect that is when a skeptic like myself will start agreeing more with you folks. Thank you.

People assume more water vapor through the atmospheric column leads to enhanced greenhouse effect. That is not true. The paper should have looked at upper tropospheric water vapor where it counts. I don't know why this is a very relevant paper. Warmer Earth, more evaporation off oceans = higher PWV. Not much new here. And please don't put me in the "denier" crowd. I don't deny that CO2 causes some warming. I just am skeptical of the extreme viewpoint called the climate "crisis". Thank you skier.

Now 400 mb would have more of an effect as shown here. BUT you can easily see the ENSO signature which suggests the moistening is more from El Ninos and less from overall warming. You can't separate out the two. El Ninos lead to more tropical convection which moistens and heats the upper troposphere. 400 mb is not quite upper troposphere but it would easily be heated and moistened by said convection. This is basic radiative transfer.

Please explain. It is well known that it is upper tropospheric water vapor that is the most important when it comes to the Greenhouse effect. Why do you think they criticize NCEPs specific humidity? It does show rises in the lower troposphere but declines in the very dry upper troposphere. There was a peer reviewed paper that looked at this very effect and found a constant greenhouse effect based on NCEPs dataset of water vapor showing declines in the upper troposphere. This paper has been ignored because scientists don't believe NCEPs dataset showing declining upper tropospheric water vapor. I know I am correct on this, it is the upper troposphere that counts for the greenhouse effect. CO2 does nothing in the lower and even mid-troposphere, it is the high levels where it counts. This is fundamental.

Thank you for this paper. Here is the fundamental problem with their results. They are using global precipitable water vapor(PWV). Since water vapor rapidly decreases with height, this metric of water vapor is mostly what is happening in the lower troposphere. Since the oceans have been warming GPW has increased in all datasets (even NCEP). It is the upper troposphere that matters when it comes to the greenhouse effect. More greenhouse gases in the lower troposphere actually cool the layers above them. Similar to how the stratosphere cools above the troposphere with enhanced GHGs (assuming ozone is constant which it is not). So the upper troposphere is where it counts for both CO2 and H2O. These researchers do not seem to understand this. Here is a quote from the paper... "The increased greenhouse gases reduce the outgoing longwave radiation and contribute to the global warming phenomenon. Studies have shown that the global mean surface temperature has increased by 0.7–0.8°C since the beginning of the twentieth century [Hansen et al., 2001; Smith and Reynolds, 2005; Parker et al., 2007]. Atmospheric water vapor provides the single largest positive feedback on global warming [Dai, 2006; Mieruch et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2013]. Both climate models and observations suggest that an upward trend in water vapor is expected to appear as a response to the surface temperature increase [Held and Soden, 2006; Santer et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2013]. Monitoring the variation of atmospheric water vapor is thus significant not only for the detection of climate change but also for a better understanding of water vapor feedback on global warming." So they understand the role of water vapor as a feedback but use the wrong measurement. They use the whole troposphere. It needs to be upper troposphere. That is why you have to be careful about peer reviewed papers. These authors probably don't understand radiative transfer that well and the reviewers also.

Here are two papers related to AIRs moisture retrievals and ENSO that concerns me. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008GL035333 So the premise is Dessler looked at global temperature and water vapor datasets from a warmer period DJF 2006-2007 El Nino and then subtracted a colder DJF 2007-2008 from a La Nina. The figure below does show warmer temperatures coincide with higher values of upper level water vapor, q. But mainly over the equatorial regions. There is drying north and south of the tropics is related to subsidence from enhanced tropical convection. Tropical convection does indeed increase during El Ninos vs La Ninas... see https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019JD031026#:~:text=Convective organization has a large,scale circulations in the tropics.&text=The occurrence of organized deep,twofold outside of these regions. So with more tropical convection, it is the heat AND moisture fluxes associated with said enhanced tropical convection leading to this apparent positive feedback. You can't separate out the ENSO signal. To me, this clearly does not prove a long term positive feedback from warming. It is just tropical convection and heat/moisture fluxes upward.

I saw this. I am not saying that the Earth is not warming, it clearly is. So in a warming world, we would see extremes like this. The central question to me is how much is related to the enhanced greenhouse effect specifically from CO2 BUT also increases in upper level water vapor. I really would like to see real-time upper tropospheric water vapor data monthly like what you can get on the NCEP reanalysis. If you look at this monthly data, the greenhouse effect pretty much is stable since CO2 increases are offset by drying in the upper troposphere. This would suggest the warming is natural. HOWEVER, other datasets show upper tropospheric moistening and a positive feedback. Many don't agree with NCEPs data. That is fine. I would like to see the other dataset. In this way, we can monitor the greenhouse effect monthly. But this data is very hard to come by. I just can't find it. I also would like to see total cloud fraction of the Earth. NASA did this from 1983-2009. These two datasets on a monthly basis would be awesome to monitor the effect of clouds and the water vapor feedback. Until I can see this data, I am stuck with NASAs cloud data which showed an inverse relationship w/ global temperatures 1983-2009. And NASA NVAP water vapor data at high levels which was consistent with NCEP reanalysis data up until 2001. NASA never released this data to 2009 which is frustrating. AIRs satellite data apparently shows a positive feedback. Where is the upper level water vapor dataset in a time series. You can then tease out the ENSO signal to make sure it is not driven by ENSO. Soden's study in the 1990s showed a positive feedback after Pinatubo cooling. But when I examined the data in detail, his data started during an El Nino and ended in a La Nina which would affect the level of moisture in the upper troposphere. So it is hard IMO to separate the two out factors out. So if anyone can find a time series of AIRS data and also cloud fraction to recent years please share. Thank you.

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.

How did nature survive the last several glacial to interglacial cycles? They were far worse they anything we have seen the last 100 years or so.

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.

Thanks. It would be nice for this to transpire to a tasteful discourse. I will not attack anyone. Just because I don't agree doesn't mean a person should be discredited or called a name etc. Healthy debate is important to learn. I want to learn more and challenge people to really think. YES the climate is warming now. But how much really? How bad is it? What are ALL the causes. I may disagree with some or most of you but I will respect you as a person. But if attacked I will go to the moderators and if nothing happens I will defend my thoughts and not resort to name calling etc. Take care.

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.