blizzard1024

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.

You are the one that is way out of line and should be removed from this forum IMO. You can't have a rational conversation with someone who doesn't see it your way. Its your way or the highway. No place for a science forum.

I never said I was against renewables. When it is cost effective and if it doesn't harm the environment I am in. Eventually it is the way to go. Maybe by 2030? That would be awesome. I would love to have an electric car. I would love to have solar panels and generate my own power. It would be cheaper. But it is too expensive right now. Look I do agree than CO2 increases does elevate global temperatures but not the doomsday scenarios that are parroted on this forum. But I think people also have forgotten that there is natural variability at play too. In the end I actually agree with all of you on renewable energy when it is cost effective. I happen to think it will take several decades but I am not an expert in this area and I do hope you are correct that it is cost effective quicker. have a good day.

No life expectancy is cruelly short in the 3rd world where they don't have access to cheap energy. They use charcoal to heat and cook and die of emphysema and other lung illnesses in their 40s. Plus, they destroy their local environments by cutting down all the trees. Have you seen Haiti? The environmental degradation is awful and it's because the people are so poor and do not have access to cheap affordable energy. If we go to renewables when it is NOT cost effective, it will force much of the western world into a 3rd world hell. We then will destroy our planet. People desperate for survival will have to resort to wood burning and hunting native animals and birds for food again. Heck in Venezuela that is what is happening. I would rather walk my dog, not eat him.

You cherry picked the data. 2013 was before the big 2016 El Nino. Plus the increase in OHC amounts of hundredths of a degree C. How is that a problem? You can't prove that it is related to CO2 increases. The sun was the most active sunspot wise in a 1000 years during the late 20th century. It is NOT a coincidence that the sunspot minimum seen a few hundred years ago coincided with the Little Ice Age. Just like the warm up from the Dark Age cold period to the Medieval Warm period, warming could continue for a few hundred years in response to the late 20th grand solar maximum. So the warming today could be mostly natural. CO2 likely has a part but it is mostly natural warming because CO2 is a weak GHG. The Sun drives our climate. And to believe that the LIA or MWP were local phenomena only shows a deep lack of understanding of fluid dynamics. It is no surprise that climate scientists like Michael Mann, Andrew Desser, Gavin Schmidt and even James Hansen don't have degrees in atmospheric science.

Are you serious? Come on. Millions of peoples are not dying due to climate change. That is a big stretch. Are you ok?

Plus you assume that we can measure ocean temperatures with precision needed for OHC. That started really with the Argo floats in 2003. the data gets coarser and less reliable the farther you go back, especially before the satellite era. You seem to have problems with radiosonde data ; well I would say ocean temperature data is rife with inconsistencies, measurement errors etc too. BUT if it supports increasing CO2 = warmer Earth, it is accepted. If it doesn't, then it can't be correct. What about clouds huh? The NASA cloud project shows an inverse relationship between global average temperature and cloud fraction between 1983-2009. This suggests clouds modulate the climate system or have a significant effect. Why is this ignored too? This whole CO2 is the Earth's temperature control knob is on shaky ground and that is why you become so belligerent. You can't have a reasonable debate because you are insecure about this whole theory. So you attack and become angry. Chill out. Life is good....

Christy and Spencer are heros in the climate debate. So is Dr Curry. Brilliant and courageous people who are standing up for real science.

This paper suggests a TCR of 1-2C for a doubling of CO2. That seems reasonable and is in line with the observations. Theoretically speaking a doubling of CO2 should produce a modest warming within this range with neutral feedbacks. Its the 3-6C projections that I think are out of the bounds of reality. The Oceans provide too much of a buffer.

So reanalysis datasets are bad then too because they rely on upper air soundings. So the only records that are valid are the one's that are heavily "homogenized". Of course this introduces a massive warming trend in the data. That is very convenient. Like I said, in climate science the conclusion is CO2 is causing warming and all the research is to support that conclusion. This is backwards.

This is exactly like the surface temperature data which is the gold standard to many.

UAH doesn't retain data from NOAA-14 which has a warming bias. Also UAH agrees best with radiosondes and reanalysis vs the other datasets.

read this paper on climate models... https://judithcurry.com/2020/06/20/structural-errors-in-global-climate-models/#more-26311

The fatal flaw in this paper is that it ignores the UAH data in its conclusion which is the best dataset. RSS uses NOAA-14 which has a known warming bias. Plus they use a model to calculate the diurnal drift factor instead of empirical data. Hence RSS diverges closer to the really flawed surface dataset around 2015. Just like Karl et al 2015 adjusted SSTs upward using faulty methodology to enhance warming. If one looks at my climate division from NCEI, the unadjusted datasets i.e the actual measurements show NO trends since the late 1800s. The adjusted shows 3F rise. So all the global warming is man made by adjustments not the real data. UAH is the closest to reality showing modest warming well within the bounds of the holocene. Nothing unusual.

your anger in your posts shows that you are insecure about your position related to the whole CO2 CAGW viewpoint. I am totally secure in my position. Basic physics. Not computer models and analyses based on computer models that have a high degree of uncertainty.