blizzard1024

Sorry folks.I am baaackkkk! I was going to just leave this forum since it seems to be becoming a climate activist forum. I want to keep it a climate change forum so at least one skeptical viewpoint is needed. Climate models don't prove anything. Period. How can you say a model that is tuned to be sensitive to CO2 and assumes that the climate was in perfect balance in 1850 is proof that the warming we have seen recently is related to greenhouse gases. The climate system and natural forcings are so complex and unknown. To say that a small change in the greenhouse effect is causing the warming is presumptuous. I am not lying or trolling as implied by some person on this forum who I won't name because I don't want to attack anyone. I am sticking up for myself and my scientific opinion. That's all. The wildfires out west are related to a hot summer but it is mostly related to the poor fire management practices and humans causing the fires. Hurricanes are not strengthening because of global warming, the global ACE has been pretty steady. So all this political fallout from an active hurricane and fire season, likely related to La Nina, is very frustrating to see. The politicians fund the climate scientists. So it is in their best financial interest to tow the party line. The peer review process is corrupted by the fact that these same scientists now control what gets published and what doesn't. What dataset is considered good and what isn't. It is the corruption that Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address in 1961. We are living it today in climate science and because of this I believe we have put back climate science advancement at least a generation. It would be FAR better IMO to have climate scientists focus on seasonal forecasting and interannual variability. This would benefit society much more than global doomsday scenarios that will not ever come true. CO2 is a minor GHG. Period. End of story. It is not the control knob on our climate. The ice core data proves that. It is very unscientific to say that something else kicks off global cooling, CO2 remains the same for a thousand years or so while the Earth cools. Then it all of the sudden it becomes a feedback and amplifies the initial cooling? Then at glacial termination something else kicks it off and after a lag, THEN it again becomes a feedback? That is not physics. It's denial that something else controls the climate, not CO2. Certainly CO2 values do not cause heat waves or fires or hurricanes. Some warming of course will lead to a slower jet stream but it likely is natural processes combined with some CO2 forcing because CO2 is a small component of the climate system.

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.

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.