blizzard1024

The zonal wind anomalies show a stronger westerly jet and are twice as large as the meridional wind anomalies at 250 mb suggesting a less wavier jet stream at 250 mb in the last 10 years. This whole "wavier" jet stream is unfounded and a convenient excuse when cold air comes farther south. You can still blame it on global warming. This is laughable. see:

IR back radiation doesn't warm the ocean below the first micrometer. It is the sun. Ref: The Response of the Ocean Thermal Skin Layer to Variations in Incident Infrared Radiation, https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JC013351 "gases in the atmosphere resulting from human activities. At the ocean surface, most of the incoming infrared (IR) radiation is absorbed within the top micrometers of the ocean's surface where the thermal skin layer (TSL) exists. Thus, the incident IR radiation does not directly heat the upper few meters of the ocean" The sun's radiation in the UV penetrates the oceans to several meters. That is what has caused the warmth of the oceans. We are still feeling the effects of the 20th century grand solar maximum, largest in the last 1000 years. Ocean currents can take a long time to recycle energy through the Earth and stabilize shocks to the system. The oceans will begin to cool in the next several decades.

see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323644914_Examination_of_space-based_bulk_atmospheric_temperatures_used_in_climate_research Also UAH agrees with radiosondes and reanalysis temperatures much better. Hmmm. Totally different datasets, especially the radiosondes. RSS retains NOAA-14 which is warming compared to NOAA-15, for some reason RSS, NOAA and UW use it. HMMM I wonder why. This led to the major change in RSS data to much warmer in 2015. RSS probably was feeling the pressure to make its data conform to the flawed and adjusted(upward) surface temperature data or they would be ostracized. So they caved. Spencer/Christy are already ostracized and considered fringe but ironically they are the real scientists IMO. They stick to the science and question the consensus GCM model based view. Dr. Curry is another hero. I knew her when I was in grad school. Brilliant women. Here is an excerpt from Dr Spencer's blog... "From late 1998 through 2004, there were two satellites operating: NOAA-14 with the last of the old MSU series of instruments on it, and NOAA-15 with the first new AMSU instrument on it. In the latter half of this overlap period there was considerable disagreement that developed between the two satellites. Since the older MSU was known to have a substantial measurement dependence on the physical temperature of the instrument (a problem fixed on the AMSU), and the NOAA-14 satellite carrying that MSU had drifted much farther in local observation time than any of the previous satellites, we chose to cut off the NOAA-14 processing when it started disagreeing substantially with AMSU. (Engineer James Shiue at NASA/Goddard once described the new AMSU as the “Cadillac” of well-calibrated microwave temperature sounders). Despite the most obvious explanation that the NOAA-14 MSU was no longer usable, RSS, NOAA, and UW continue to use all of the NOAA-14 data through its entire lifetime and treat it as just as accurate as NOAA-15 AMSU data. Since NOAA-14 was warming significantly relative to NOAA-15, this puts a stronger warming trend into their satellite datasets, raising the temperature of all subsequent satellites’ measurements after about 2000. But rather than just asserting the new AMSU should be believed over the old (drifting) MSU, let’s look at some data. Since Scott Denning mentions weather balloon (radiosonde) data, let’s look at our published comparisons between the 4 satellite datasets and radiosondes (as well as global reanalysis datasets) and see who agrees with independent data the best:

There are parts of the world that had a very warm above normal summer, I am no doubting that. Parts of Siberia this year have had exceptional warmth. That has been measured. But what does that prove? The Earth has warmed since the 1970s. What does that prove? The Earth has warmed since the 1800s the end of the LIA. Natural warming cycles with some CO2 induced warming is likely what is going on. UHI no doubt is part of why records are being smashed in the southwest. That is pretty well known. But this has been a warm summer in many parts including the northeast U.S and others. It likely has to do with the transition from El Nino to a strong La Nina...ala 1988, 1999 both warm summers. Look I am not saying that CO2 increases are not causing the Earth to warm some, I am skeptical of the doomsday hyped-up scenarios that's all. I am very skeptical of the extreme weather arguments. A little warmer Earth is not going to cause extreme cold outbreaks in the mid-latitudes because of an "erratic" jet stream. People are getting PhDs on this stuff. Its called the negative AO/NAO.

So the warmth of the MWP and cold of the LIA was local? That makes no sense. How can you keep warm and cold anomalies in one area and not the rest of the globe for centuries? That is against fundamental fluid dynamics of the Earth;s atmosphere. The uneven heating of the rotating planet eventually mixes to the far reaches of the globe. This is pretty elementary stuff. Amazing it was not accepted. Shows profound lack of understanding of how the atmosphere works... And MBH98 has been disproven so many times. its amazing the alarmists still hold onto this ship that sunk a decade ago.

BillT, CO2 and H20 redirect photons back to the Earth and also to space. Alone they wouldn't lead to a positive feedback and scorch the Earth. It is natural. It cools above the troposphere and warms the troposphere. Balance is maintained by convection and weather which redirect enormous amounts of heat to space. So in effect, the greenhouse warming is offset from thunderstorms and weather. The amount of outgoing long wave radiation(OLR) is around 239 W/m2 or so averaged over the globe. That keeps us from frying since we get roughly the same amount of energy from the sun. If greenhouse gases increase (mainly H20), the effective radiating level of the planet increase to colder temperatures leading to less OLR and this will warm the planet until OLR increases back to 239 w/m2. CO2 is a weak GHG. Doubling only leads to a theoretical increase in temperature around 1.2-1.5C or so. Not much. Its the so called runaway positive feedbacks employed by the climate models that lead to the amplification of this modest warming which I thing are way overdone. You have to believe in the climate models to believe in these extreme scenarios. I don't.

I don't personally know him. I know he built an empire on the CAGW theory so if he was wrong his life's work is wrong. That would sting anyone's ego. But I don't think scientists try to use bad data or methodology on purpose. Maybe he just didn't know?

What is the something else? How can CO2 remain constant or keep rising slowly when temperatures fall in ice core records? So at first something begins the process of cooling CO2 doesn't do anything and then after 1000 years or so it becomes dominant? That doesn't doesn't make any sense at all. Its a thorn in the sides of alarmists. CO2 has stayed steady or even risen and temperatures plunge during glacial inception. Makes no sense. If CO2 was such a powerful control knob on climate that wouldn't happen. Plus the whole positive CO2-H20 feedback makes no sense either. So there is a little warming from ANY forcing, this warming leads to more water vapor which then leads to more CO2 from the oceans outgassing. Then the CO2-H20 feedback kicks in and you have an unstable climate system. It doesn't happen. CO2 does not drive the climate system. It never did in the past and it won't in the future. We may see some minor warming 1.5C (or less)...but that is all. If there is a positive feedback it would be unstable and go out of control. What is the breaking mechanism? No one can answer that. Not even PHD climate "scientists".

That's because the 20th century has a stronger sun and the heat is taking is time to cycle through the oceans still. The 21st century just began the drop in solar activity. It takes time.

Sorry they can't erase the Medieval Warm Period or LIA. They happened. Tons of evidence. This is just plain wrong.

The oceans are a store house for energy and damp any forcings. So a quieter sun would take a while to get into the climate system.

IR active gases do not TRAP radiation. That is flawed science. My radiative transfer professor would got nuts when people said that. It absorbs and re-emits radiation in all directions. That is not TRAPPING.

I don't think he did this on purpose or was fraudulent with his research. I do not agree with his methodology and yes his statistics are flawed. But he believes in his work. That's all.

In fairness, I have corresponded with Michael Mann and he really believes in his work. I don't agree with him but I don't think he is being disingenuous.

BillT, CO2 doesn't "trap" heat per se, it absorbs and emits IR radiation (or heat I suppose) at the 15 micron wavelength primarily which according to Wein's Law is most active at -50C to -80C or so. Water vapor and clouds have a much broader IR absorption spectrum and are the primary GHGs. All these GHGs DO indeed warm up the Earth. But they also cool the layers above because radiation is emitted in all directions. So cooling occurs above the warming directed down to the surface. If we didn't have convection, radiatively the Earths temperature would be a scorching 160F on average. But we do. Convection i.e thunderstorms redistribute heat to the upper troposphere and out to space. So with convection the greenhouse effect is reduced to about 33K above the Earths blackbody temperature of 255K. The weather lead to earth's temperature stabilizing and ultimately the sun is the control knob for our weather.

Again MODELs. Models assume the climate was in stasis in 1850. That is a bad assumption since the LIA was ending. Models don't even accurately depict convection or clouds which are MAJOR players in the global energy budget. it is a leap of faith. And cut it with this peer reviewed high horse stuff. If it challenges the viewpoint that CO2 levels are dangerous, it doesn't get published. Peer review paper quality has gone WAY down of late. I review papers in atmospheric science, not climate thankfully, and the quality has gone way down since the 1990s. I can't believe the crap that makes it through these days....

How so? I have been studying this topic for 30 years and have an MS in atmospheric science. I have conversed with top minds in radiative transfer and the whole CO2 leading to catastrophic dangerous warming is just not accurate. It doesn't fit with the paleo records. It does fit with the radiative transfer. it doesn't make sense with the feedbacks...I can go on.... What is your scientific opinion?

How can you say this? How do you know it is not natural warming? CO2 is a minor GHG. The IPCC is a political organization with an agenda. You can't call that real unbiased science. That's my scientific opinion. I will respect yours. I am sorry if I come off strong. It seems that you have to on these forums or you get compared to holocaust deniers which really is a massive insult to me on a personal level.

Scientists know what the ocean temperatures were 100 to 150 years ago before large scale buoys and especially since before the satellite era. I call BS. Come on. Its conjecture that far back. Plus the Little Ice Age ended in the 1800s. A natural warming trend could be occurring anyway. You must involve climate models to "prove" CO2 increases are the primary component of global warming. That is NOT science. Its models. I have been working with atmospheric models for 30+ years and they are a crude representation of the atmosphere. It boils down to computer models getting non-linear chaotic feedbacks correct. This is extremely problematic. If you believe the feedbacks from these models, you believe in significant global warming. That is a leap of faith. CO2 never controlled the climate during the last several glaciations as it passively follows the temperature records. So why all of the sudden does it control the climate now? Plus if we had a very sensitive climate system dominated by positive feedbacks, any shock to the system in the past would have shifted the climate either to extreme warm or an ice earth. That has not happened. CO2 is a minor GHG with a small absorption band centered around 15 microns. water vapor and clouds are the primary and dominate GHGs. Ocean currents as well are really important aspects of climate. CO2 not so much. sorry. that is what the science really says. The climate "scientists" or activists have ruined this branch of science by being political. I will add that these activists are a danger to the planet. By abandoning fossil fuels, the world goes into a deep depression, poverty becomes even more rampant. With poverty comes environmental destruction because people get desperate. Look at Haiti. Solar panels and wind farms everywhere are destroying natural habitats. This "save the planet" hype is ruining natural habitats and is a threat to the environment. A small warming of 1-2C will not wreck the Earth if it even occurs. The insanity.

In the desert climates, the influence of UHI is larger since there are fewer clouds with stronger direct insolation. Pavement makes a big difference. Plus adding lawns, and vegetation leads to more water vapor which holds more heat in. There is no doubt the SW US temperature records are seriously affected by the recent rapid population changes. The surface records are seriously contaminated.

Looks at Nogales, AZ which has a Mexican counterpart....again a large increase in population. This NO doubt contributes to the UHI. The minimum temperatures come up more than the maximums.

All these places have been settled recently which leads to warmer temperatures. UHI is not only in big cities. There has been a mass migration to the SW US the last few decades and this itself is causing temperature rises. So a normally warm summer pattern becomes record breaking because of UHI. You can't blame in on CO2.

This data suggests CA has been warm recently but the long term averages are pretty stable. Precipitation is pretty steady since 1893. The early 1900s had some very wet years which skews this dataset a bit. But since 1920 no real changes in precipitation have been observed.

Here are Phoenix's yearly average low temperatures... Here is the population growth.... Here are the average highs and you can see a slower growth which makes sense. More people equals more grass, lawn watering and more water vapor. This is NOT climate change. Pretty obvious. let's get back to science and stop with the hype and propaganda.

It is the development, UHI that is leading to warmer conditions in Phoenix. Come on. Its not "climate change". Globally this summer had anomalies ranging from .43 to .44C worldwide which is pretty small. Yes this is using the UAH satellite temperature record which is the most accurate by far. RSS artificially inflated their temperatures around 2015 to get in line with the flawed and adjusted (upward) surface records. The Earth has warmed since the late 1970s, a known cool period in the 20th century when the satellite record began. We are back to where we were in the 1930s, 40s and 50s globally. Before that we have no idea since temperatures were taken differently with respect to time, and instrumentation. Also SSTs back then were terrible. Let's hype everything up. That is what the world does these days!