blizzard1024

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.

I have been looking at the monthly upper level specific humidities recently from the NCEP reanalysis data and there continues to be a downward trend evident at the high levels of the troposphere. Radiatively, this is where is counts. Lower level humidities or vapor pressure do little to contribute to the greenhouse effect so a rise in low-level water vapor is not important to the radiative balance at the theoretical TOA. See: It is also interesting to look at NASA's NVAP data which apparently was goes to 2011 but they only released the data 1988 to 2001. (Hmm, I wonder why...). This data from satellite confirms the drop in upper level moisture. This is very close to the radiosonde measurements too which validates them at least since the late 1980s. Maybe the earlier records of radiosonde water vapor were bad as the alarmists say, who knows? But you can see a downward trend in upper level water vapor at least since the late 1980s. This would cancel all the effect of increasing CO2 and hence invalidate the whole theory that CO2 is leading to warming. This is very inconvenient. It shows a negative water vapor feedback. And where can I find the rest of the NVAP data? Also where is the AIRS data? I really would like to see that dataset. I have read it shows moistening up high. It is impossible to find. If you can find it please share. Thank you.

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!

Come on people. It is the poor forest management practices in Ca and the west. Suppressing fires for many many decades is now reached a breaking point. People also have been encroaching on the forests with developments vs 50 years ago. There are more people in harms way now. Anyone who says climate change is causing this is uninformed. This is the time of year when the hottest and driest conditions occur in CA. The jet stream begins to amplify over the Gulf of Alaska in late summer climatologically. This leads to more ridging in the west and Santa Ana winds. A dry heat. Its fire season now. If you have that plus a LOT of fuel...its gonna be bad. How does climate change cause this? You have got to be kidding thinking this is causing the fires.

Could it be the Taal Volcano for the stratosphere? It wasn't anything like Pintatubo but it could have some smaller effect.

see https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/03/australia-bushfire-smoke-now-warming-the-lower-stratosphere/ This might explain this. wow....that's a lot of smoke!

UAH Temperatures really warm February! http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ .+76C February 2020 and no major El Nino. Wow.

That's my point. Greenland breaks an all-time record low and it is largely ignored by climate "scientists", MSM and makes only such wack job websites. The data is real, Greenland came very close to breaking the all-time record low for the northern hemisphere...

What about the lowest temperature ever recorded for Greenland which occurred January 2nd 2020 -86.8F? https://electroverse.net/greenland-just-set-a-new-all-time-record-low-temperature/ Of course this stuff never makes the mainstream news.

Best modeled? what? The whole theory of CAGW is based on trust in modelling the climate system. I distrust atmospheric models. They are often way wrong. The paleorecords disprove that CO2 is the primary control knob on the climate. It has some effect but not a dominate effect. Certainly not enough to destroy the Earth's ecosystems.

Behind a paywall. It doesn't make sense in the Paleo Records. I would like to see how they came up with this. If it has anything to do with climate modelling, its not credible.

CO2 has an absorption band in the IR between 13 and 17 microns with a peak at 15 microns. Water vapor has multiple bands in the IR in fact most of the emission spectra in the IR from the Earth resembles the H20 bands. CO2 absorbs IR between -50c and -110C so it has little to no effect directly on the lower and middle troposphere. Also water vapor dominates the lower and middle troposphere and thins out dramatically in the upper troposphere. So CO2 does have the most influence in the upper troposphere where cold temperatures are affected. But how can a weak GHG dominate the entire choatic non-linear climate system? Water vapor and clouds are the primary GHGs. CO2 theoretically leads to some warming in the upper troposphere which in theory would warm the lower troposphere and cool the stratosphere. But if H20 increases in the lower troposphere its emission cools the upper troposphere. CO2 if all else remains equal leads to 1.2C of warming per doubling. But clouds, a negative water vapor feedback could easily drop the sensitivity to less than 1C. The paleo records clearly show that CO2 is not the control knob on the climate system. A doubling of CO2 likely is less than 1C and possiblly even less.

There is no way that one can emphatically make this statement that understands how the atmospherics works. You have proven your ignorance.

You fail to understand than CO2 is a weak GHG.