chubbs

The pessimistic permafrost modeling study posted above was conducted by professors at a business school using a simple model they developed. Would heavily discount. Not that permafrost isn't a problem, but need better models to evaluate. https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-crisis-tipping-point-world-warm-b1721822.html

GISS comparison through October below. Going to be a close race right to the wire despite ENSO being less favorable for warmth this year.

yes it was warm: March 47 +6.2 T the last 1.2" of snow fell in April. Enjoyed the outlook.

After last year would take 1893-94 . Below are the local philly stats - downtown then vs airport today - norms 1880-1910 Dec 36.4 +0.2 3.5" Jan 36.6 +3.9 4.1" Feb 31.9 -1.3 11.5" seasonal snow - 20.3" vs 24.3" norm

How much for Philly? This plot suggests that any relationship between October sea ice and subsequent Philly snow is complicated. In any case, can say that very low Oct sea ice, below 4.5 million sq km, doesn't help. Not good with this years October sea ice area a record low of 4.08 million sq km.

Good plot for seeing trends in every month.

Trump doesn't want to debate climate change (or covid). Wonder why?

Blizz is available for debate prep -

I prefer RSS for the following reasons: 1) troposphere should warm faster than surface 2) RSS in much better agreement with satellite tpw 3) UAH discarded NOAA-14 uah for purely qualitative reasons - "NOAA-14 warms too much". Comparing uah and rss with surface data for the period in question, 1998-2004, shows that RSS is in much better agreement. 4) Recent satellites don't have diurnal drift which can cause a cooling bias if not fully corrected. Since the newer satellites have come on board UAH is in much better agreement with RSS and surface obs. 5) RSS has published satellite to satellite comparisons showing good agreement among satellites with the recent upgrade. Zip from UAH 6) Satellite diurnal drift is most pronounced over land, where UAH has much lower land warming vs surface obs (see below). The surface obs network is dense and the land trends have very little uncertainty. Meanwhile RSS is in better agreement with surface land data (also below). The NOAA-14 period after 1998 an obvious problem for UAH. 7) Finally UAH has a track record and it isn't good. https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6-land/mean:12/plot/crutem4vgl/last:480/mean:12/offset:-0.3/plot/rss-land/mean:12

I am more optimistic than I was 5-10 years ago. The competitive advantage and market value of fossil fuels is shrinking every day. Article below just a sign of the times. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiWioiKl5jsAhXMmVkKHTx9DA0Q0PADegQIBRAH&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcontent%2F39a70458-d4d1-4a6e-aca6-1d5670bade11&usg=AOvVaw0kgkvZ52x74xrKD1tWQrG9

1) Pages2k the best compilation of data available. There are are wide range of sources including ice cores. Note the range in time resolution below, some of the series have relatively fine time resolution. If you have any information that is not included please provide. 2) There are plenty of instances of CO2 leading temperatures. The PETM for a start and many others. Our recent ice ages only started after CO2 had dropped low enough for orbital cycles to trigger. 3) There is plenty of data supporting water vapor feedback, as discussed in the other thread.

The timing in the sea-level chart is the same as the temperature+CO2 chart. Increases in all three started in the late 1700s.

Without looking at a map showing the location of changes you can't draw any conclusion about the cause of the decreasing 850 mb trend between 1980 and 2000. There could be a period of drying in the descending subtropical highs, that is what the TPW data show. Whether you want to accept it or not, there is very good agreement between the re-analysis and satellite moisture data in the upper troposphere. There is also strongly increasing surface temperature, TPW, and ocean heat content and the timing is perfectly matched to man-made forcing with a big ramp after 1970. All well explained by climate science. The science explanation makes much more sense than your "theory": a natural forcing which hasn't been identified but which is related in some way to the little ice age suddenly ramped temperatures in 1970 despite the absence of any water vapor feedback. Sorry that just doesn't hold together.

Here is a chart from the paper I linked above. Three separate satellite measurements in close agreement - 40 years of data. Note brightness temperature is a measure of relative humidity.

Reposting chart from 2019 AMS climate report. There is REAL data. Two separate and independent satellite measurements: infared (HIRS) and microwave. Also, relinking the paper which showed that satellite upper troposphere humidity data is in good agreement. The data is there if you really want to partake. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015JD024496

You are the one invoking models, because you can't explain why it is warming. The temperature increase matches man-made forcing to a T. Ocean currents. cloud cover, convection etc. could not have had a large impact, they just move energy around in the system.

The chart below was made from forcing estimates and observed temperatures. No climate model. https://www.globalwarmingindex.org/

That mamade forcing swamps natural since 1950 doesn't rely on climate models. Here are the 1950-->2015 forcing estimates (W/m2): Manmade: 1.90 Natural: -0.09 (mainly solar) Total 1.81 https://github.com/Priestley-Centre/ssp_erf

The evidence is overwhelming. Scientists predicted water vapor feedback before models existed. All models with non-linear dynamics have it, and now it is measured by satellites and present in re-analysis. What more do you want?

You are twisting yourself up into a pretzel. Water vapor feedback is almost like gravity. Well supported by theory and observations. The satellite obs show moistening in the upper troposphere, if anything upper troposphere moistening is faster than predicted by climate models due to moisture increases in the dry subtropics. Per paper below ERA5 is better than other re-analysis products at matching satellite upper troposphere moisture obs. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015JD024496

Plots were made at KNMI Climate Explorer

Here is 200mb data from the ERA5 re-analysis: 200mb heights have increased - the atmosphere is expanding as it warms 200mb temperatures at the higher heights have increased 200mb humidity is constant So yes upper troposphere water vapor is increasing as expected