chubbs

Per the discussion 20 pages ago. NCEP is an older re-analysis product. Newer products like ERA5 have corrected errors and show increasing upper troposphere moisture. What is the point of providing you with additional information? The data and theory is all very consistent. Temperature is rising, moisture is rising, just as expected. Would take a large non-linearity for moisture to not increase as temperature increases. Note that this would cascade into precipitation and clouds.

HM had a series of tweets on tropical moisture and Atlantic hurricanes. For the area he looked at moisture increased at all levels of the atmosphere. Why wouldn't it? Temperature controls atmospheric moisture and temperature is increasing at all levels of the troposphere.

Just repeating your talking points. Scientists have looked at this for a long time. They use models, a wide range of observations, and other quantitative procedures, not hand waving or talking points from junk science blogs. Climate science predictions have been spot on for decades. CO2 and other non-condensible GHG control the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Very simple physics, backed up by reams of data.

Here is UAH vs RSS+Hadcrut for land temperatures. UAH missed more than 0.2C of warming between 1998 and 2008, mainly due to dropping NOAA14. Land temperatures chosen because that is where satellite diurnal drift errors are most noticeable. https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6-land/mean:12/plot/crutem4vgl/last:480/mean:12/offset:-0.3/plot/rss-land/mean:12

1970 is when the big forcing ramp started as aerosol's stabilized while GHG took off. So you are saying that GHG do control climate NCEP had a roughly 0.2C cooling bias vs other re-analysis products between Nov+Mar this year. CFS below shows we are running about the same as last year despite the developing La Nina. The 0.2C bias in NCEP is about the same as the warming that uah missed due to dropping NOAA-14.

Per the paper below there is a slight reduction in OHC during El Nino due to heat loss from ocean to atmosphere. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331751587_Evolution_of_Ocean_Heat_Content_Related_to_ENSO

The climate system doesn't like to be so far out of equilibrium. There are two ways to get back into balance: reduce ghg, or increase temperature. CO2 forcing in 2019 was 2.076 W/m2. To eliminate, the current 0.87 W/m2 imbalance using CO2 alone, would need to reduce CO2 to 1987 levels when CO2 forcing was 1.211 W/m2 and CO2 concentrations were 348 ppm. 350 ppm was Hanson's safe level, that is roughly the climate we are experiencing today. Per tweet below need roughly 1C of warming to stabilize temperatures with the current atmosphere. We have only experienced about half the warming that our current atmosphere would allow. CO2 forcing estimates from: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

A couple of comments: 1) ice core timing has uncertainty. There is some air exchange as snow accumulates before ice is formed. Recent papers have found the CO2 and temperature changes are closely aligned. https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/8/1213/2012/cp-8-1213-2012.html; https://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060.abstract 2) Can't explain ice core temperature changes in the S Hemisphere without CO2 since summer insolation trends are opposite in S vs N hemisphere 3) As pointed out above can't get magnitude of ice ages without a CO2 forcing contribution. Note if CO2 is contributing nothing, this means climate is more sensitive, since forcing change is roughly 50% smaller without CO2. 4) A recent paper has found temperature change to the last glacial maximum was larger than previously thought producing a larger climate sensitivity estimate. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2617-x

You can get some re-analysis data from KNMI climate explorer, including NCEP. ERA5 is the most recent re-analysis product and it looks like 200+300 mb humidity is available at KNMI. RSS has satellite total column water vapor, which is increasing as expected.

Water vapor feedback is very well established in climate models and observations. The feedback is well explained by basic thermodynamic theory (below). https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/article/27/19/7432/34587/An-Analytical-Model-for-Tropical-Relative-Humidity

Yes, NCEP is unreliable vs other re-analysis products. This was established 10 years ago, yet climate4you continues to display the unreliable data. I don't trust any chart from that site. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD014192

Below is upper troposphere humidity (UTH) chart from recently released AMS state of the climate report. As expected, relative humidity in the upper troposphere is flat, indicating an increase in water vapor since temperatures are increasing. Many of the charts on the "climate4you" site are bad data or misleading. https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/state-of-the-climate/

There is no way to isolate an urban heat island effect from Chesco's plot because he has inappropriately combined different stations into a single record for comparison to the Philadelphia airport. Per the chart below, the pre-1950 data from Coatesville ( a steel town) has a warm bias. Also the Coatesville data are collected at a site that is further south and lower elevation than the post-1983 data. The second chart below shows that Chesco's recent data (C2WKQMS+E Nant) are warming at roughly the same rate as the Philadelphia airport (phl) and the region as a whole.

Unusual late-season surface melt has dropped NSIDC area slightly below 2012. Looks like we are headed for a strong #2 on most metrics.

From Hanson's latest monthly temp report. Raising of the lower ECS bound consistent with the recent spike in global temperature, well above the 1970-2015 trend. https://mailchi.mp/1342a49ee5d3/july-2020-global-temperature-update

Near-term forecast of global temperatures based on surface temperature patterns i.e. ENSO, PDO etc. Dots show how method has performed. Website will be updated monthly - site has links to a paper describing method. https://www.weatherclimatehumansystems.org/global-temperature-forecast

GISS at record levels for April edging 2016. Keeps a record possible this year; depends on ENSO and spring/summer fall off.

Stations observing a record mean temperature for the month of March. Consistent with warm GOM. Severe/tropical dice have an extra snake eye.

This year staying within striking distance of 2016

Here is UAH6 - RSS. Almost a decade of cooling in UAH6 relative to RSS after the MSU to AMSU transition in 1998. Recently introduction of satellites with limited diurnal drift has reduced the trend differences between RSS+UAH (see link above).

Will need to see more evidence re; smoke/volcano. Spencer is missing the two obvious factors for UAH warmth: GHG and improved satellites with no diurnal drift. Evidence for the last point is the UAH trace - the period after the 2016 nino is much warmer relative to the super nino peak than the period after the 1998 nino. What happened in 1998? the MSU to AMSU transition. Scientists still don't know which satellite was right NOAA-14 or NOAA-15. UAH picked the colder satellite, of course, which looks like the wrong choice when compared against other series. Meanwhile per the article below, recent satellites have essentially no diurnal drift, with very stable performance for climate detection. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/10/eaau0049.full

Unfortunately, we have been running above the trend-line used for the prediction the past 4 or 5 years.

Winter temps From Karsten Haustein's twitter.

Summit station is a research site, uninhabited, 10500', Jan avg temp is around -40C, short record (roughly 30 years, with gaps), apparently not an all-time site record (colder temp in March 2011 below), during an extreme strat polar vortex event when mid and upper troposphere was very cold. With no background on technical aspects of the record in the article, looks more like an opportunity to cherry pick and whine about the media.