chubbs

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.

Decent shot at a record this year https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/202001/supplemental/page-2

This years decadal forecast from UK MetOffice. " The forecast remains towards the mid to upper end of the range simulated by CMIP5 models that have not been initialised with observations (green shading in Figure 3). " https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc/index

You are right. The earth's climate varies. When CO2 is high - hothouse; when CO2 is low - ice age. The change we are causing now is no big deal to the planet as a whole. It will shrug it off and keep on ticking. It may be problematic to us and other species though due to the speed at which it is occurring. When we came out of the last ice age the earth warmed at a rate of roughly 1C per 1000 years, currently we are warming at 1C per 50 years. During the last ice age - 2 million hunter gatherers were able to adapt - they could move as ecosystems changed. Different situation today.

Watch the video, Australia is a big country. Fires in unpopulated dryland is not the same as fire in forested SE with more towns, people.

Haven't seen the commercial. Natural gas is better than coal, but need to get to zero emissions eventually to halt warming. Most of the improvement in long-term outlook is due to the big cost drops this decade for solar, wind and batteries. For me highest priority is introducing some kind of carbon pricing, which would improve economics of nuclear and all other improvement options.

The article below provides a good summary of how recent energy trends are impacting IPCC emission scenarios. While I am even more pessimistic about the science of climate than I was a decade ago, I have become much more optimistic about non-fossil energy technology and natural gas vs coal. Limited policy and luck has improved the "worst-case" considerably vs CMIP5 IPCC scenarios. Unfortunately though, we haven't made any progress on the "best" case due to inaction/denial. Recent experience shows that improved climate policy and support for renewable energy technology could have enormous long-term pay-back. https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/3c-world