skierinvermont

Except the authors of surface temperature datasets have documented why they believe their adjustments produce a highly accurate result, whereas the authors of the radiosonde data do precisely the opposite. They explicitely state that they have little confidence in their own data. Citing radiosonde data is to ignore the cautions of the authors of the data. It makes no sense and is another example of Christy's intellectual dishonesty. It's like me making some best guesses about the temperature in my hometown over the past year and then you holding it up to the whole world as some sort of gold standard for temperatures in Denver. It's called lying.

There are examples such as the one bdwx cited where the adjustments are done downwards as well. The skeptic sites you read just focus on the instances of adjusting upwards. There really is no argument to be had until you actually read the papers documenting the adjustments in detail which takes many weeks of heavy reading.

Implied and actual TCR likely would not differ dramatically. Implied TCR is basically the same as TCR but measured over a shorter period. It's ECS he's confusing it with. Warming .5C in 30 years @ 1.1% CO2 per year (implied TCR) is about the same as warming 1.8C in 100 years @ 1% CO2 per year (true TCR). Either way, even if the CO2 increases cease, the temperature continues to rise until ECS ~(3C).

The paper does no such thing. You have confused TCR (transient climate response) with ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity). TCR is commonly estimate to be 1.5-2C while ECS is roughly double. This is for precisely the reason you mention - the buffer the oceans provide - as well as the continuing feedback cycle. The buffering effect of the oceans slow the warming down considerably - but the oceans will continue to warm until equilibrium is reach which takes much longer. https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/d3a8654f-e1f1-4d3f-85a1-4c2d5f354047/files/factsheetclimatesensitivitycsiro-bureau.pdf

A relevant quote from this paper: "The radiosonde datasets cannot be thought of as “ground truth” because the uncertainty in long-term signals from the radiosonde datasets is likely to be as large as or larger than the long-term uncertainty in the satellite datasets (Haimberger et al. 2012; Thorne et al. 2011; Titchner et al. 2009). Unfortunately, the historical radiosonde measurements are plagued by numerous changes in instrumentation, observing practice, and time of observation that lead to nonclimatic changes in the archived measurements"

This article is specific to tropical TMT, which is the image posted above. https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/article/28/6/2274/35327/Removing-Diurnal-Cycle-Contamination-in-Satellite

I have been deep down this road of UAH vs RSS, GISS, Hadley etc. Keep digging and you will learn why UAH is likely the one in error. I don't have time to address all of it now and provide all the appropriate references. Especially since you have not responded to the point about OHC increasing when ENSO decreases over a decade or more. https://journals.ametsoc.org/jtech/article/34/1/225/342433/A-Comparative-Analysis-of-Data-Derived-from The above touches on some of the errors Spencer and Christy have made over the years and the revisions they have been forced to make to correct for those past mistakes and some of the error that remain unaddressed. One basic point on RSS vs UAH. The satellite data after the mid 2000s requires less adjustments. After the mid-2000s both RSS and UAH show rapid warming. It's oddly suspicious that as soon as the satellites themselves got better, suddenly UAH find rapid warming. The inferiority of their algorithms for correcting for diurnal drift etc. is documented extensively and explains why they did not show warming until the satellite themselves improved.

Reposting for blizzard to respond to. The earth's energy imbalance, it's multiple lines of evidence, and the implications of this imbalance are critical to any basic understanding of this topic.

Classic. You did not respond to the point I made 3 times. Yes that makes me angry. You still have not responded. You are not here for a good faith discussion. I will repost it for you to give you yet another opportunity. And I will keep reposting it and not move on to another point until you have responded in good faith.

It didn't say a stronger warming trend. Read the language again.

Ok sure make up some magic lag with no plausible physical explanation. I'll play. I've heard it all before and believed half of it myself. There is NO period with decreasing OHC. If there was a lag from ENSO to OHC, we would still see periods of OHC going down when lagged to the periods of decreasing ENSO. What you seem to not understand is OHC is climbing relentlessly with no perceptible affect from ENSO whatsoever over periods more than a year or two. ENSO can tank for a decade as it did from 2003-2013. OHC marches higher with no decrease - not even a slowdown - with a lag or without a lag. ENSO literally tanked from 2003-2013. OHC skyrocketed. Throw in a lag. It still skyrocketed whatever lag period you pick. There was no significant effect whatsoever. All aspects of the system warmed. The cooling must by hiding in the earth's core only to magically reappear in the year 2053! At least the skeptics back when I was in college had the intellectual honesty to predict that decreases in ENSO would lead to a decrease in OHC. Some of the very people you idolize made such predictions. I made such predictions. They failed because they are based on faulty science.

True. The biggest one we both left out is the cooling effect of aerosols. Also water vapor.

Sure the data post 2003 is better. But the data pre-2003 is also fairly reliable. Sure you can look at 2003-present. We could also look at 1998-present. Or 1992-present. Or if you suddenly will only use only post 2003 data (without providing any evidence that pre-2003 data is fatally flawed) we can still pick periods with negative ONI trends. 2003-2013 had an extremely negative ONI trend. Far more negative than ANY of the trends you've cherrypicked. And yet the OHC trend over that period is VASTLY positive. We can go on, we can pick countless start and end dates with negative ONI trends and positive OHC trends. All of these disprove your 'hypothesis'. It only takes one to disprove it. But there are many that disprove it. On the other hand, the CO2 theory is consistent with all of these observations.

Yes and coincidentally it shows a positive trend. As I said (3 times now!!) there are lots of other start date and end dates with negative ONI trends, and yet over all start and end dates the OHC trend is vastly positive. If ENSO had a large cumulative long-term effect on the earth's planetary energy imbalance (it has some but over long time periods with very weak trends in ONI the effect is small) we would expect to see that over periods with negative ONI trends the OHC would decrease. It doesn't. We can even pick periods with very negative ONI trends - far more negative than the slightly positive trends you showed - and yet the OHC trend is vastly positive over all start and end dates. This is how science works. Make a prediction and test it. If slight trends in ENSO over long periods modulated the earth's energy imbalance, we'd expect periods with negative ENSO trends to also have negative OHC trends. They don't. Not even close. I've repeated this point 3 times now, and you have yet to address it.

The fact is you know nothing about the models in question other than the cover a similar domain as weather models. You have no basis for calling their scientific rigor into question. How many peer-reviewed studies have you read on climate models cover to cover, how many conferences have you gone to on them, how much have you tried to have your concerns addressed by the designers of said models?

Again, you are cherrypicking start dates. Many start dates show a negative ONI trend. And yet over all periods the OHC trend is vastly positive. This is the lack of genuine engagement and the deceptive behavior I am referring to. This isn't an 'opinion' of yours. Deliberately picking start dates to avoid the point I have already spelled out for you is a lack of genuine engagement.

Clearly you've never studied biology if you think drugs in the body are basic science. I'll concede there are good models and bad models. Models have to be used within the means for which they were designed and within the limits of their capabilities. You've presented nothing to show you've done any analysis of these models and why the scientists who have put much research into them are mistaken. You've presented nothing more than an emotional appeal to 'its just a model!!' As bdwx pointed out this appeal is baseless. Models are routinely used for incredibly complex systems with great utility.

Lots of other start dates would show a negative trend. And yet over all time periods OHC trend is vastly positive (other than maybe picking a very short 1 year period).

As I said before, the ONI trend since the 1970s is essentially zero. I was very into this PDO/ENSO cyclical warming in the mid 2000s. Even as we've seen more La Ninas the warming has continued. You can also pick trend lines with negative ONIs - negative ENSO trends - and the OHC trend (and the energy imbalance) over the period is extremely positive and persistent. Start your trends in the super 1998 El Nino and end in a more recent La Nina. The ENSO trend is negative. The OHC trend is vastly positive. Nothing - not the sun - not ENSO - has disrupted this persistent increase in OHC in any meaningful way. Plus it doesn't explain the changes in the atmosphere's absorption/radiation patterns in the CO2 spectrum. Or the fact that knowing nothing else other than the absorption/radiation properties of CO2 and the atmosphere's composition would predict CO2 causes warming. The cause of the persistent .87W/m2 is CO2.

ENSO doesn't increase OHC. By warming the ocean's surface, and thus radiating more heat to the atmosphere, OHC decreases during ENSO. ENSO is a slowing of the equatorial pacific mixing. Because the warm water isn't getting pushed into the deep oceans, the deep oceans cool and the upper oceans warm. The net effect is close to zero, with a gradual cooling as the heat trapped in the upper ocean gets radiated to the atmosphere, instead of mixed into the deep. You're not thinking in terms of energy flows. Your mind is like "ENSO = hot". Well where did this heat come from? Plus the ONI trend since the 1970s is essentially zero.

My statement had absolutely nothing to do with what has happened in the past. We know it's CO2 because of changes in the atmosphere's absorption spectrum.

The oceans are absorbing the vast majority of it. If the atmosphere was forced to absorb .87W/m2, the atmosphere would be warming at like 10C per year (of course once it warmed up a couple degrees C the energy imbalance would disappear).

My statement has absolutely nothing to do with climate models. The warming of the whole earth system is based on data. Nothing else with a radiative effect in our atmosphere has changed to cause such an imbalance, except CO2. Water vapor has increased, but this cannot be the cause of such a large and persistent change or else we would be stuck in an infinite warming trend.

Your points are superficial at best. The point demonstrated by ohc data isn’t that the oceans are getting hot and running out of their ability to absorb more heat. The oceans are vast and have substantially slowed the rate of atmospheric warming and will continue to do so. The point of ohc measurements is that they prove the earths energy imbalance of .87w/m2. You questioned the validity of the .87w/m2 earlier in your post, well the ohc data is one of the main independent lines of proof. For the oceans to warm by that much the earth must have a large and persistent energy imbalance. The only plausible cause of such an imbalance with any evidence is CO2.

Thanks Don. It's been educational to witness the tremendous rise in OHC and surface temperatures the last 15 years we've been following this. I can't remember if you were around when I first started following the issue on this forum (easternuswx back then) 13 years ago in college. In my arrogance and incomplete understanding of the science I did not believe that climate sensitivity was as high as it is. I didn't understand the multiple lines of evidence for climate sensitivity and I was skeptical of the atmospheric and oceanic temperature datasets. As I understood the science and data sources better, my thinking changed, but the nail in the coffin has been the massive rise in OHC and surface temperatures the last 15 years. Not that 15 years proves anything on its own, but when combined with the previous 100 years of warming and with the multiple lines of evidence for CO2s radiative forcing and for climate sensitivity, I quickly realized how mistaken and incomplete my understanding was. Back then the 'climate skeptics' universally predicted imminent cooling or at worst a leveling off. A more complete understanding of the science even 15 years ago would have proved them (and me) wrong, but the last 15 years have been a sort of real world test for those of us that had less than perfect understandings. I'm not proud of my youthful mistakes, but I can say even when I was at my most mistaken and ignorant I never pretended that climate accords are too punitive against the U.S. when they allow higher per capita emissions in the U.S. than any other country. Or that the relatively low number of birds killed by windmills negate the numerous benefits. Or that wind power is too expensive when it's actually cheaper (even back then it was starting to get close in price). It seems that the 'skeptics' have moved on from making any actual useful predictions of their own, since they got burned the first time, and have moved even further until the realm of magical thinking.