skierinvermont

lol those evil scientists are at it again! Papers that present evidence for lower climate sensitivity or lesser impacts are published all the time.

Nobody ever said CO2 was the only factor. The interglacial warming was kicked off by earth's orbital changes. The warming took thousands of years because the orbital changes also took thousands of years. Throughout the whole process CO2 is acting as a positive feedback and making it warmer than it would be. It's entirely possible the earth could have cooled for a hundred years here or there while CO2 rose because orbital changes or some other factor caused cooling. I'm not sure that ice core data has that kind of resolution however, and you've presented no such evidence. The graphs I've seen have CO2 and temperature correlated very closely. If you presented documented evidence of CO2 rising significantly while temperature dropped significantly (and by significantly I mean more than other 3rd factors could possibly account for), that would indeed interesting. But you've presented no such evidence. The evidence is to the contrary: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915 Climate models do not assume the climate was in stasis in 1850. This is false - and likely a lie unless you have any evidence to back it up. Making false claims without evidence is dishonest. 3.7W/m2 is not 'very little' forcing. The earth's surface would have to warm 1.2C in order to emit that extra radiation to space. This is without the tremendous evidence of positive feedbacks that would lead to more forcing beyond the 3.7W/m2. The logarithmic nature of CO2 forcing is well understood. During the interglacials it would rise from 190 to 270. Today we are past 400. Show me what is inconsistent with CO2 acting as a positive feedback in this graph. Keep in mind the precision of the measurements may be +/-5 or 10% (would have to check the paper to confirm). Blue is temp yellow is CO2. I would say this graph is entirely consistent with the theory that CO2 acts as a positive feedback during the interglacials. It doesn't prove it. But it is consistent.

The paper referenced finds an effect size of ~.09C per unit of MEI (multivariate enso index). I'd ballpark the line of best fit for the MEI from 1997-2009 as decreasing 1 unit. So a cooling of .09C. The effect size for TSI is ~.1C per W/m2 (measured with the sun directly overhead). Given TSI decreased maybe .3W/m2 line of best fit, that's a cooling effect of .03C. Sum it up and the earth would have cooled .12C based on ENSO and solar alone from 1997-2009. Aerosols could have added a little more cooling. This cooling was primarily negated by GHGs (primarily CO2) providing a roughly equal warming effect. This warming effect of .12C or perhaps a bit more is similar to the 40 year background warming rate, confirming the background warming rate has stayed roughly constant. Just another way of saying what the graph I posted above shows.

Oh true, I think I remember reading aerosols rose more or declined less during that period than others because of China. Ohc may have continued to rise at a high rate despite the aerosols partially because of the tendency towards La Niña during that period. Otherwise we might have seen a little slowdown in ohc.

Sorry if it wasn't clear from my post. The lack of warming from 1997-2009 was primarily due to a decline in ENSO during the period and a decline in solar output. Plus possibly some other unexplained natural variability. CO2 in the atmosphere was rising rapidly before, during, and after that period. You can see in the graph in the paper Don posted a last week that once the effect of ENSO and solar are removed, the 1997-2009 period continued to warm. Although if you look carefully the warming from 1997-2009 was a little slower than before or after even after removing ENSO and solar, especially on UAH and RSS. So there is still a little unexplained natural variability and/or measurement error. But ENSO and solar collectively explain 80-90% of the short term variance (eyeballing - the actual figure is probably in the paper itself). https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022 They confusingly offset the data in the graph below, so ignore the y axis. The point of the graph below is that all 5 of them show a lot more big ups and downs.

Put another way, climate science is pretty conclusive in the big picture, but the science behind it is pretty extensive and can be complex at times. If you trust the field, then the big picture hasn’t changed much since the 90s. But if you want to understand it yourself it’s quite complex, there are some remaining uncertainties, and it’s easy to misunderstand or partially understand. What I don’t understand at this point, I tend to defer to the experts more than I used to because in all of the cases I have looked at in depth, the peer reviewed consensus has been right.

There are lots of aspects of the science which get pretty complicated when you dig deeper. When I first started digging around 2007-2009 there were a lot of things that on the surface seemed like biases or errors of climate science. A few of them are actual errors/biases, but most of the time there are good reasons when you read the technical papers on the subject. A few examples of things that seemed like errors/biases but weren't when I dug more: 1. Global temperature didn't rise from 1997-2009. This fell at the very low end of what climate models predicted was possible. It was basically a 2 SD event and fell right at the 95% confidence interval for climate models. In retrospect, a number of factors had aligned to prevent warming for that 12 year period and the factors were more temporary than I understood (ENSO, solar). 2. Climate science seemed to rely more heavily on warmer temperature sources such as Hadley and GISS (surface based) and RSS (satellite based) than UAH (satellite based). If you read the technical papers on the subject there are good reasons to believe the surface datasets are superior to the satellites, and RSS is likely superior to UAH although both have significant uncertainties. 3. There had been a lot of EL Ninos in the 80s and 90s and this could have somehow caused a lot of the warming (it only caused a little of it). 4. The sun was very strong in the 70s-90s and there were theories that the cosmic rays could cause cloud cover changes that amplify warming. When you read the technical papers on the subject, these theories contain errors and aren't properly peer-reviewed although they are published. Recent low solar activity is yet another proof of their error. 5. Overall I generally acknowledged that doubling CO2 caused 1.2C of warming, but questioned whether feedbacks would really amplify this to 3C. This was based on a belief that historical warming was less than climate scientists said it was, and the possibility of alternative amplifications of the warming such as ENSO/PDO/Solar/Clouds. 6. There's some dataset floating out there (I forget the name) that shows cloud cover changes that would have caused warming. The dataset is likely flawed. A few examples of things I still believe are errors or biases of a few individuals in the field: 1. James Hansen made a number of extreme predictions about sea level rise in the early 2000s about seal level in 2020 or 2030. They were very wrong. 2. Michael Mann's hockey stick is somewhat deceptive. It should have more clearly shown that he was combining low resolution data (tree ring data from 1000-1900 AD) with very high resolution data (1900-present). There are better presentations of this graph out here than Michael Mann's original. 3. Al Gore's movie presented ice core data and made it sound like CO2 caused temperature changes in the past. In reality, it was one of several positive feedbacks. 4. There are some papers out there that tend to rely on the most extreme outcomes. 5. GISS extrapolates very rapid warming in coastal Siberia over much of the Arctic Ocean where in reality it has likely not warmed as quickly due to the moderating effect of water. This leads to a very slight warming bias during periods of rapid arctic warming.

I think he believes much of what he is saying but there are clear instances of him stating things he knows to be false. For example, claiming to have read a particular paper I mentioned when he doesn't know which paper. Or repeating points that were clearly proven false and deliberately ignoring those replies so as to continue repeating the same falsehoods. It would be different if he actually responded to the points directed at him. But by willfully ignoring the responses I believe it is intentionally disingenuous and dishonest. Ignoring evidence contrary to out beliefs is common human behavior. But it is certainly not admirable and is one of the uglier sides of the human psyche. It is pervasive in the AGW denier community. Most people don't have the time, energy, intellect, background knowledge, or discipline to understand the science. Which is one reason these debates are so often fruitless with one side consistently ignoring the evidence presented.

I believe he is correct that CO2 lags T in ice core data for the recent ice ages. Even if I am remembering that wrong and the resolution isn't there to prove it, it's very likely that CO2 did in fact lag T over the ice ages. Previous warming periods weren't initiated by CO2 and CO2 acted as a positive feedback. When the earth warmed 1C, CO2 would be released from the oceans because warmer water holds CO2 less readily. The increased CO2 and water vapor would cause more warming (less than 1C or the warming would be 'runaway' - people often confuse positive feedbacks with runaway positive feedbacks). It's not possible to explain the ice ages without the existence of positive feedbacks (CO2 and water vapor) but they weren't the initial cause. On that point, blizzard is technically correct. What he doesn't understand is that this has been a well understood and researched aspect of the science for decades. I will say, Al Gore presented it somewhat deceptively in 'An Inconvenient Truth' which provided me with endless fodder on my radio show during my climate change skepticism days (until I actually learned and understood the science). Our current warming is unique in that huge quantities of CO2 have been artificially released into the atmosphere in a very short period.

Even Judith Curry understands the time of observation bias in the U.S. temperature record. It's not that there were no high/lows before 1920 (I have no idea where you got this idea from). It's that over time stations have switched from recording the highest temperature of the previous 24 hours at 5pm to 7am. If you have a thermometer that records the highest temperature of the previous 24 hours, and you reset it at 5pm on a hot day on April 24th you will double count the hot day. You'll get a 95F reading for April 24th, and a 93F reading from 5:01pm that will show up as the hottest temperature of April 25th (recorded at 5pm for the previous 24 hours), even though the hottest it got on April 25th was 80F. By recording at 7am, hot days are no longer double counted. You'd get just one reading of 95F for April 24th (recorded at 7am on April 25th) and one reading of 80F (recorded at 7am on April 26th). As Curry's blog points out, you don't have to do adjustments at all. Whenever a station makes a change in recording time, you treat it as an entirely new station completely independent of the old station. IEM doesn't do either form of correction, and instead treats stations which used to record highs at 5pm (and double count high temperatures from hot days) as the same station even when they change their measurement to record at 7am and no longer double count high temperatures. What exactly about this process do you disagree with? You dare to cross the mighty JUDITH CURRY? (not authored by her but clearly endorsed by her as a guest post on her blog). And you don't have any evidence or specific critiques of TOBs adjustments other than name-calling it ("VOODOO statistics") and that you don't trust scientists. https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/#:~:text=Between 1960 and today%2C the,and maximum temperatures via USHCN. The number of little children running around with their pants off screaming about temperature adjustments who don't understand why they are made is absurd. At least Curry gets it. Even if you make ZERO TOBs adjustments and just treat stations that change their observation time as two separate stations, the result is exactly the same. For example say Omaha recorded at 5pm from 1895-1960 and then at 7am from 1960-present. You would treat these two as completely separate stations. It's the same thing as making a temperature record when not all the stations start in the same year (some start in 1870 and some as late as 1920). As long as anomalies are used, stations dropping in and/or out of the data set don't matter. This is the method Berkeley used. They made no time of observation adjustment, but get the exact same result as NOAA, which makes a .2C TOBs adjustment based on statistical analysis of hot-day double counting.

There's an answer for everything Don. The glaciers in Glacier National Park are probably disappearing from being walked on too much. IEM probably shows Montana hasn't warmed at all and unadjusted (uncorrected) temperatures are BEST!

Classic. A decent human being would have some shame and admit when they lied.

You don't even know which paper I'm talking about. Next time you lie, at least make it less obvious.

Maybe actually read the paper. They explain all of this in extreme detail. I look forward to your equally detailed critique.

Yeah temperature measurements taken at 2pm in 1920 are the BEST for comparing to temperature measurements taken at 6pm today!!! Are you trying to be a joke?

I think it is important that temperature measurements over time be taken at the same time of day for consistency's sake. Apparently you'd rather compare temperatures taken at 2pm in 1920 to temperatures taken at 6pm today. In the U.S. this results in an upward adjustment. Adjustments in the rest of the world are actually negative.

This is at least the 2nd time Blizzard has used data sources where the actual authors of the data say the data is unverified, inaccurate, and/or unsuitable for climate studies. Given the pattern I have to assume that this is intentional rather than accidental.

I have no idea what IEM is, and as you state they explicitly warn that the data is of unknown accuracy. I don't know if anybody else noticed but the NOAA graph bluewave posted shows 2X more warming in NJ than the IEM graph does. I suspect the results would be similar for other states as well. If you look closely, IEM warms from 71.5 to 73, while NOAA warms from 70 to 73. This is typical dishonest behavior from the anti-science side. They pick whatever sources makes their point without any regard for its accuracy. Even when the source they are citing explicitely states there is no warranty of accuracy and to use at your own risk! EDIT: it looks like blizzard already noticed this but predictably sided with the graph that says data may be inaccurate and use at your own risk! I suspect he chose the IEM graph knowing full well that the data was unverified and uncorrected for things such as change in instrumentation and time of observation. It's like saying it was hotter in 1940 at 2pm than in 1980 at 6pm! As Karl et al. 1986 epxlained, climate stations in the U.S. have changed their time of observations many times over the years. Back in 1986 adjusting temperatures to reflect a consistent time of observation was just good science. It wasn't until the mid-2000s when the wave of right wing denier websites suddenly discovered (or pretended to discover) what everybody else knew all along that this became controversial.

Yeah he actually briefly acknowledged this point a page or two back. I thought he might actually be in for an objective discussion at that point. But then he continued on insisting that the very slight positive trend in ENSO from 1970-present has somehow increased OHC, despite the fact that over periods with very negative ENSO trends (2003-2013 for example, there are others) OHC just goes up without the slightest slowdown. Then he brought up the possibility of some sort of lag. So I pointed out that no matter what lag you pick, there is never a decrease in OHC over an extended period when ENSO goes down. There's just no noticeable long-term effect at all between ENSO and OHC. The only thing there is as I pointed out before and like you are also point out, is a brief reduction in OHC as the ocean radiates heat to the atmosphere during +ENSO (which is actually the opposite of the effect he's hypothesizing, and also much more short-lived). It's pretty clear he's just trolling at this point.

Really interesting to see that show up right over the corn belt. Even if it's not 100% due to agriculture changes, still really interesting to see that cool spot right over them with warmth all around.

I didn't say you have half a brain. Read it again. What I said was you need to stop posting lies and actually respond to the corrections people have made to your posts. I don't know how to say this any nicer. This is a forum for science and facts, not politics and lies from disinformation blogs.

I responded to your points. You do not respond and repeat lies. That's called trolling. Anybody with half a brain can see you can't have a discussion on the merits so you just repeat more lies. Either respond to the points or stop posting. Nobody wants or needs more of your lies ripped from disinformation blogs. If we wanted those sorts of lies we know where to find them. If you have actual peer-reviewed science to share, please do so.

I'm just saying if you got rid of corn syrup, they'd just go back to using sugar which would be just as bad. So I don't really see corn syrup as the problem. It's a whole society problem. The regulations on food labeling and advertising could be stronger. Public education could be improved so people understand exercise, diet, and food labeling. Economic disparities that lead to dysfunctional families and upbringings for children are also to blame.

100s of thousands of people in U.S. die from air pollution from cars and coal power every year. Many millions other suffer from asthma and cardiovascular problems which are inflamed during periods of stagnant poor air quality. https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_1 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231013004548 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(16)30023-8/fulltext https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749107002849 https://pennstate.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/health-effects-of-outdoor-air-pollution?source=post_page--------------------------- In China and India where the air is much worse, the death tolls are much higher. I have family in China and when the air is bad even young health people get headaches and cold symptoms and have to wear a mask. The elderly just have to stay inside with air purifiers. Which is why these countries are at least trying to clean up and are heavily adopting renewables and closing down dirty energy sources. And guess what? Their economies are stronger than ever and no doomsday widespread dog eating scenario. What nonsense right wing scare tactics.

This is a right-wing political lie. Wind is cheaper than coal which is why the free market has adopted it so readily the last 10 years. It is the primary source of new power in the United States over the last decade (roughly tied with natural gas). Electric cars and hybrids are cheaper than gas cars for consumers who drive more than 10,000-15,000 miles per year. Emissions control devices on gas vehicles are dirt cheap. I've already pointed this out. And yet you repeat the same lie. You are a troll and should have your posting limited. This is a forum for science and facts not politics and lies.