Global Warming Makes Weather In Boreal Summer More Persistent

[blizzard1024]

ANYTHING that doesn't go along with the "CO2 is the thermostat of the planet narrative" is dismissed.   UAH for instance doesn't include the spurious warmth of NOAA14. BUT the other satellite datasets keep it. So they must be right /sarc. The surface record is rife with changes in instrumentation, land use and even location changes over 100s of sites across the planet. Plus the way SSTs were measured has changed so much in 150 years.  BUT it shows a lot of warming  especially after "homogenization"....i.e  adjusting upward in the present and cooling the past. So this dataset is better than UAH? Of course it is /sarc  because we already know that CO2 is our global thermostat. Cloud datasets show that cloud fraction seems to correlate well with global average temperature. Whoops, wait a minute.... NO it can't be correct /sarc.  We know what Arctic sea ice was like in the 1930s without satellite data. It had to much higher than today, of course is was /sarc. Now NCEP reanalysis data which matches up with NASA NVAP specific humidities at high levels is wrong because it shows a negative feedback. But ERA5 is correct because it shows a linear almost 1:1 relationship with temperatures in the upper troposphere.  It doesn't matter that the low levels don't make sense at all.  Just sweep that under the rug. What is the mechanism besides convection for the upper tropospheric T and q 1:1 correlation? What is the mechanism? Just because temperatures warm doesn't mean the air moistens.   So basically the entire "science" is dedicated to prove CO2 is the global thermostat.  The tail is wagging the dog. 

[skierinvermont]

1 hour ago, blizzard1024 said:

Nevertheless the data shows an inverse relationship between temperature and cloud fraction. But they ignore this because it explains the recent temperature trends quite nicely.  More lunacy. 

It's pure coincidence. The data is flawed. It wasn't intended for measuring long-term changes in cloud fraction. The authors themselves stated this. What do you not understand about this?

I could take some measurements out my window for a few years and be like clouds are increasing on hot days! And then someone said 'that data's not accurate you were just looking out your window you idiot' I'd be like 'you're just saying that because it disagrees with AGW!!!!' 

No. measuring clouds by looking out your window is not accurate. Neither is that dataset you are referring to. The authors themselves stated that.. I think before it even got involved in the AGW debate.

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, blizzard1024 said:

ANYTHING that doesn't go along with the "CO2 is the thermostat of the planet narrative" is dismissed.   UAH for instance doesn't include the spurious warmth of NOAA14. BUT the other satellite datasets keep it. So they must be right /sarc. The surface record is rife with changes in instrumentation, land use and even location changes over 100s of sites across the planet. Plus the way SSTs were measured has changed so much in 150 years.  BUT it shows a lot of warming  especially after "homogenization"....i.e  adjusting upward in the present and cooling the past. So this dataset is better than UAH? Of course it is /sarc  because we already know that CO2 is our global thermostat. Cloud datasets show that cloud fraction seems to correlate well with global average temperature. Whoops, wait a minute.... NO it can't be correct /sarc.  We know what Arctic sea ice was like in the 1930s without satellite data. It had to much higher than today, of course is was /sarc. Now NCEP reanalysis data which matches up with NASA NVAP specific humidities at high levels is wrong because it shows a negative feedback. But ERA5 is correct because it shows a linear almost 1:1 relationship with temperatures in the upper troposphere.  It doesn't matter that the low levels don't make sense at all.  Just sweep that under the rug. What is the mechanism besides convection for the upper tropospheric T and q 1:1 correlation? What is the mechanism? Just because temperatures warm doesn't mean the air moistens.   So basically the entire "science" is dedicated to prove CO2 is the global thermostat.  The tail is wagging the dog. 

Those are sweeping generalizations. They are not based on data or other forms of evidence. They are premised on the idea that an outlier dataset is accurate while every other dataset is not, without any evidence to support such an extraordinary claim. 

In general, if one seeks to make a case, one must have evidence to support that case. Absent supporting evidence,  one needs sufficient evidence to reject a position that one argues is flawed. Neither condition is satisfied above.

First, the earth has had a persistent, long-running positive energy imbalance. That imbalance has persisted regardless of changes in solar irradiance, a development that demonstrates the dominant impact greenhouse gases are having in driving that imbalance (Hansen et al., 2011 and Schuckmann et al., 2020). Such imbalances lead to heating until a new equilibrium is established. The overwhelming share (89%) of the heat from the observed energy imbalance has gone into the oceans (Schuckmann et al., 2020). In addition, 4% has gone into heating the land. All major datasets—Berkeley, GISS, HadCru, and NOAA—demonstrate sustained warming is underway with the last decade the warmest, so far, during the instrument record. Paleoclimate reconstructions show that the current warming is anomalous during the Holocene. Flora and fauna have been responding in a fashion consistent with warming. The warming is no artifact of human data manipulation. Otherwise, there would be no changes in bird migrations, blooming, a shift in growing zones, etc. 3% of the heating has gone to melting ice. Greenland and Antarctica have been losing mass, resulting in sea level rise. Arctic sea ice minimum extent has been growing lower, with 2019 and 2020 the first cases during which the minimum extent was below 4 million square kilometers in consecutive years.

Second, all the known natural forcings have been assessed. The natural forcings, by themselves, cannot explain the observed warming that has taken place since the middle and especially latter part of the 20th century. Only approaches that include greenhouse gases can explain the observed warming (Foster and Ramstorf, 2011 and Jones et al., 2013).

Third, UAH has been found to have a cool bias on account of the adjustments that are made in preparing that dataset (Po-Chedley et al., 2015). No evidence has been furnished to suggest that this dataset is superior, much less that it is superior to all the others despite the biases introduced by the adjustments involved.

In sum, no evidence has been provided to undermine the credibility of the AGW explanation. Claims of adjustments (as if preferred datasets such as UAH don’t involve adjustments), attacks on peer review for the absence of papers advancing a credible alternative to AGW, and unsubstantiated claims of a ‘CO2 tail wagging the climate research dog’ do not make a contribution to understanding ongoing climate change, much less undercut the AGW explanation. They do provide an exhibit for the lack of credible alternative explanation.

Referenced Papers:

Hansen et al., 2011: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2011/2011_Hansen_ha06510a.pdf

Schuckmann, et al., 2020: https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2013/2020

Foster and Ramstorf, 2011: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022

Jones et al., 2013: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jgrd.50239

Po-Chedley et al., 2015: https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/article/28/6/2274/35327/Removing-Diurnal-Cycle-Contamination-in-Satellite

[blizzard1024]

2 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Those are sweeping generalizations. They are not based on data or other forms of evidence. They are premised on the idea that an outlier dataset is accurate while every other dataset is not, without any evidence to support such an extraordinary claim. 

In general, if one seeks to make a case, one must have evidence to support that case. Absent supporting evidence,  one needs sufficient evidence to reject a position that one argues is flawed. Neither condition is satisfied above.

First, the earth has had a persistent, long-running positive energy imbalance. That imbalance has persisted regardless of changes in solar irradiance, a development that demonstrates the dominant impact greenhouse gases are having in driving that imbalance (Hansen et al., 2011 and Schuckmann et al., 2020). Such imbalances lead to heating until a new equilibrium is established. The overwhelming share (89%) of the heat from the observed energy imbalance has gone into the oceans (Schuckmann et al., 2020). In addition, 4% has gone into heating the land. All major datasets—Berkeley, GISS, HadCru, and NOAA—demonstrate sustained warming is underway with the last decade the warmest, so far, during the instrument record. Paleoclimate reconstructions show that the current warming is anomalous during the Holocene. Flora and fauna have been responding in a fashion consistent with warming. The warming is no artifact of human data manipulation. Otherwise, there would be no changes in bird migrations, blooming, a shift in growing zones, etc. 3% of the heating has gone to melting ice. Greenland and Antarctica have been losing mass, resulting in sea level rise. Arctic sea ice minimum extent has been growing lower, with 2019 and 2020 the first cases during which the minimum extent was below 4 million square kilometers in consecutive years.

Second, all the known natural forcings have been assessed. The natural forcings, by themselves, cannot explain the observed warming that has taken place since the middle and especially latter part of the 20th century. Only approaches that include greenhouse gases can explain the observed warming (Foster and Ramstorf, 2011 and Jones et al., 2013).

Third, UAH has been found to have a cool bias on account of the adjustments that are made in preparing that dataset (Po-Chedley et al., 2015). No evidence has been furnished to suggest that this dataset is superior, much less that it is superior to all the others despite the biases introduced by the adjustments involved.

In sum, no evidence has been provided to undermine the credibility of the AGW explanation. Claims of adjustments (as if preferred datasets such as UAH don’t involve adjustments), attacks on peer review for the absence of papers advancing a credible alternative to AGW, and unsubstantiated claims of a ‘CO2 tail wagging the climate research dog’ do not make a contribution to understanding ongoing climate change, much less undercut the AGW explanation. They do provide an exhibit for the lack of credible alternative explanation.

Referenced Papers:

Hansen et al., 2011: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2011/2011_Hansen_ha06510a.pdf

Schuckmann, et al., 2020: https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2013/2020

Foster and Ramstorf, 2011: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022

Jones et al., 2013: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jgrd.50239

Po-Chedley et al., 2015: https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/article/28/6/2274/35327/Removing-Diurnal-Cycle-Contamination-in-Satellite

How do you know the modest warming isn't natural?   The Earth likely has been in an energy imbalance since the 1800s, the end of the Little Ice Age. That's all. 

 

 

[donsutherland1]

8 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

How do you know the modest warming isn't natural?   The Earth likely has been in an energy imbalance since the 1800s, the end of the Little Ice Age. That's all. 

 

 

If it were natural, it would be replicated with just the natural forcing. Instead, around the middle of the 20th century one finds a divergence between temperatures and the natural forcings. Only the introduction of greenhouse gases explains the temperature trend and addresses the divergence.

[blizzard1024]

12 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

If it were natural, it would be replicated with just the natural forcing. Instead, around the middle of the 20th century one finds a divergence between temperatures and the natural forcings. Only the introduction of greenhouse gases explains the temperature trend and addresses the divergence.

How? How do you know that?  Let me guess...climate models.   yeah right!  Climate models are insufficient like weather forecast models. They have some usefulness but not this kind of precision. So this is all based on climate models. I know this. That is where I have to disagree. I want to see data, that proves a water vapor feedback first and foremost. So far, I haven't seen anything convincing. ERA5 was very interesting to look at but a 1:1 relationship of high level T and specific humidity?  What is the mechanism? The only I can think of is tropical convection. That is NOT a positive feedback. It is the prevalence of El Ninos over La Ninas since 1977 the great climate shift.  

 

[donsutherland1]

3 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

How? How do you know that?  Like me guess...climate models.   yeah right!  Climate models are insufficient like weather forecast models. They have some usefulness but not this kind of precision. So this is all based on climate models. I know this. That is where I have to disagree. I want to see data, that proves a water vapor feedback first and foremost. So far, I haven't seen anything convincing. ERA5 was very interesting to look at but a 1:1 relationship of high level T and specific humidity?  What is the mechanism? The only I can think of is tropical convection. That is NOT a positive feedback. It is the prevalence of El Ninos over La Ninas since 1977 the great climate shift.  

 

Every scientific field relies on models to represent complex phenomena. Climate science is no exception. The expectation that models should outright be ignored is unreasonable and impractical. They physics associated with CO2 is well-established. Even absent modeling, one should reasonably expect that increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 (not to mention other greenhouse gases) would lead to an increase in temperatures, among other things. One would need to reject physics to expect a different outcome. That’s a far riskier course. That the expected observed warming has been underway is consistent with expectations. The modeling brings a much greater insight into what is happening.

[blizzard1024]

Just now, donsutherland1 said:

Every scientific field relies on models to represent complex phenomena. Climate science is no exception. The expectation that models should outright be ignored is unreasonable and impractical. They physics associated with CO2 is well-established. Even absent modeling, one should reasonably expect that increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 (not to mention other greenhouse gases) would lead to an increase in temperatures, among other things. One would need to reject physics to expect a different outcome. That’s a far riskier course. That the expected observed warming has been underway is consistent with expectations. The modeling brings a much greater insight into what is happening.

Yes I agree that a doubling of CO2 would bring around 1.2C or so of warming. Modest warming, not a crisis. 

[donsutherland1]

53 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Yes I agree that a doubling of CO2 would bring around 1.2C or so of warming. Modest warming, not a crisis. 

That’s much lower than both the mean point and the minimum figure in the consensus ECS estimates. 

[LibertyBell]

3 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

That’s much lower than both the mean point and the minimum figure in the consensus ECS estimates. 

Don what do you think the chances are we remain below the IPCC's stated tipping point of 2.0C in the time frame outlined to avoid "irreversible damaging changes to the climate?"  I put it at 10%.  According to their latest documents we need to make big changes by 2030 and reduce our carbon emissions by half within those 10 years.

 

[donsutherland1]

24 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Don what do you think the chances are we remain below the IPCC's stated tipping point of 2.0C in the time frame outlined to avoid "irreversible damaging changes to the climate?"  I put it at 10%.  According to their latest documents we need to make big changes by 2030 and reduce our carbon emissions by half within those 10 years.

 

Quite frankly, I think the odds are very low. Already, China’s emissions have burst above the pre-COVID emissions. U.S. emissions were rising fast and will probably be there by year’s end. Significant policy changes will be needed. The reality is that there is very little support for requiring fossil fuel companies to pay full cost or even close to it for their externalities. Thus, this underpricing will lead to higher quantity demanded than would otherwise be the case. 

There could be a different U.S. path depending on the outcome of the 2020 election. Nevertheless, achievement of that policy path could still be difficult given the dynamics in the Senate, unless the reconciliation process is used (could face rules-related challenges) or the filibuster is waived (via the “nuclear option”). Overall, though, the base case is a policy lag that makes it difficult to achieve what is needed. 

Personally, I think the U.S. needs a challenge similar to the Apollo Project challenge: 10 years to get off fossil fuels with a hard deadline coupled with rising fees for covering the externalities related to carbon emissions (with all due respect to the Biden campaign, carbon neutrality by 2050 is little more than a punt). Excuses of impossibility should be rejected just as they were then. New technologies were invented. There was a “can do” spirit not a resigned “can’t do” mentality. The project succeeded. The same can apply with fossil fuels unless people have suddenly and inexplicably become less capable and less innovative than in the past. I don’t accept that dreary assumption.

[LibertyBell]

Those were the days- JFK was a far better president than any we have had since.  Even though the 60s were divisive, we became united under a single purpose; many lessons to be learned from that period for today.  People can still unite during a turbulent time in history.

[bdgwx]

1 hour ago, blizzard1024 said:

How do you know the modest warming isn't natural?   The Earth likely has been in an energy imbalance since the 1800s, the end of the Little Ice Age. That's all. 

 

 

I'm sure there has been a positive energy imbalance since 1800. The question is...what contributing factors caused the imbalance and how and when did their contributions ebb and flow?

Some of the warming is natural especially prior to 1950. But after 1950 the net of all naturally modulated factors is far too low to explain the warming. It is so low, in fact, that naturally modulated factors may even be working to lower the EEI and thus put a cooling pressure on the climate. But when scientists consider anthroprogenically modulated factors along with the naturally modulated factors we get a reasonable match between expectation and observation. Anthroprogenic factors dwarf natural factors by about an order of magnitude...at least after 1950 when the warming became most acute.

1 hour ago, blizzard1024 said:

Yes I agree that a doubling of CO2 would bring around 1.2C or so of warming. Modest warming, not a crisis. 

We've already had about 1.2C of warming since about 1850 and that's with about 1.5xCO2 and a +0.87 W/m^2 EEI that still hasn't equilibrated yet. Even if CO2 concentrations stabilized at the current 410 ppm level we still have several tenths of degree C to warm to work off that EEI and measure the ECS.

So the question for you is this...if CO2 is only 1/3'ish effective as the consensus then where are you going to get the other 2/3 energy required to produce the amount of warming we observe?

[donsutherland1]

12 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Those were the days- JFK was a far better president than any we have had since.  Even though the 60s were divisive, we became united under a single purpose; many lessons to be learned from that period for today.  People can still unite during a turbulent time in history.

JFK was charismatic and inspirational. I do believe we have had some very good Presidents since then and expect more in the future. The present is not the norm. Climate change wasn’t the preeminent issue then. We’ve seen lots of big problems—the Cold War, acid rain, the Ozone hole issue, financial crisis, etc., addressed. Bold leadership, which includes a binding challenge, will be needed to address climate change. The leadership component is what is needed. The recipe of a bold challenge has worked effectively when it came to the Manhattan and Apollo Projects. 

[LibertyBell]

Just now, donsutherland1 said:

JFK was charismatic and inspirational. I do believe we have had some very good Presidents since then and expect more in the future. The present is not the norm. Climate change wasn’t the preeminent issue then. We’ve seen lots of big problems—the Cold War, acid rain, the Ozone hole issue, financial crisis, etc., addressed. Bold leadership, which includes a binding challenge, will be needed to address climate change. The leadership component is what is needed. The recipe of a bold challenge has worked effectively when it came to the Manhattan and Apollo Projects. 

Yes the ozone hole crisis was actually handled well under conservative leadership!

 

[donsutherland1]

13 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Yes the ozone hole crisis was actually handled well under conservative leadership!

 

That was before the tragic divorce between conservatism and science. In the past, science was not what divided political groups.

I cannot think of a rational basis why conservatism, as traditionally conceived, should be reflexively anti-science. But it is today. I suspect that a lot of that has to do with the collapse of what was once an intellectual ecosystem and its replacement by often ignorant Talk Radio/Cable TV personalities whose understanding of public affairs and science is dim to non-existent. Contemporary American conservatism has become little more than a hollow movement aimed at perpetuating favored interest groups, including industries, regardless of evidence or facts, and often drawing upon conspiracy theories and irrational beliefs to justify its positions. This isn’t a healthy situation for the nation’s political affairs.

[LibertyBell]

7 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

That was before the tragic divorce between conservatism and science. In the past, science was not what divided political groups.

I cannot think of a rational basis why conservatism, as traditionally conceived, should be reflexively anti-science. But it is today. I suspect that a lot of that has to do with the collapse of what was once an intellectual ecosystem and its replacement by often ignorant Talk Radio/Cable TV personalities whose understanding of public affairs and science is dim to non-existent. Contemporary American conservatism has become little more than a hollow movement aimed at perpetuating favored interest groups, including industries, regardless of evidence or facts, and often drawing upon conspiracy theories and irrational beliefs to justify its positions. This isn’t a healthy situation for the nation’s political affairs.

The other thing I vividly remember is when conservatives were strong on conservation; not just Teddy Roosevelt, but the strong endangered species legislation often brought forth by conservative members of Congress.

I believe that today the degradation of our political system is due in no small part to the corrupt influences of industry/cartel dark money in politics.  You see this in healthcare too.

[blizzard1024]

10 hours ago, bdgwx said:

But after 1950 the net of all naturally modulated factors is far too low to explain the warming. It is so low, in fact, that naturally modulated factors may even be working to lower the EEI and thus put a cooling pressure on the climate.

I respectfully disagree here. How do they know? Climate models do not have this level of precision to make such claims.  If you believe the models yes, you are correct. I am skeptical of atmospheric models especially ones that don't forecast convection or clouds explicitly. 

[blizzard1024]

9 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

The other thing I vividly remember is when conservatives were strong on conservation; not just Teddy Roosevelt, but the strong endangered species legislation often brought forth by conservative members of Congress.

I believe that today the degradation of our political system is due in no small part to the corrupt influences of industry/cartel dark money in politics.  You see this in healthcare too.

Yep. I actually agree 100%. can you believe that? 

[donsutherland1]

3 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

I respectfully disagree here. How do they know? Climate models do not have this level of precision to make such claims.  If you believe the models yes, you are correct. I am skeptical of atmospheric models especially ones that don't forecast convection or clouds explicitly. 

For this to hold, then the nature of clouds, convection or both would have had to have undergone a dramatic change after 1950. Is there credible evidence for either outcome? 

Recognizing the role rising atmospheric greenhouse gases played, which is in line with what would be expected, and is confirmed by the modeling is the far safer conclusion. And it’s one for which there is overwhelming evidence. 

[LibertyBell]

5 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Yep. I actually agree 100%. can you believe that? 

Yes!  I think this is something everyone should agree about!  This is actually a global problem, not just a US problem.   I posted this on the political side too:

Big headlines about how Deutsche Bank, HSBC, JP Morgan Chase, Barclays, Mellon, etc., were subverting checks and balances in place by allowing one of Putin's ministers to pass over 2 trillion pounds in funds to Britain's conservative Tory party through multiple shell corporations.  The plot thickens!

 

So it's not enough that they rob us of our money with high interest rates and predatory lending practices and subsidize the dirty fossil fuel industry, they are also subverting democracy on the highest of levels too?  Enough of this!  I recommend everyone switch to community banks, which actually care about the communities they serve.

 

Looks like North Korea is in on it too (courtesy of wannabehippie from the Political forum):

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/banking-financial-institutions/517322-north-korea-laundering-money-through-us-banks

[bdgwx]

5 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

I respectfully disagree here. How do they know? Climate models do not have this level of precision to make such claims.  If you believe the models yes, you are correct. I am skeptical of atmospheric models especially ones that don't forecast convection or clouds explicitly. 

How do you know General Relativity is correct? It is but a model of gravity. I believe that model is correct because it makes predictions of the precession of Mercury, time dilation of the GPS satellites, etc. that match observations within a reasonable margin of error. It is the same with the consensus theory of climate change. We believe the models are correct because they makes predictions that match observations within a reasonable margin of error.

The natural-only or natural-mostly hypothesis makes predictions that deviate from observations by an unacceptable amount. The predictions are bad enough that they are off by an order of magnitude in predicting the EEI at least after 1950. In fact, they are so bad that they often cannot even predict the sign of the temperature change.

Ya know...I'm skeptical of quantum mechanics and general relativity. Between the two they make what is often called the worst prediction in all of science regarding the cosmological constant.  One or both of them is wrong by an amount so astonishing that we cannot even fathom it. But I still think QM and GR are useful and they are certainly better than nothing. The same can be said for the consensus theory of climate change. The models deployed are not perfect. They never will be. But they are undeniably useful and represent the best of what we have.

It is okay to advocate for natural-only or natural-mostly models for the post WWII era. But to convince cranky skeptics like me to use them in favor of what is already available you have to demonstrate that 1) they are testable, 2) they make useful predictions,  and 3) that they match reality better and/or are simpler in answering certain questions than what we already have. 

[skierinvermont]

20 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Wind is terrible for the environment. It destroys natural habitats, fragments forests, and yes it does kill birds, especially raptors which include eagles. The eagles finally make a comeback due to the environmental movements of the 1970s. Now ironically it is the same groups that will cause their demise.  Solar farms take up so much land that destroys habitats. So we wreck the planet to save the planet?  This is lunacy. 

As I've explained 4 times now, the bird deaths from wind are negligible. House cats kill far more birds. House windows kill far more birds. Should we all kill our cats and paint our windows black? Wind is almost entirely done on already very disrupted habitats already primarily on monoculture pesticide herbicide corn and soybean farms. 

The amount of land solar would require to power the entire U.S. takes up is less than .1% of agricultural land in the U.S. Should we get rid of all the farms that are 1000X more expansive? Solar can also be done on roofs and deserts, unlike agricultural land.

What is your problem? I have explained this 4 times now and you keep repeating the same brainwashed nonsense. Lies will never persuade anybody. You post these lies, I will correct them every single time, and you will lose credibility. And I will continue keeping track of how many times you repeat the same lie (4 for this particular lie). Either change your tune, or go post on some other forum where people are interested in your lies.

[blizzard1024]

1 hour ago, skierinvermont said:

As I've explained 4 times now, the bird deaths from wind are negligible. House cats kill far more birds. House windows kill far more birds. Should we all kill our cats and paint our windows black? Wind is almost entirely done on already very disrupted habitats already primarily on monoculture pesticide herbicide corn and soybean farms. 

The amount of land solar would require to power the entire U.S. takes up is less than .1% of agricultural land in the U.S. Should we get rid of all the farms that are 1000X more expansive? Solar can also be done on roofs and deserts, unlike agricultural land.

What is your problem? I have explained this 4 times now and you keep repeating the same brainwashed nonsense. Lies will never persuade anybody. You post these lies, I will correct them every single time, and you will lose credibility. And I will continue keeping track of how many times you repeat the same lie (4 for this particular lie). Either change your tune, or go post on some other forum where people are interested in your lies.

Really, try 4 times the state of SC for solar farms and wind energy. Green energy companies downplay bird deaths to make a money. They are just like any other big corporations. Solar farms same thing. Why not have panels on people's homes and buildings?  Because there would be no grid to sell you power.  The "green" corporate folks are looking to cash in on this exaggerated climate change predictions. You think they really care about the environment? Naive.   Any who the heck do you think you are?  I have explained to you dozens of times that CO2 does not drive climate and you don't listen. You say I am propagating lies? I could say the same thing about you. But I am not stooping to your level.  This is unfair and malicious of you. I continue to try to get you removed from this forum. This forum has no place for climate activists that are abusive and offensive to others. People like you are shutting down science. I hope I am successful in getting you removed. Maybe you can start you own forum and I won't be on it. 

 

 

[bluewave]

Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

By Warren CornwallDec. 4, 2019 , 12:00 PM

Climate change doubters have a favorite target: climate models. They claim that computer simulations conducted decades ago didn’t accurately predict current warming, so the public should be wary of the predictive power of newer models. Now, the most sweeping evaluation of these older models—some half a century old—shows most of them were indeed accurate.

“How much warming we are having today is pretty much right on where models have predicted,” says the study’s lead author, Zeke Hausfather, a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley.

Climate scientists first began to use computers to predict future global temperatures in the early 1970s. That’s when newfound computing power coincided with a growing realization that rising carbon dioxide levels could boost global temperatures. As the issue gained public attention, critics questioned the reliability of rudimentary model predictions. Even a 1989 news article in Science radiated skepticism, stating that “climatologists may have a gut feeling that the greenhouse effect is heating up Today, the models are much more sophisticated. Mainframe computers driven by paper punch cards have given way to supercomputers running trillions of calculations in 1 second. Modern models account for myriad interactions, including ice and snow, changes in forest coverage, and cloud formation—things that early modelers could only dream of doing. But Hausfather and his colleagues still wanted to see how accurate those bygone models really were.

The researchers compared annual average surface temperatures across the globe to the surface temperatures predicted in 17 forecasts. Those predictions were drawn from 14 separate computer models released between 1970 and 2001. In some cases, the studies and their computer codes were so old that the team had to extract data published in papers, using special software to gauge the exact numbers represented by points on a printed graph.

Most of the models accurately predicted recent global surface temperatures, which have risen approximately 0.9°C since 1970. For 10 forecasts, there was no statistically significant difference between their output and historic observations, the team reports today in Geophysical Research Letters.

Global temperatures have risen approximately 0.9°C since 1970, though some areas have warmed much more than others.

 

BERKELEY EARTH 

Seven older models missed the mark by as much as 0.1°C per decade. But the accuracy of five of those forecasts improved enough to match observations when the scientists adjusted a key input to the models: how much climate-changing pollution humans have emitted over the years. That includes greenhouse gases and aerosols, tiny particles that reflect sunlight. Pollution levels hinge on a host of unpredictable factors. Emissions might rise or fall because of regulations, technological advances, or economic booms and busts.

To take one example, Hausfather points to a famous 1988 model overseen by then–NASA scientist James Hansen. The model predicted that if climate pollution kept rising at an even pace, average global temperatures today would be approximately 0.3°C warmer than they actually are. That has helped make Hansen’s work a popular target for critics of climate science.

Hausfather found that most of this overshoot was caused not by a flaw in the model’s basic physics, however. Instead, it arose because pollution levels changed in ways Hansen didn’t predict. For example, the model overestimated the amount of methane—a potent greenhouse gas—that would go into the atmosphere in future years. It also didn’t foresee a precipitous drop in planet-warming refrigerants like some Freon compounds after international regulations from the Montreal Protocol became effective in 1989.

When Hausfather’s team set pollution inputs in Hansen’s model to correspond to actual historical levels, its projected temperature increases lined up with observed temperatures.

The new findings echo what many in the climate science world already know, says Piers Forster, an expert in climate modeling at the United Kingdom’s University of Leeds. Still, he says, “It’s nice to see it confirmed.”

Forster notes that even today’s computer programs have some uncertainties. But, “We know enough to trust our climate models” and their message that urgent action is needed, he says.

The new research is a useful exercise that “should provide some confidence that models can be used to help provide guidance regarding energy policies,” adds Hansen, now director of the Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions Program at Columbia University.

He communicated with Science from Madrid, where world leaders are gathering this week for the 25th annual United Nations climate conference. Delegates from around the world are negotiating how to implement emissions cuts agreed to at the 2016 meeting in Paris. Meanwhile, a U.N. report issued last month showed greenhouse gas emissions have continued to climb since then, and that many of the biggest polluting countries aren’t on track to meet their promises.

[donsutherland1]

24 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

By Warren CornwallDec. 4, 2019 , 12:00 PM

Climate change doubters have a favorite target: climate models. They claim that computer simulations conducted decades ago didn’t accurately predict current warming, so the public should be wary of the predictive power of newer models. Now, the most sweeping evaluation of these older models—some half a century old—shows most of them were indeed accurate.

“How much warming we are having today is pretty much right on where models have predicted,” says the study’s lead author, Zeke Hausfather, a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley.

Climate scientists first began to use computers to predict future global temperatures in the early 1970s. That’s when newfound computing power coincided with a growing realization that rising carbon dioxide levels could boost global temperatures. As the issue gained public attention, critics questioned the reliability of rudimentary model predictions. Even a 1989 news article in Science radiated skepticism, stating that “climatologists may have a gut feeling that the greenhouse effect is heating up Today, the models are much more sophisticated. Mainframe computers driven by paper punch cards have given way to supercomputers running trillions of calculations in 1 second. Modern models account for myriad interactions, including ice and snow, changes in forest coverage, and cloud formation—things that early modelers could only dream of doing. But Hausfather and his colleagues still wanted to see how accurate those bygone models really were.

The researchers compared annual average surface temperatures across the globe to the surface temperatures predicted in 17 forecasts. Those predictions were drawn from 14 separate computer models released between 1970 and 2001. In some cases, the studies and their computer codes were so old that the team had to extract data published in papers, using special software to gauge the exact numbers represented by points on a printed graph.

Most of the models accurately predicted recent global surface temperatures, which have risen approximately 0.9°C since 1970. For 10 forecasts, there was no statistically significant difference between their output and historic observations, the team reports today in Geophysical Research Letters.

Global temperatures have risen approximately 0.9°C since 1970, though some areas have warmed much more than others.

 

BERKELEY EARTH 

Seven older models missed the mark by as much as 0.1°C per decade. But the accuracy of five of those forecasts improved enough to match observations when the scientists adjusted a key input to the models: how much climate-changing pollution humans have emitted over the years. That includes greenhouse gases and aerosols, tiny particles that reflect sunlight. Pollution levels hinge on a host of unpredictable factors. Emissions might rise or fall because of regulations, technological advances, or economic booms and busts.

To take one example, Hausfather points to a famous 1988 model overseen by then–NASA scientist James Hansen. The model predicted that if climate pollution kept rising at an even pace, average global temperatures today would be approximately 0.3°C warmer than they actually are. That has helped make Hansen’s work a popular target for critics of climate science.

Hausfather found that most of this overshoot was caused not by a flaw in the model’s basic physics, however. Instead, it arose because pollution levels changed in ways Hansen didn’t predict. For example, the model overestimated the amount of methane—a potent greenhouse gas—that would go into the atmosphere in future years. It also didn’t foresee a precipitous drop in planet-warming refrigerants like some Freon compounds after international regulations from the Montreal Protocol became effective in 1989.

When Hausfather’s team set pollution inputs in Hansen’s model to correspond to actual historical levels, its projected temperature increases lined up with observed temperatures.

The new findings echo what many in the climate science world already know, says Piers Forster, an expert in climate modeling at the United Kingdom’s University of Leeds. Still, he says, “It’s nice to see it confirmed.”

Forster notes that even today’s computer programs have some uncertainties. But, “We know enough to trust our climate models” and their message that urgent action is needed, he says.

The new research is a useful exercise that “should provide some confidence that models can be used to help provide guidance regarding energy policies,” adds Hansen, now director of the Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions Program at Columbia University.

He communicated with Science from Madrid, where world leaders are gathering this week for the 25th annual United Nations climate conference. Delegates from around the world are negotiating how to implement emissions cuts agreed to at the 2016 meeting in Paris. Meanwhile, a U.N. report issued last month showed greenhouse gas emissions have continued to climb since then, and that many of the biggest polluting countries aren’t on track to meet their promises.

This was a hugely important study. It confirms what scientists have long expected from their work with the models. The models have been very useful in projecting the rise in temperatures once the correct emissions data has been included. The models also confirm the physical understanding of the science as it presently stands. There is no alternative framework that is even remotely in the same ballpark in explaining the observed warming or replicating it. Finally, that a large number of models have performed well destroys any argument of random chance that any given model performed well. It is the greenhouse gases that were incorporated in the models and that are responsible for the largest share of warming.

[chubbs]

10 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

I respectfully disagree here. How do they know? Climate models do not have this level of precision to make such claims.  If you believe the models yes, you are correct. I am skeptical of atmospheric models especially ones that don't forecast convection or clouds explicitly. 

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

 

[chubbs]

The chart below was made from forcing estimates and observed temperatures. No climate model.

https://www.globalwarmingindex.org/

[blizzard1024]

18 minutes ago, chubbs said:

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

 

What about ocean currents?  What about global cloud cover? What about global convection? You left off a bunch of stuff. That is why they invoke the use of climate models. But these models don't handle said clouds or convection explicitly. So it is a leap of faith to believe them....

[chubbs]

26 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

What about ocean currents?  What about global cloud cover? What about global convection? You left off a bunch of stuff. That is why they invoke the use of climate models. But these models don't handle said clouds or convection explicitly. So it is a leap of faith to believe them....

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.