March In Like a Lamb

[longview]

Yeah, it has changed significantly.

It really has not! The average has increased because of nighttime lows not going as low.
The diurnal asymmetry is nothing short of staggering.
This is the minimum temperatures for the same period,
0.22F per decade vs 0.06F per decade. Over 3 times as much low temperature change as high temperature change,
CO2 forcing would affect both!

 

[Helix]

It really has not! The average has increased because of nighttime lows not going as low.
The diurnal asymmetry is nothing short of staggering.
This is the minimum temperatures for the same period,
0.22F per decade vs 0.06F per decade. Over 3 times as much low temperature change as high temperature change,
CO2 forcing would affect both!
View attachment 67496498

I live here, and I watched it happen over the course of decades. If you want to play with your charts, have fun. Maybe if you print them out, you can make a nice fan for yourself to use on hot summer days. I'm not interested in your denialism, though. Save it for the tourists.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

I'm in my 70s... Lived in NY all my life... I haven't noticed much of a change in the summers here...

But the winters have changed a lot... I can't remember the last time we've had below zero weather here, but it use to be a yearly thing...

Most of the precipitation now in the winter is rain.. I haven't had to fire my snow blower up in over 2 years... I'm not complaining... Lol... Rain and 50 degrees here today... That's become typical...

 

[watsup]

Well, I am glad it picked Missouri this year, as we have had a nice mild winter.... semper fi

Global warming can be a positive influence at certain times of the year in certain areas, but overall it is a bane for humanity and is causing many problems on a worldwide basis.

 

[longview]

I live here, and I watched it happen over the course of decades. If you want to play with your charts, have fun. Maybe if you print them out, you can make a nice fan for yourself to use on hot summer days. I'm not interested in your denialism, though. Save it for the tourists.

Check your own location, NOAA is fully on board with AGW, why would they lie about the observed data.
I look at the summers of my teens (Early 1970's) and the big difference is nighttime lows not going as low.
This is also reflected in the national records. most of the people saying the highs are much higher as seeing
a result of aging and heat island effect.

 

[Buzz]

And our history of knowing what the jet streams were doing goes back how far?
The reality is that we do not know if our recent weather is unusual.
We do know the climate is changing, but linking that change to added CO2 is becoming more problematic
as we get more data. The Human activities of land use changes and aerosol dimming and brightening,
appear to be a much greater factor than the IPCC expressed, and CO2 hardly appears to be a factor at all.
Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate
The forcing warming is all happening in the Absorbed Solar Radiation (ASR) spectrum, something that greenhouse gases
do not affect.

Warning!

This is nothing but denialist lies. Not only does the data show that CO2 is still directly warming the planet but CO2 is also causing much, if not most of the indirect heating from the increase in absorbed solar radiation(it’s called a feedback). And if you actually go and read the study he cited, it explicitly states this.

Don’t believe anything this denialist says without fact checking him first.

 

[Buzz]

Has it really changed? The only thing I can say with any certainty is that Summer nights do not get as cool as they did in my youth.
NOAA climate at a glance
View attachment 67496475
Some states are higher but some are lower, 0.6F per decade is not a lot of warming.

Nice cherry-pick there long. You started your trend with the warmest period you could pick. This is just intellectually dishonest. Now if you pick a much more reasonable period of the last 40 years the trend is 0.48F/decade.

 

[longview]

Warning!

This is nothing but denialist lies. Not only does the data show that CO2 is still directly warming the planet but CO2 is also causing much, if not most of the indirect heating from the increase in absorbed solar radiation(it’s called a feedback). And if you actually go and read the study he cited, it explicitly states this.

Don’t believe anything this denialist says without fact checking him first.

Buzz feedback from what? What input caused the feedback, feedback is after a response to an input.
The CERES satellite data show that between 2002 and 2020, while the CO2 level rose, the downward longwave radiation decreased.
This is not ambiguous in any way, here is the quote from the study.
3.2.
Attribution of EEI Trends

We consider CERES TOA EEI trends for 09/2002–03/2020 and examine the underlying contributions from different atmospheric and surface variables available over that time period. Trends are determined from a least squares regression fit to deseasonalized monthly anomalies with uncertainties given as 5%–95% con-fidence intervals.For this period, the observations show a trend in net downward radiation of 0.41 ± 0.22 W m−2 decade−1that is the result of the sum of a 0.65 ± 0.17 W m−2 decade−1 trend in absorbed solar radiation (ASR) and a −0.24 ± 0.13 W m−2 decade−1 trend in downward radiation due to an increase in OLR (Figures 2a–2c). TOA fluxes are defined positive downwards so that a positive anomaly/trend corresponds to a heat gain and a negative anomaly corresponds to a heat loss. As such, emitted thermal radiation (ETR) is defined positive downward and is therefore equal to −OLR.

The portion of the spectrum that CO2 could effect (longwave radiation) lost energy as the CO2 levels increased.

 

[Buzz]

It really has not! The average has increased because of nighttime lows not going as low.
The diurnal asymmetry is nothing short of staggering.
This is the minimum temperatures for the same period,
0.22F per decade vs 0.06F per decade. Over 3 times as much low temperature change as high temperature change,
CO2 forcing would affect both!
View attachment 67496498

This is also wrong! If you don’t cherry-pick your time frame and also use the last 40 years instead of a ridiculous 90 years then the trend for minimum temperatures is only slightly higher than the maximum of 0.48F/decade at 0.54F/decade. There just isn’t that much of diurnal asymmetry anymore.

 

[longview]

Nice cherry-pick there long. You started your trend with the warmest period you could pick. This is just intellectually dishonest. Now if you pick a much more reasonable period of the last 40 years the trend is 0.48F/decade.

Actually I was trying to show a time period like an entire Human lifespan (90 years)
As for 40 years, who is cherry picking now?
Since year 2000 here is what we have seen
Max temps 0.41F per decade
Min Temps 0.61F per decade
Still a lot of asymmetry.
Do you think people can really perceive a 0.8F change over 20 years, in the daily summer highs.
Age and weight have a much grater impact on such perceptions.

 

[longview]

This is also wrong! If you don’t cherry-pick your time frame and also use the last 40 years instead of a ridiculous 90 years then the trend for minimum temperatures is only slightly higher than the maximum of 0.48F/decade at 0.54F/decade. There just isn’t that much of diurnal asymmetry anymore.

That is for your cherry picked time frame, likely where the two got closest.
how many pairs did you have to try to find that combination?

 

[Buzz]

Buzz feedback from what? What input caused the feedback, feedback is after a response to an input.
The CERES satellite data show that between 2002 and 2020, while the CO2 level rose, the downward longwave radiation decreased.
This is not ambiguous in any way, here is the quote from the study.
3.2.
Attribution of EEI Trends

The portion of the spectrum that CO2 could effect (longwave radiation) lost energy as the CO2 levels increased.

Look long… I have explained this to you numerous times with both quotes and screenshots from the study you constantly cite. If you haven’t figured out where you are wrong by now then you are either intellectually dishonest or incapable of understanding.
Sorry… but I am not going to waste my time telling you the same thing for the fifth or sixth time.

 

[longview]

Look long… I have explained this to you numerous times with both quotes and screenshots from the study you constantly cite. If you haven’t figured out where you are wrong by now then you are either intellectually dishonest or incapable of understanding.
Sorry… but I am not going to waste my time telling you the same thing for the fifth or sixth time.

Buzz, I am not wrong, it is you who cannot understand the data.
There cannot be a negative forcing number as the CO2 level increase.
CO2 can only directly affect longwave radiation energy imbalance.
Warming feedback can affect Absorbed Solar radiation, but to get there added CO2 would first have to cause some warming,
via a positive energy imbalance.
All the empirical data we have on the subject, show that added CO2 is not causing a positive energy imbalance,
so it cannot be causing any warming.

 

[Buzz]

Actually I was trying to show a time period like an entire Human lifespan (90 years)

Seriously? How many people here do you think are 90 years old? I think it is much more likely you picked that timeframe because it gave you the lowest decadal trend.

As for 40 years, who is cherry picking now?

40 years is a much more commonly used time frame by serious scientists.

Since year 2000 here is what we have seen
Max temps 0.41F per decade
Min Temps 0.61F per decade

Not that much different than the trend for 40 years. And a hell of a lot closer than your ridiculous 90 years.

Still a lot of asymmetry.

Yeah… less than double but no where near your almost 4 times difference.

Do you think people can really perceive a 0.8F change over 20 years, in the daily summer highs.
Age and weight have a much grater impact on such perceptions.

People’s perceptions are anecdotal and shouldn’t really be used in science.

 

[longview]

Seriously? How many people here do you think are 90 years old? I think it is much more likely you picked that timeframe because it gave you the lowest decadal trend.

40 years is a much more commonly used time frame by serious scientists.

Not that much different than the trend for 40 years. And a hell of a lot closer than your ridiculous 90 years.

Yeah… less than double but no where near your almost 4 times difference.

People’s perceptions are anecdotal and shouldn’t really be used in science.

Yet that is what is being discussed here, how it seems hotter than when we were young.

 

[Buzz]

That is for your cherry picked time frame, likely where the two got closest.
how many pairs did you have to try to find that combination?

I didn’t look for the closest. And I chose 40 years and was checking the “Climate at a glance” site before you ever mentioned diurnal asymmetry.

 

[Buzz]

Yet that is what is being discussed here, how it seems hotter than when we were young.

So you cite cherry-picked data just because some were giving their perceptions? Sounds like a lame excuse to me.

 

[longview]

I didn’t look for the closest. And I chose 40 years and was checking the “Climate at a glance” site before you ever mentioned diurnal asymmetry.

Fair enough, but why do you deny what the CERES satellite data shows?

 

[longview]

So you cite cherry-picked data just because some were giving their perceptions? Sounds like a lame excuse to me.

When someone says something like ,
"Yep. Summer used to be my favorite. Now it's too hot. Just over the course of my life, it has really changed."
do you think that is a perception?

 

[Buzz]

Buzz, I am not wrong,

Yes, you are. The study you are citing says this explicitly.

it is you who cannot understand the data.

I understand the data just fine.

There cannot be a negative forcing number as the CO2 level increase.

The negative forcing is not caused by CO2. It is due the warming of the planet. The study also says this.

CO2 can only directly affect longwave radiation energy imbalance.

No duh.

Warming feedback can affect Absorbed Solar radiation, but to get there added CO2 would first have to cause some warming,
via a positive energy imbalance.

What do you think has been happening since man started pumping mass amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere?

All the empirical data we have on the subject, show that added CO2 is not causing a positive energy imbalance,
so it cannot be causing any warming.

Bullshit. Your cited study says it is.

When are you going to quit lying about the science?

 

[Buzz]

Fair enough, but why do you deny what the CERES satellite data shows?

I’m not the one denying what the data says. That would be you.

 

[Buzz]

When someone says something like ,
"Yep. Summer used to be my favorite. Now it's too hot. Just over the course of my life, it has really changed."
do you think that is a perception?

Of course it is. But does that really justify you cherry-picking data?

 

[longview]

Yes, you are. The study you are citing says this explicitly.

I understand the data just fine.

The negative forcing is not caused by CO2. It is due the warming of the planet. The study also says this.

No duh.

What do you think has been happening since man started pumping mass amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere?

Bullshit. Your cited study says it is.

When are you going to quit lying about the science?

Buzz, if the planet warming would overwhelm CO2 forcing, then CO2 would not be a greenhouse gas.
The reduced outgoing longwave radiation has to be greater than the increase from blackbody radiation.
if this did not happen, there would be no positive energy imbalance, and no warming.

 

[longview]

Of course it is. But does that really justify you cherry-picking data?

If you want to say it has warmed, then you compare it to earlier warm periods.
Almost everyone acknowledges that the 1930's was a very warm period.

 

[Buzz]

Buzz, if the planet warming would overwhelm CO2 forcing, then CO2 would not be a greenhouse gas.

Just because a warming planet radiates more energy out into space does not mean that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas. This is just dumb.

The reduced outgoing longwave radiation has to be greater than the increase from blackbody radiation.
if this did not happen, there would be no positive energy imbalance, and no warming.

Wrong! If it didn’t work this way that the earth wouldn’t ever be able to return to equilibrium.

You clearly don’t understand how this works