I hope it's a lot, since we are in a CO2 famine.

What are "real scientists?" What are the REQUIREMENTS for being a scientist? Apparently, everyone that studies, researches, experiments, etc is considered a scientist.

M-Webster:
"A scientist is a person who studies science and especially natural science."

Where do stats come from? Are they scientific guesses, or are they actual measurements and facts? If someone shows proof of scientific measurement stats over a period of time, do they have to be approved by a ""scientist"" in order to be consider relevant?

"Well, scientist say....blah, blah, blah..."

Just saying....:ho:

We had the coolest summer up north in 8 years. Two 90 degree days all summer. Normally 10 to 15. I will admit, when it wasn't raining it was pretty nice.

Get a clue dude, your embarrassing yourself, again.

Subscribe to the AMS Journal of Climate, a peer reviewed journal. Read AR6, the summaries are sufficient. Ignore politicians, talking heads, and anyone, particularly a few clueless individuals who post here, who takes an extreme positions such as the world will end soon or there isn't any anthropogenic warming.

Legitimate climate peer-review is a myth following climategate.

Exactly how many peer reviewed papers do you have in AMS Journals?

Here we go again! It's colder today therefore, global warming is defunct. It's hotter today, therefore it proves global warming, Get ready for all of the village experts and another barrage of waisted time.

Ok, stop wasting time ... how much did man-made CO2 warm the earth last year?

OP stated nothing about cold weather. Increased precipitation is a result of global warming. This includes an abundance of snow fall.

Not exactly. The impact of warmer lower tropospheric temperatures is increased precipitation in some areas and decreased precipitation in other areas. With warmer temperatures, you will realize increased evaporation. This will increase the amount of water in the atmosphere (and available to rain out) but also increase drying in other areas. So far, anthropogenic warming has been mild; estimated at about 1C for the global surface temperature anomaly. Projected anthropogenic warming increases over the rest of the century will likely cause increased variability in precipitation.

"1C" warming via man-made CO2 is not a fact ... but we do know that we are still thawing out from the Little Ice Age regardless of what we do.

One thing is certain, there is a lot of hot air being created by this debate.

Your lack of understanding is remarkable. There has been some natural warming because we are in an interglacial period. We know there has been anthropogenic warming because of our understanding of radiative transfer physics and analysis of real data. The signature is quite clear from observations of stratospheric cooling and lower tropospheric warming, that matches Manabe's theory from 45 years ago. As I stated, the best estimate of anthropogenic warming is about 1C. The fact that you don't believe it is inconsequential. You may wish to actually try reading the AR6 instead of pulling up some graphic from 30 years ago that actually has nothing to do with anthropogenic warming.

Between you and me, I think he knows but just likes to argue.

You can claim to be a wizard, or man created the 1C change ... but without proof you only have wishful thinking. CO2 is not a control knob - as history clearly shows.

Feel free to continue your membership in the Flat Earth Society. Still waiting to hear how many peer reviewed AMS journal papers you have published. By the way, I can always tell when someone can't support their argument. They resort to strawman arguments and then say "you can't prove it". In reality, few things are actually provable. For example, F=MA cannot be proven. There is a large body of data to suggest that it is essentially correct. The same thing applies to the Navier-Stokes equations. $1M awaits anyone who can prove a solution exists. Regardless, the N-S equations have been shown to be accurate for a variety of applications. The body of evidence supporting anthropogenic warming is large and has withstood critical examination.

"Can it be too cold to snow? It can snow when it’s very cold. As a matter of fact, snow can fall even in the coldest places on Earth, such as Antarctica, where temperatures are well below zero."

-EarthSky.org

The reason you don't often see snow with cold temperatures is because the cold temperatures are often associated with the subsidence behind a low pressure system - that is where the cold air is typically. However, low pressure systems, which create rising motion ahead of where they are tracking, can and do exist in what you consider to be cold air. For snow, you need rising motion, some moisture, and cold enough temperatures. The amount of moisture that the air can hold is exponentially related to temperature so warmer air has greater potential for higher snow amounts. However, low pressure centers can create a large amount of moisture convergence even with what you would consider to be low temperatures.


Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby View Post
Also when the temperature drops below 0°F for a few days in a row, you'll rarely see snow. In Alaska, it's pretty common to have 0-degree temps this time of year. The fact that it's snowing in record amounts means - it is WARM enough to snow, when normally it would not be.

Then show the body of evidence ... peer-reviewed proof of how much man-made CO2 warmed the earth last year.

Since you aren't a scientist, apparently have never published any papers, and appear to suffer from confirmation bias, I guess we can't expect you to understand much about the science or the peer review process. Short term (high wavenumber temporal fluctuations) variations aren't really worth looking at since they are implicit in the climate system. Longer term trends are what should be looked at. The anthropogenic warming of 1C is over decades. Roy Spencer has a 40 year satellite database. You know the one. You cherry picked a short period of his data and never referenced him. Very bad form and scientifically dishonest. Also, nothing goes through the peer review process very quickly - I know from experience. Regardless, read AR6. There are plenty of references in there. It sound like you have a reading comprehension problem as I never said there was any peer reviewed articles about last year. Strawman arguments are always weak and disingenuous.

I'm not a scientist and especially not an expert. I'm just a data analyst. Scientists and experts are often self-anointed and problematic -- like Michael Mann. Remember ... Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

You can claim you are a data analyst but you aren't very good at it. You cherry picked 7 years out of Roy Spencer's 40+ year satellite dataset (which has a lot of short term variations) and picked a high starting point to try to make a strawman argument. This is very bad behavior and would get you laughed at in a scientific forum. A data analyst might have run an FFT over the data to start with to understand the trend. Since you admit you don't know the science, why don't you stop making false claims about a subject you clearly don't understand?

Thank you

How much did man-made CO2 warm the earth last year? Show me the data - cherries and all.

I believe you have a reading comprehension problem. Did you miss the part about longer term trends because the data is noisy? Do you not understand anything about data analysis? Read AR6 and then come back. Until then, feel free to carry on with someone from your Flat Earth Society.

Latest news, Travel chaos as snowfall blankets Europe, Munich airport brought to standstill, Private jets headed to global warming conference frozen on runway.

Just as I thought. The answer does not exist. There is no peer-reviewed proof that man-made CO2 has warmed earth. Note that during the China Flu shut-down, the rise of CO2 did not flinch - it just kept rising ... quite embarrassing to the global warming movement.

Aircraft are having trouble flying through global warming.

Sometimes you give me a genuine laugh.