|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 17, 2018 15:35:30 GMT
An interesting set of old discredited responses and give away ad hominems
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 17, 2018 15:41:10 GMT
atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/acp-2017-1236/acp-2017-1236.pdf …
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 17, 2018 15:41:42 GMT
I went out and retrieved the monthly 500 hPA temperature anomaly data for 20 N to 20 S for 1979 to 2017. Here are the plots for Dec to Feb, and June-Aug. The curve is concave with a low point at about solar minimum between SC22 and SC23. Anomalies are highest in Dec-Feb post ENSO and variance is greater than June-Aug. Comments on what we are seeing here? Question to me, which will require a bit of research unless someone knows it off the tip of their hat? Variation, by season, with temperature. 20N-20S should NOT vary this much? There is an orbital factor at play....yes. Perihelion/aphelion. Thinking....thinking.... Missouri: Can you overlay the graphs? Bold colors for each? No, scratch that. I may have to try and print these out. There is something here.....isn't there? There appears to be a temporal Wave here. Are we seeing lagged ENSO results in the upper Troposphere?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 17, 2018 16:12:08 GMT
Question to me, which will require a bit of research unless someone knows it off the tip of their hat? There appears to be a temporal Wave here. Are we seeing lagged ENSO results in the upper Troposphere? It certainly appears to be evident.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 17, 2018 16:14:33 GMT
Note the connections prior to 1998, and then the meandering disconnect after.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 18, 2018 15:24:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 18, 2018 15:38:33 GMT
And so the slow walk back begins. I detect some climate 'scientists' trying to ease off the tiger they are riding.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 18, 2018 16:25:57 GMT
"Hell, you might even call it vaguely optimistic." Maybe ... but ... someone didn't get the memo. Humans now 'dwarf natural climate effects'The acting director of the UK Met Office, Prof Peter Stott, told BBC News: "It's extraordinary that temperatures in 2017 have been so high when there's no El Niño. In fact, we’ve been going into cooler La Niña conditions. "Last year was substantially warmer than 1998 which had a very big El Niño. "It shows clearly that the biggest natural influence on the climate is being dwarfed by human activities – predominantly CO₂ emissions." He said uncertainties arising from incomplete global coverage of weather stations had been included in the calculations. I am sure that's true. www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42736397
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 18, 2018 16:30:32 GMT
There are a lot of assumptions used in that incomplete coverage.
Also, everything is relative to how big that dwarf is.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 18, 2018 18:11:41 GMT
"Hell, you might even call it vaguely optimistic." Maybe ... but ... someone didn't get the memo. Humans now 'dwarf natural climate effects'The acting director of the UK Met Office, Prof Peter Stott, told BBC News: "It's extraordinary that temperatures in 2017 have been so high when there's no El Niño. In fact, we’ve been going into cooler La Niña conditions. "Last year was substantially warmer than 1998 which had a very big El Niño. "It shows clearly that the biggest natural influence on the climate is being dwarfed by human activities – predominantly CO₂ emissions." He said uncertainties arising from incomplete global coverage of weather stations had been included in the calculations. I am sure that's true. www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42736397The good professor does not know what he is talking about. He doesn't seem to understand the amount of energy that there is in the atmosphere and the oceans. Does he really think that the El Nino energy is in anyway 'dwarfed' by human activity? a single hurricane in a single day takes energy from the surface of the sea that is equivalent to 200 times the world electricity generation capacity. And yet the trail only just shows in the sea surface temperatures. www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/D7.htmlCan anyone produce any real evidence that CO2 has caused any change in temperatures in the earth's atmosphere?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 18, 2018 20:26:05 GMT
"Hell, you might even call it vaguely optimistic." Maybe ... but ... someone didn't get the memo. Humans now 'dwarf natural climate effects'The acting director of the UK Met Office, Prof Peter Stott, told BBC News: "It's extraordinary that temperatures in 2017 have been so high when there's no El Niño. In fact, we’ve been going into cooler La Niña conditions. "Last year was substantially warmer than 1998 which had a very big El Niño. "It shows clearly that the biggest natural influence on the climate is being dwarfed by human activities – predominantly CO₂ emissions." He said uncertainties arising from incomplete global coverage of weather stations had been included in the calculations. I am sure that's true. www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42736397The good professor does not know what he is talking about. He doesn't seem to understand the amount of energy that there is in the atmosphere and the oceans. Does he really think that the El Nino energy is in anyway 'dwarfed' by human activity? a single hurricane in a single day takes energy from the surface of the sea that is equivalent to 200 times the world electricity generation capacity. And yet the trail only just shows in the sea surface temperatures. www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/D7.htmlCan anyone produce any real evidence that CO2 has caused any change in temperatures in the earth's atmosphere? Acknowledging CO2 physical properties, CO2 does act as a radiative gas. An increase in CO2 in the upper Troposphere/Strat will act as a conveyor of energy. Higher number, greater conveyance. Temperature IS a measured state of energy. Increase the abundance of energy, the temperature IS going to rise.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 18, 2018 20:41:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 18, 2018 21:39:53 GMT
No that is claim - not evidence Temperature in a gas is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the molecule's in a volume and it is claimed the potentital energy where convection moves the molecules higher. A CO2 molecule absorbing and almost immediately re-radiating a photon of infrared will not have altered kinetic energy. The only way that CO2 being hit by a photon of IR can raise the kinetic energy of the volume is by collision with another molecule and (it is claimed) pass the vibrational energy to the colliding molecule where it speeds up the colliding molecule increasing its kinetic energy - this works both ways so a collision may reduce the kinetic energy of the colliding molecule and become vibrational energy of the CO2 molecule that can then be radiated or passed on by collision. Collisions are rare in the upper atmosphere and therefore CO2 will tend to cool the upper atmosphere by radiating infrared.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 18, 2018 23:30:15 GMT
Copied all these NCDC data. Extracted the monthly mean temperature data for Missouri's six climate regions ... extracted the one Columbia is located in ... and compared my Columbia, Missouri monthly data base acquired from available raw data files. Chart 1 shows winter and summer monthly and 3-Month running deviations in the mean from the 123-year mean for both data sets. I've offset the results on two separate axies. Visually they look similar. But sometimes differences are subtle. SO ... Chart 2 shows the deviation from the deviations. Such an upward winter slope is unlikely to be a coincidence. Of course this is only one location ... but if I were the newly appointed head of this statistical unit, I think I might ask some questions.
|
|
|
Post by mondeoman on Jan 18, 2018 23:30:59 GMT
Tropospheric hot spot? I thought that had been debunked thoroughly....
|
|