|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 21, 2016 15:12:17 GMT
Not to mention areas south of equator in afRica and americas have vast high concentrations..... Mature trees give off more CO2 than they convert in photosynthesis - so that is what I would expect given the jungles in those areas of Africa and South America. Ants and termites also generate more CO2 than humanity and all its cement works, coal-fired power stations and SUVs. Were tropical storm Fiona to get organized for one day into a hurricane, then in that one day Fiona would extract more energy from the oceans than 200 times the world electricity generation capacity. It might be difficult for those with hubris overload to take, but humanity is really only a bit player in nature.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 17, 2016 21:33:14 GMT
www.nature.com/articles/srep33315The rate at which the global average surface temperature is increasing has slowed down since the end of the last century. This study investigates whether this warming hiatus results from a change in the well-known greenhouse effect. Using long-term, reliable, and consistent observational data from the Earth’s surface and the top of the atmosphere (TOA), two monthly gridded atmospheric and surface greenhouse effect parameters (Ga and Gs) are estimated to represent the radiative warming effects of the atmosphere and the surface in the infrared range from 1979 to 2014. The atmospheric and surface greenhouse effect over the tropical monsoon-prone regions is found to contribute substantially to the global total. Furthermore, the downward tendency of cloud activity leads to a greenhouse effect hiatus after the early 1990 s, prior to the warming pause. Additionally, this pause in the greenhouse effect is mostly caused by the high number of La Niña events between 1991 and 2014. A strong La Niña indicates suppressed convection in the tropical central Pacific that reduces atmospheric water vapor content and cloud volume. This significantly weakened regional greenhouse effect offsets the enhanced warming influence in other places and decelerates the rising global greenhouse effect. This work suggests that the greenhouse effect hiatus can be served as an additional factor to cause the recent global warming slowdown.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Oct 16, 2016 4:53:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Dec 30, 2016 10:44:00 GMT
So October 15' to October 16' comes in at 3.71 ppm which , according to NOAA/ESRL, is a record in their records. That would be the same year we were all patting one another on the back for dropping our human contributions ( esp. some play sites that went very big on the tale?) And what of the ten years up to October? Well that would be 22.47ppm....... another record high rise. Take a look at the plot above and look at the numbers for the Super Nino year of 98' ( when we weren't trying to reduce emissions), see that? So why are our numbers growing so much if we are putting out less and less CO2 ourselves. In 2015 we blamed outputs from the Permafrost/Soils across the far north. This year we said 'Nino'( but I guess that was the bit on top of the permafrost/soils?). Anyone care to have a punt for next years tally?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 30, 2016 11:08:34 GMT
GW you do realize you are using a grossly adjusted dataset where the adjustments to previous temperatures have a better correlation with CO2 levels than the temperatures you are quoting?
Adjustments to data are inversely proportional to ethics.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Dec 30, 2016 11:19:24 GMT
It is funny when you do that Here in the UK the nasties tend to declare that they " do not recognise the findings of the report" ( even when they ordered it and filled the personnel slots with folk they wanted???). So where does that leave us? EDIT: I do not recall mentioning 'temps' in my post? Why would I? We are still waiting for 'dimming' to reduce back to 'natural' so that the full wallop of energy entering the top of our atmosphere reaches the ground and then is absorbed in the infra red as it is re-emitted. In the mid noughties NASA told us that dimming meant that up to 50% of the potential warming was being lost. Of course the GHG stays with us and so will, eventually, give us its full attentions but up until then we will continue to bump along as we are. The good news is Asia is attempting to clean up its act and we are helping them with the technologies we developed when we realised killing our own wasn't a good thing. SO2 has around a seven year life in the atmosphere before it is washed out. Particulates wash out in the first rains. I'd suggest watching temp records over the coming years. Let's see if reduced dimming, open water Arctic and ever increasing natural GHG production ( via sink failures and permafrost/northern soil contributions) make any difference? Man was never going to change climate on his own in the same way he couldn't move a mountain with his bare hands. but those bare hands could press a detonator or turn an ignition key...... we lit the blue touch paper and now Mother N. will do the rest. Sadly parts of the world scrambling to clean up urban atmosphere's will only serve to speed up Mother N's work
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Dec 30, 2016 11:26:17 GMT
With a load of useless data??
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 30, 2016 12:02:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Dec 30, 2016 12:15:00 GMT
It is funny when you do that Here in the UK the nasties tend to declare that they " do not recognise the findings of the report" ( even when they ordered it and filled the personnel slots with folk they wanted???). So where does that leave us? EDIT: I do not recall mentioning 'temps' in my post? Why would I? We are still waiting for 'dimming' to reduce back to 'natural' so that the full wallop of energy entering the top of our atmosphere reaches the ground and then is absorbed in the infra red as it is re-emitted. In the mid noughties NASA told us that dimming meant that up to 50% of the potential warming was being lost. Of course the GHG stays with us and so will, eventually, give us its full attentions but up until then we will continue to bump along as we are. The good news is Asia is attempting to clean up its act and we are helping them with the technologies we developed when we realised killing our own wasn't a good thing. SO2 has around a seven year life in the atmosphere before it is washed out. Particulates wash out in the first rains. I'd suggest watching temp records over the coming years. Let's see if reduced dimming, open water Arctic and ever increasing natural GHG production ( via sink failures and permafrost/northern soil contributions) make any difference? Man was never going to change climate on his own in the same way he couldn't move a mountain with his bare hands. but those bare hands could press a detonator or turn an ignition key...... we lit the blue touch paper and now Mother N. will do the rest. Sadly parts of the world scrambling to clean up urban atmosphere's will only serve to speed up Mother N's work I've been reading speculative fiction (SF) since I was knee high to a witch doctor. Love the stuff. But when the contractor tells me that my house's foundation is going to dissolve away beneath my feet if I don't make some very expensive changes which he is selling. I might be forgiven for demanding a detailed explanation of how all of this is going to happen. Exactly how do these changes in extremely small concentrations of the GHGs heat the oceans and consequently, the atmosphere to levels that become catastrophic? It's such a small thing to ask is it not?
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Dec 30, 2016 14:49:01 GMT
We're not talking about piffling amounts here. the atmosphere that flooded us here last year on Boxing day was carrying twice the loading that it carried at the peak of the 1998 Super Nino.
CO2 is the touch paper and is turning into a deniers 'straw man', why we ain't even seeing its full forcing yet ,both because of climate inertia and the flip side of the pollution created by burning stuff ( global dimming reducing warming by up to 50%),
I think we'll find the new found ability to carry vast amounts of water vapour ( and the heat it carries) will do damage ( as the ice mission 'N-ICE 2015' found over one 48hr period as a storm rolled in raising temps from minus 40f to 32f over the period whilst the airs moisture content increased ten fold).
If you are looking for a bogey man look to the alterations in the running of the atmosphere from the stratosphere, nay, Mesosphere, down and the impact the 1.2c warming since 1880 means to its ability to carry water. We are losing the Arctic not through summer sunshine but winter warmth ( as we saw last year?) and a blue ocean Arctic will raise global temps far faster than CO2 has managed thus far but then that increased CO2 will hold onto that 'new heat' far better than the 1880 levels would have been able to. Of course all these changes will equally promote mega droughts in prone areas too ( areas we see occasional mega droughts occur in the paleo records will see more frequent events in our warmer future?).
Then what will that warmer Arctic do to all that carbon stored across the north?
And what will happen when China gets on top of its pollution issues and we see dimming tank as it should have done when we in the west cleaned up and the USSR collapsed ? That " loss of up to 50% in warming " that NASA advised us of in the noughties will pile on in as well ( but be held longer because of all that extra GHG potential.
This is the thing that worries me. We have two new warming spike to absorb on top of the slow 'drip ,drip' AGW warming. We know Nino didn't cause all the warming in this years record warm year as we saw both 2014 and 2015 post records too? How do we peel back Arctic input from Dimming reduction from natural cycle switch to increased GHG forcing to Nino impacts?
I guess 2017 will give us a hint when we see how far short of 2016 it falls? Of course if we see the blue Ocean event this summer all bets are off as we would be talking nearly twice the energy of the 98' Nino pouring into the system over September/October/November and that might skew things a tad
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Dec 30, 2016 15:29:49 GMT
We're not talking about piffling amounts here. the atmosphere that flooded us here last year on Boxing day was carrying twice the loading that it carried at the peak of the 1998 Super Nino. CO2 is the touch paper and is turning into a deniers 'straw man', why we ain't even seeing its full forcing yet ,both because of climate inertia and the flip side of the pollution created by burning stuff ( global dimming reducing warming by up to 50%), I think we'll find the new found ability to carry vast amounts of water vapour ( and the heat it carries) will do damage ( as the ice mission 'N-ICE 2015' found over one 48hr period as a storm rolled in raising temps from minus 40f to 32f over the period whilst the airs moisture content increased ten fold). If you are looking for a bogey man look to the alterations in the running of the atmosphere from the stratosphere, nay, Mesosphere, down and the impact the 1.2c warming since 1880 means to its ability to carry water. We are losing the Arctic not through summer sunshine but winter warmth ( as we saw last year?) and a blue ocean Arctic will raise global temps far faster than CO2 has managed thus far but then that increased CO2 will hold onto that 'new heat' far better than the 1880 levels would have been able to. Of course all these changes will equally promote mega droughts in prone areas too ( areas we see occasional mega droughts occur in the paleo records will see more frequent events in our warmer future?). Then what will that warmer Arctic do to all that carbon stored across the north? And what will happen when China gets on top of its pollution issues and we see dimming tank as it should have done when we in the west cleaned up and the USSR collapsed ? That " loss of up to 50% in warming " that NASA advised us of in the noughties will pile on in as well ( but be held longer because of all that extra GHG potential. This is the thing that worries me. We have two new warming spike to absorb on top of the slow 'drip ,drip' AGW warming. We know Nino didn't cause all the warming in this years record warm year as we saw both 2014 and 2015 post records too? How do we peel back Arctic input from Dimming reduction from natural cycle switch to increased GHG forcing to Nino impacts? I guess 2017 will give us a hint when we see how far short of 2016 it falls? Of course if we see the blue Ocean event this summer all bets are off as we would be talking nearly twice the energy of the 98' Nino pouring into the system over September/October/November and that might skew things a tad I have no problem with the thesis as a thesis ... but 'climate change', as defined by winter warming appears to have been happening since the close of the last major ice age, The recent effects are clearly visible in the CET record since its inception with only minor wiggles ... a slow, relatively continuous increase of about 2C in about 350 years. While England does not represent the World, there appears nary a statistical trace of man's effect in this record. Summer temperatures were as warm in 1772 as they are now. Being a fiscal conservative, I have to ask why should we spend trillions that will affect billions on a thesis where the actual mechanics cannot be specified in definitive statistical terms that show up as evidence in the real world? Likely my Celtic ancestors survived worse in the ages after which they migrated into what is today western Europe ... and that 'worse' was likely due to cold and not heat. The mechanics of catastrophic change have not been demonstrated in any convincing statistical way. And yes, I think we will be seeing 'something' clarifying in the next decade. Nothing personal ... but I'm from Missouri and you have to 'show me'.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 30, 2016 16:05:47 GMT
And - due to the logarithmic nature of the CO2 effect (in a static slab atmosphere with no convection) the next doubling will have half the effect. It is like painting a window black; once it has a full coat of black paint no matter how many times it is painted the amount of light stopped is the same.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Dec 30, 2016 16:54:47 GMT
Trillions of dollars on it? That will not occur until the people rise up and demand it and they , like you, will not raise a finger until they are scared for themselves.
If we are now into a renewed warming spike (now that the naturals have flipped to augmenting AGW warming) then it may not take too long for folk to begin fearing for their own existence as is.
The problem being the 'Trump effect'. Just how will his admin add into all of this?
I do not mean pouring GHG's galore into the atmosphere or pulling down every solar panel but the emboldening of the folk who deny AGW as an effect and all the impacts they were told it would bring.
Should I prove correct and we see a blue ocean event before the decade is out (whilst seeing another Nino in 2019/20) what will the already breaking climate system do in response? Our Past Nino is being touted as a reason for our QBO still running rogue so what impacts an nino plus near 2 Nino's forcing from the B.O.E. and all over a 12 month period bring?
The only time the planet has ever dealt with such a rapid rate of change as we have been imparting over the last century and a half has been under large impactor forcings or VEI5 eruptions and then things appear to pretty much settle back down after a couple of decades (unless there has been large GHG additions over the event?)
We are told our GHG forcings will be with us for over a millennia and though the peturbations may subside as we 'swap up' to the new raised global temps the 'new' climate will be near instantly imposed ( blue ocean events becoming the norm and a global rush for renewables dropping out the 'dimming' over the first 2 decades). But then what of our promised 'Methane Burp'?
So what will the folk who insisted it was all just balderdash do when they see what is occurring and how much of it they had been warned of but not only chose to ignore the advice but actively railed against it? What of their social standing/credibility thereafter?
Will it bring about the destruction of the American dream and hand everything, for decades, over to the 'New Democrats' as the likes of Sanders sweep into office on the back of a popularist uprising?
When they realise they have facilitated the rise of the United Socialist States of America and Trump lead them blindly into it just how will they feel..........
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Dec 30, 2016 17:43:21 GMT
We're not talking about piffling amounts here. the atmosphere that flooded us here last year on Boxing day was carrying twice the loading that it carried at the peak of the 1998 Super Nino. CO2 is the touch paper and is turning into a deniers 'straw man', why we ain't even seeing its full forcing yet ,both because of climate inertia and the flip side of the pollution created by burning stuff ( global dimming reducing warming by up to 50%), I think we'll find the new found ability to carry vast amounts of water vapour ( and the heat it carries) will do damage ( as the ice mission 'N-ICE 2015' found over one 48hr period as a storm rolled in raising temps from minus 40f to 32f over the period whilst the airs moisture content increased ten fold). If you are looking for a bogey man look to the alterations in the running of the atmosphere from the stratosphere, nay, Mesosphere, down and the impact the 1.2c warming since 1880 means to its ability to carry water. We are losing the Arctic not through summer sunshine but winter warmth ( as we saw last year?) and a blue ocean Arctic will raise global temps far faster than CO2 has managed thus far but then that increased CO2 will hold onto that 'new heat' far better than the 1880 levels would have been able to. Of course all these changes will equally promote mega droughts in prone areas too ( areas we see occasional mega droughts occur in the paleo records will see more frequent events in our warmer future?). Then what will that warmer Arctic do to all that carbon stored across the north? And what will happen when China gets on top of its pollution issues and we see dimming tank as it should have done when we in the west cleaned up and the USSR collapsed ? That " loss of up to 50% in warming " that NASA advised us of in the noughties will pile on in as well ( but be held longer because of all that extra GHG potential. This is the thing that worries me. We have two new warming spike to absorb on top of the slow 'drip ,drip' AGW warming. We know Nino didn't cause all the warming in this years record warm year as we saw both 2014 and 2015 post records too? How do we peel back Arctic input from Dimming reduction from natural cycle switch to increased GHG forcing to Nino impacts? I guess 2017 will give us a hint when we see how far short of 2016 it falls? Of course if we see the blue Ocean event this summer all bets are off as we would be talking nearly twice the energy of the 98' Nino pouring into the system over September/October/November and that might skew things a tad Its unbelieveable that you are so addicted to this pablum. Yeah right! Warming has been stunted for the past 20 years because we are burning stuff!!! LOL! What were we doing the 20 years prior to that?? Letting it evaporate? LOL! You latch onto the excuse du jour like a total sucker. How can anybody be so stupid? Oh thats right you must have a government contract somewhere that was awarded off some RFP that had the words climate change in it, right? The only guy that apparently got it, or at least got caught recognizing the impact of the pause was Kevin Trenberth. . . ."its a travesty!" in his revealed email. Oh yes we should be worried when the "climate inertia" kicks in. Gee, doesn't CO2 continue to rise for about 800 years AFTER the temperature hits a peak. Some inertia I would say. LOL! Even your little graph showing annual changes in CO2 is varying a great deal with temperature. I suspect that graph will be still going up for about 800 years after the temperatures start going the other direction. Its truly amazing how much cherry picking your side gets away with on the basis of being an "independent scientist". My profession of accountancy learned a 100 years ago that being an expert wasn't sufficient to ensure honesty. Science into these areas of high uncertainty has spawned some really dark eggs. But hey we have been there before. Why did the Ptolemaic theory take hold. Ptolemy was a brilliant mathematician and scientist, but his point of view was not the only point of view of the day, his point of view was favored only because it fit with the religious powers that be. Today, that religion is post normal science where no controls exist to reign in precaution. Vendors are selling fear to the public and making billions while the job of selling the truth earns no money. Been there done that. When are we going to learn?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Dec 30, 2016 18:33:28 GMT
So what will the folk who insisted it was all just balderdash do when they see what is occurring and how much of it they had been warned of but not only chose to ignore the advice but actively railed against it? What of their social standing/credibility thereafter? Will it bring about the destruction of the American dream and hand everything, for decades, over to the 'New Democrats' as the likes of Sanders sweep into office on the back of a popularist uprising? When they realise they have facilitated the rise of the United Socialist States of America and Trump lead them blindly into it just how will they feel.......... What you fail to understand is that "central planning" over something as ubiquitous as the atmosphere is socialism. Post normal science has its roots in the Luddite movement against progress. It probably can be expected arising out of the nuclear age where concepts of total destruction of the earth by technology. Everywhere we look today where you have private enterprise initiatives moving forward its under total attack by the post normal science movement. I don't care how small of an entrepreneur you are, if you are an entrepreneur and not an employee you feel it is the biggest threat to your financial future. You can be a fisherman, farmer, logger, prospector, builder, or processor of any sort and you are feeling a huge build up of pressure against what you are trying to provide to the American public in order to make a living. Today if you are an employee you are just beginning to feel it as the powers behind all this reject your demands for a decent standard of living and take their capital overseas in search of slave labor. And of course its these entrepreneurs that are helping fund this destruction of freedom because they want to call all the shots. The internet today is filled with slide shows of all the "great" people that died in the past year and every one of these great people are actors or musicians. Not a single scientist, inventor, politician, engineer, industrialist, farmer or fisherman in the lot. Our education system is failing us and the rot is especially prevalent in academia where emotions and lip service is being elevated far above actually getting something done. President Trump hardly is distinguishable between the disease and cure. At least he is a builder so he knows the problem, but does he end up like Arnold Schwartznegger in the end where his lust for fame and how fame is achieved far outweighs standing for the principles he believes in? I guess we will have to see.
|
|