|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 17, 2021 2:14:11 GMT
Does anyone remember the name of that little website that keeps a running count of global un-adjusted surface temps anomaly? I lost lots of links when computer went out temp.x Temperature.global temperature.global/ |
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Feb 17, 2021 2:47:40 GMT
Thanks Sig!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Feb 17, 2021 12:04:38 GMT
Does anyone remember the name of that little website that keeps a running count of global un-adjusted surface temps anomaly? I lost lots of links when computer went out temp.x temperature.global No charge.  PS: Didn't notice the earlier reply .... sigh.  |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 18, 2021 4:50:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Feb 21, 2021 3:28:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 21, 2021 3:33:49 GMT
Liberals don't know how to read a chart. They are really good at distorting a chart tho! |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 21, 2021 3:51:08 GMT
Liberals don't know how to read a chart. They are really good at distorting a chart tho! Liberals write their ideal narrative _then_ check charts. Any charts that do not fit the narrative are memory holed and the source data 'corrected'. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 17, 2021 19:20:07 GMT
 So CO2 is a RESULT of increase in Pacific SST and it is very peaky (not what you would expect with the claims for lifetime in atmosphere) |
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Mar 18, 2021 8:02:22 GMT
I think the discussion about CO2 is a little fruitless, we are adding a fair bit, and the equilibrium amount in the atmosphere is rising partly as a result of that.
The issue is that CO2 does not drive the climate otherwise we would see the exponential rate of CO2 emissions from our activities result in a linear increase in temperatures as CO2 drives the temperature logarithmically. We don't.
Please check that logic but I think it's right.
|
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Mar 18, 2021 13:11:05 GMT
So CO2 is a RESULT of increase in Pacific SST and it is very peaky (not what you would expect with the claims for lifetime in atmosphere) nautonnier, that graph comes from an article or a paper? If so, could we have a link? |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 18, 2021 17:11:03 GMT
I think the discussion about CO2 is a little fruitless, we are adding a fair bit, and the equilibrium amount in the atmosphere is rising partly as a result of that. The issue is that CO2 does not drive the climate otherwise we would see the exponential rate of CO2 emissions from our activities result in a linear increase in temperatures as CO2 drives the temperature logarithmically. We don't. Please check that logic but I think it's right. And we also note that CO2 also falls into La Nina. Thus a warm ocean (in the eastern Pacific) is followed by a rise in global temperatures (as we've seen in UAH/Nino data) to be followed by a rise in CO2 ... theoretically as warmer water releases CO2. Also thus, a colder East Pacific associated with La Nina gives you temperature drops followed by CO2 drops as a colder East Pacific absorbs more CO2 from the atmosphere. What about the rest of the oceans? And the west Pacific? Do the tropics (specifically the east Pacific) overwhelmingly drive this relationship? Or is this spurious? This is a big issue. Where is that data base? I want it. And are there regional measurements as well? |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 18, 2021 18:06:00 GMT
I think the discussion about CO2 is a little fruitless, we are adding a fair bit, and the equilibrium amount in the atmosphere is rising partly as a result of that. The issue is that CO2 does not drive the climate otherwise we would see the exponential rate of CO2 emissions from our activities result in a linear increase in temperatures as CO2 drives the temperature logarithmically. We don't. Please check that logic but I think it's right. The human input to the rise in CO2 is a little below a fraction of one percent. The real issue is that the energy content (in kilojoules per kilogram) of the atmosphere compared to the oceans is so small. The top few metres of the oceans contain more energy than the entire atmosphere. It is infeasible for a 1/100th of a degree of change in the lowest 2 metres of the atmosphere to heat the oceans. There are not enough kilojoules to do it. It is more likely that the warmer lower RH air will cause more evaporation of water from the surface of the oceans and the latent heat loss will actually _cool_ the surface of the oceans. Down welling infrared will increase evaporation from the surface in the same way as each photon will be absorbed by the first water molecule it hits raising the energy of the surface molecules increasing evaporative heat loss. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 18, 2021 18:09:19 GMT
So CO2 is a RESULT of increase in Pacific SST and it is very peaky (not what you would expect with the claims for lifetime in atmosphere) nautonnier, that graph comes from an article or a paper? If so, could we have a link? Hi Hrizzo - it came from the source of all correct knowledge 'Twitter'  I will go back to find it and if I can see if there is an 'official' peer reviewed source. |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 13, 2021 3:52:41 GMT
Try this article on for size. So ... not only do atmospheric temperatures follow ENSO, but so do atmospheric CO2 concentrations. How many strikes can these people take? The living, breathing link to the vast CO2 reservoirs of the tropical oceans. If we find that other source ... A clue that temperature is driving the annual variations, is that the infamous El Niño events of 1997–1998 and 2015–2016, present as prominent peaks in the graph of the seasonal ramp-up range-trend, as shown below in Figure 5. Note that the 1997–1998 event is also unprecedented in Figure 4, and followed by a similarly unprecedented decline! wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/11/contribution-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-to-changes-in-atmospheric-concentrations/ |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 13, 2021 4:37:00 GMT
|
|
