Thats the value for the central month. http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/temperature_and_vapor_trop20_V4.png, ΔT = ΔWater Vapor + ΔW/M^2/Δppm CO2 + Error. “December 2016 was relatively cool, so it is clear that 2020 will slightly edge 2016 for the warmest year, at least in the GISTEMP analysis.”. In that warming world the sea level rises, covering brighter land with darker water, another positive feedback. The atmosphere isn’t like a battery. 5. The ocean and atmosphere are both stratified – equilibrium is never achieved, only steady state. So why not just assume the warming trend will continue? barry, you appear to be moving away from the nonsense. My advice here is to spend more time reading the actual publications and immersing yourself in the relevant published literature and less time reading non-expert blogger opinions who often mislead and misrepresent the topics. No one is baking or freezing in cornfields. It’s important to point this out, because published attribution studies largely put the central estimate of the AWG contribution since 1950 at around or slightly higher than 100%. the effect. There is no reason to start in January when El Nino usually manifests itself much later. I guess you’re destined to always be a troll. ], SSW is developing. They must, or they would evenually boil. Add on another 1-2 cm to account for another 5 years and we’re not too far off from the middle of his range. The one possibility is both poles were very warm and they are not included in the UAH measurement system. Why did an increase in CO2 not cause warming. We would like to show you a description here but the site won’t allow us. The quality of debate was better here too before the trolls began to dominate the ‘skeptic’ milieu. Climate is the average of weather, but alarmists simplify even further, and assume climate is the average of average temperatures. bob, a REAL science study has a meaningful start (usually called an “abstract”, or “introduction”), a discussion portion, and an end (called a “conclusion” or “summary”). And yes parts of the Moon are the same temperature of parts of the Earth. The change in W/M^2 relative to CO2 is astronomical to the factor of 100s, if not 1,000s. I don’t appreciate this idea of geological CO2 storage. Rising air cools. This begins a cycle of warming and melting. https://scied.ucar.edu/interactive/simple-climate-model. The Arctic air will flow in the west of the US. ”. If it is mentioned at all it will be described as the normal ups and downs you will see, even with a rising trend. They are likely to be disappointed as well. CO2 won’t be a factor. A blue object reflects blue *better than* other colors. Then cool a 50/50 mixture of CO2 and Ozone and apply only 9.5µ and 15µ LWIR. The La Nina itself will only take us back to where we were in the early 21st century. I have never seen any evidence that CO2 changes cause ENSO variations. He was hung up on the theory of Carl Sagan, who turned astronomy into theatre with little regard for actual scientific fact. The average is now https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hOTENXnOTD_on25ssCIJuE3KaL8H2JCb/view. You are always claiming that fluxes add, now you are admitting you don’t even know what a “flux” is. On the night in question, I was wearing several layers of clothes, a big winter jacket, and rain gear with gumboots to stave off a light wind. a) Less than 300 W/m^2 Suppose I have fiberglass insulation in my attic, R = 30. However, that is not really the important question. What is interesting is why they don’t correlate: Please prove it. ET, do you not understand the meaning of the NASA Graph I linked? Apparently doesn’t have water phase change issue and it’s denser than high pressure steam So while it may be taking up CO2 it is releasing H2O. AKA we would be right back into the what was called “the pause”. My 2019 prediction was based on a strong la nina at the end of 2020. Indices of various forcings are fed into the model run, and the software codes the physics and parametrizes some processes that it doesn’t have enough physical explanation for (like ENSO) or processes that occur on a resolution that the model doesn’t capture (computing power), to see what the result is. Just simple examples that even idiots should be able to understand. How can someone that has never taken a Climate “Science” course build a better model for temperatures if the IPCC has “experts” doing their work? Get an infrared lamp and shine it on a pan of water. In 2009 the activity of 14C was 238 Bq per kg carbon of fresh terrestrial biomatter, close to the values before atmospheric nuclear testing (226 Bq/kg C; 1950). He believes he is a climate scientist. That means far less than nothing. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10222679 Plus, it will show that once a trend begins, you can’t just extrapolate that out till the Apocalypse. The reason excitement is there was a long about 16-18 years period of no warming , this was broken by strong double ElNino , a good Lanina could bring the level back down to zero trend and the pause would resume , this time over 22 years long. *. Your time scales are out of sync. Which month is assigned the average for Jan-Dec if the mid-point is July 1? In fact, is O3 not a product of O2 absorbing UV? But you know that a car engine overheats no hot days more readily than cold ones, even though the engine is always hotter than the ambient air. You may like this: This is a feature I dont share with Nick.”. Perhaps you have a view on this. We’ve seen this for much of the last 6 years. It is fascinating to watch Clint “moving the goalposts” to try to “win”. There is no decent physics in the models. Hence, if the geothermal warming remains the AMO cycling negative may not have the cooling effect expected. That is strong statistical significance, confirming that deserts have warmed over the period. * The thermometer reading is 32F. You will revolutionize science. AGW does not prevent natural, short-term variation. If a second distant ice cube is added, the thermometer receives a tiny fraction of 300 W/m^2 again. We have had three days of rain and the lights still work. Your method rests on the assumption that these changed instruments are all perfectly calibrated with each other. Even the ridiculous 2 W/m^2 coming from backradiation is twice that…, “Suns normal surface irradiance is approximately 1000 W/m^2 at sea level on a clear day.”. Do the math. https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v3.cgi?id=101604900000&ds=5&dt=1, Greening Area: Plenty of warming. SPE00120305 1981 1 7 -6.0 IF you disagree, explain why. (given that as of now, the final data is yet to be published). If anything, the Nino 1-2 area appears to be getting colder. Shielding a thermometer from the sun does not make it hotter. That’s a bit of an irony because Polish coal forced British coal out of business. Even a big El Nino can’t keep up with violent SO2 aerosol bursts. The answer would depend on the intensity of the radiation at each wavelength and view factors of the sources.). So, will 2021 with this postulated Super La Nina (or even just a routine la Nina) be warmer or colder than the 1981-2010 average? What you need are IR transparent containers. Consider the same blackbody above. Everything needs to be questioned. Anyway, to identify the real impact of CO2 on temperature all you need to do is identify desert locations with a BI of 0, download the raw “unadjusted” data, run a regression and record the slope. That is extremely easy to test. Using a linear variable to explain a log variable will never ever ever work. “A 2 year La Nina would eliminate the effects of 6 years of predominately El Nino conditions”. It claims that IR takes 0.6 to 30 ms to leave the atmosphere and that the distance between IR going from 1 CO2 molecule to another is 30 meters, and the energy is retained for 100 microseconds at surface level. You are confusing your fantasy with reality. Finally, any increase in geothermal heat flux would probably take centuries to be felt at the surface… the ocean abyss has stable stratification, and so must be slowly forced upward on the large scale by convective sinking in certain polar regions.”, https://judithcurry.com/2019/07/21/geothermal-ocean-warming-discussion-thread/. The earliest one was, “They haven’t considered the sun!”. You never have been able to. A “prolonged cooling event” is now more likely given the time spent in natural warm ocean cycles over the last few decades. If you want to continue to defend these results, then you simply choose to live in a world a opinion, not science. ” Sorry to come on this topic before having written the 20 or 30 comments before… ”. You are a liar until you can prove I said such nonsense. That didn’t happen either. And any photon emitted will lower the average. Um, did you read anything I linked? The slope of the wet adiabats depend on the moisture content of the air. Neither do I discredit Cassini as being an ‘astrologer’, nor would I discredit Tobias Mayer as a person ‘having no idea of what he was talking about’, let alone would I insult and denigrate a person like Andrew Motte as ‘a cheating SOB’. 2) H20 is the most powerful GHG, correlation does prove causation in that case, just study the physics or walk into a steam Room. There is absolutely no other possibility unless the wavelength is extremely short or extremely long. I heard Dr. Spencer say on a TV interview years ago that AGW could be 10% or 90% of the cause of our recent warming, but we really don’t have a clue. BOM Australia were way out with their predictions this year and had to fall in behind the Overseas predictions. For every other month the global change is the average of the NH and SH figure eg for 2020 11 Globe = (.67+.39)/2 =1.06/2 =0.53. CO2 is 1/2500 of the atmosphere, H2O can be 4%. Furthermore, because WV has a significant impact on the PBL temperature whereas CO2 does not your probably looking at H2O dominating over CO2 in terms of PBL temperature response by several orders of magnitude here. Nice try, but whatever happens in a corn field doesnt affect the middle or upper troposphere, ya think? The wet adiabatic lapse rate varies from about 4 C/km to nearly 9.8 C/km. “Given sufficient optical depth, CO2 will absorb every photon passing through it. Second…we all know that CO2 forcing is logarithmic. Do you see catastrophic warming in a cornfield? If 131 models give different results, at least 130 are wrong. CO2isLife Says: This is wrong in so many many ways: Here’s the difference between a 12 and 13 month average. And with billions people living in our world, a ocean which .5 C will add challenges, and very severe weather would be part of world with ocean which is about 3 C. Those who learn their physics and astronomy from a book however, have a very hard time grasping this as one cannot account for orbital motion of some kind of curvilinear translation lacking angular momentum that they want to steal some of it to provide for internal axial rotation of the moon.

Bus Tec à Vendre, Code Promo Boutique Stade Rochelais, équipement De Plongée Sous Marine Wikipédia, Isolant Mince Multicouches 17 Couches Armé Iso 17 Pro, Casino Royale Vod, Quartiers à éviter Montpellier, Réservation Blablacar Bus, Kevin De Bruyne Michèle Lacroix Courtois,