Does The Climate-Science Industry Purposely Ignore A Simple Aspect of Strong El Niño Events That Causes Long-Term Global Warming?

[ding]

Did you ever read TS.3 in Physical Science Basis? That is where they spend many pages explaining precisely what they think is going on wrt climate sensitivity. If you HAVEN'T read that, you haven't got a fucking leg to stand on trying to tell us they don't know what they're talking about because you don't even know what they're saying and why.

You can't even tell me what the split is. So don't lecture me.

 

[Crick]

You can't even tell me what the split is. So don't lecture me.

Well, this looks astoundingly akin to willful ignorance.

 

[abu afak]

View attachment 853584

LINK

===============

There is a nice discussion about the post HERE at WUWT.

Notice the pause or cooling trends in between the El-Nin phases CO2 effect isn't visible.

The current warm up is tied to the current El-Nino and possibly the Volcano H20 eruption effects once again no CO2 effect is visible.

El-Nino's are a sun driven phenomenon.

It is the Sun/Ocean dynamo that drives weather all over the world.

According to your graph, Each el Nino is ALSO getting Hotter, AS ARE THE YEARS INBETWEEN.
IOW, it's Global Warming before, during, and after el Ninos... and other cycles for that matter.

`

 

[ding]

Well, this looks astoundingly akin to willful ignorance.

On your part.

 

[Dagosa]

was a little more than 10 years ago that I published my first blog posts on the obvious upward steps in the sea surface temperatures of a large portion of the global oceans…

10 years ago ? Too bad you didn’t plot the increases for the past say, 500 to 1000 years. Why didn’t you just do the temps for last night ? Hilariously simpleton blather.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Posted on January 20, 2019 by Bob Tisdale

Excerpt:

PREFACE

It was a little more than 10 years ago that I published my first blog posts on the obvious upward steps in the sea surface temperatures of a large portion of the global oceans…upward steps that are caused by El Niño events…upward steps that lead to sunlight-fueled, naturally occurring global warming.

There is a very simple explanation for those El Niño-caused upward shifts that also make themselves known in the sea surface temperature data for much larger portion of the global oceans than I first presented a decade ago…the upward steps that are blatantly obvious in the satellite-era (starts November 1981) of sea surface temperature data for the South Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans, as shown in Figure 1, which together cover about 52% of the surfaces of the global oceans.

View attachment 853584

LINK

===============

There is a nice discussion about the post HERE at WUWT.

Notice the pause or cooling trends in between the El-Nin phases CO2 effect isn't visible.

The current warm up is tied to the current El-Nino and possibly the Volcano H20 eruption effects once again no CO2 effect is visible.

El-Nino's are a sun driven phenomenon.

It is the Sun/Ocean dynamo that drives weather all over the world.

No, the people who discovered and taught us about El Niño and climate are not laboring under the ignorance of their own life's work. How idiotic.

 

[Rigby5]

Posted on January 20, 2019 by Bob Tisdale

Excerpt:

PREFACE

It was a little more than 10 years ago that I published my first blog posts on the obvious upward steps in the sea surface temperatures of a large portion of the global oceans…upward steps that are caused by El Niño events…upward steps that lead to sunlight-fueled, naturally occurring global warming.

There is a very simple explanation for those El Niño-caused upward shifts that also make themselves known in the sea surface temperature data for much larger portion of the global oceans than I first presented a decade ago…the upward steps that are blatantly obvious in the satellite-era (starts November 1981) of sea surface temperature data for the South Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans, as shown in Figure 1, which together cover about 52% of the surfaces of the global oceans.

View attachment 853584

LINK

===============

There is a nice discussion about the post HERE at WUWT.

Notice the pause or cooling trends in between the El-Nin phases CO2 effect isn't visible.

The current warm up is tied to the current El-Nino and possibly the Volcano H20 eruption effects once again no CO2 effect is visible.

El-Nino's are a sun driven phenomenon.

It is the Sun/Ocean dynamo that drives weather all over the world.

Nonsense.
El Nino events have nothing at all to do with global warming.
All El Nino events do is shift weather around.
When El Nino makes one place warming, it makes somewhere else cooler.

 

[Rigby5]

Yep. And their models multiple the radiative forcing of CO2 by a factor of 2 to 3 times. So dumb.

While water vapor can retain far more heat than CO2, it is really only CO2 that matters because heat retention near the earth's surface is irrelevant.
All that matters is at the upper atmosphere boundary to outer space.
It is only at the boundary to outer space that determines if a planet retains heat or radiates it back out into space.
And water vapor cannot be present at the upper atmosphere boundary to space because it is so cold there that water vapor would fall out at snow.

 

[ding]

While water vapor can retain far more heat than CO2, it is really only CO2 that matters because heat retention near the earth's surface is irrelevant.
All that matters is at the upper atmosphere boundary to outer space.
It is only at the boundary to outer space that determines if a planet retains heat or radiates it back out into space.
And water vapor cannot be present at the upper atmosphere boundary to space because it is so cold there that water vapor would fall out at snow.

Right and that's what the simple physics is calculating; the instantaneous radiative forcing of CO2 which is 1C per doubling of CO2. Even the IPCC acknowledges this.

 

[abu afak]

Right and that's what the simple physics is calculating; the instantaneous radiative forcing of CO2 which is 1C per doubling of CO2. Even the IPCC acknowledges this.

This IPCC you linked elsewhere?

IPCC) fifth assessment report

Early on, YOUR Link summary:
Your posts Misleading cherry picking way into Dishonesty.
[.......]

B. Observed Changes in the Climate System Observations of the climate system are based on Direct measurements and remote sensing from satellites and other platforms. Global-scale observations from the instrumental era began in the mid-19th century for temperature and other variables, with more comprehensive and diverse sets of observations available for the period 1950 onwards. Paleoclimate reconstructions extend some records back hundreds to millions of years. Together, they provide a comprehensive view of the variability and long-term changes in the atmosphere, the ocean, the cryosphere, and the land surface.​

​

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are Unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 andSPM.4). {2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2–4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5–5.6, 6.2, 13.2} [........]​

IOW, Not "normal interglacial"
I will be excerpting much more of it and other sources (Zhong et al) you Mischaraterize/cherry pick that Expose you as the Charlatan you are.. as I have been doing with extensively with your most Common Lie: "Normal Interglacial"
In fact, in the short excerpt above I have done it again with "changes are unprecedented over decades to Millennia."

`

 

[Dagosa]

While water vapor can retain far more heat than CO2, it is really only CO2 that matters because heat retention near the earth's surface is irrelevant.
All that matters is at the upper atmosphere boundary to outer space.
It is only at the boundary to outer space that determines if a planet retains heat or radiates it back out into space.
And water vapor cannot be present at the upper atmosphere boundary to space because it is so cold there that water vapor would fall out at snow.

So, what you’re now saying is that increased water caper is caused by increased co2. That’s correct.

 

[ding]

This IPCC you linked elsewhere?



Early on, YOUR Link summary:
Your posts Misleading cherry picking way into Dishonesty.
[.......]

B. Observed Changes in the Climate System Observations of the climate system are based on Direct measurements and remote sensing from satellites and other platforms. Global-scale observations from the instrumental era began in the mid-19th century for temperature and other variables, with more comprehensive and diverse sets of observations available for the period 1950 onwards. Paleoclimate reconstructions extend some records back hundreds to millions of years. Together, they provide a comprehensive view of the variability and long-term changes in the atmosphere, the ocean, the cryosphere, and the land surface.​

​

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are Unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 andSPM.4). {2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2–4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5–5.6, 6.2, 13.2} [........]​

IOW, Not "normal interglacial"
I will be excerpting much more of it and other sources (Zhong et al) you Mischaraterize/cherry pick that Expose you as the Charlatan you are.. as I have been doing with extensively with your most Common Lie: "Normal Interglacial"
In fact, in the short excerpt above I have done it again with "changes are unprecedented over decades to Millennia."

`

The IPCC's low side estimate for TCR is 1C per doubling of CO2. It's in their reports.

 

[ding]

Well, this looks astoundingly akin to willful ignorance.

Says the guy who won't admit what the IPCC lists in their reports as their low side estimate of TCR.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Does The Climate-Science Industry Purposely Ignore A Simple Aspect of Strong El Niño Events That Causes Long-Term Global Warming?​

No. They simply defer to the science and ignore the uneducated slobs who live on the internet.

 

[ding]

Does The Climate-Science Industry Purposely Ignore A Simple Aspect of Strong El Niño Events That Causes Long-Term Global Warming?​

No. They simply defer to the science and ignore the uneducated slobs who live on the internet.

The science of radiative forcing says the GHG effect is instantaneous. Do you understand that science?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The science of radiative forcing says the GHG effect is instantaneous. Do you understand that science?

Irrelevant.

But I would be happy to give you two deniers the email address of a climate scientist.

 

[ding]

Irrelevant.

But I would be happy to give you two deniers the email address of a climate scientist.

How much of the IPCC's projected temperature range is due to the instantaneous radiative forcing of CO2 and how much is due to feedback?

And if you tell me to look it up I will say I have. The answer is 1C of instantaneous radiative forcing of CO2 and 3.5 C of feedbacks.

Do you have a different answer?

 

[Dagosa]

Does The Climate-Science Industry Purposely Ignore A Simple Aspect of Strong El Niño Events That Causes Long-Term Global Warming?​

No. They simply defer to the science and ignore the uneducated slobs who live on the internet.

 

[ding]

Irrelevant.

But I would be happy to give you two deniers the email address of a climate scientist.

Why not just invite them here? Send them all.

 

[Crick]

Nonsense.
El Nino events have nothing at all to do with global warming.
All El Nino events do is shift weather around.
When El Nino makes one place warming, it makes somewhere else cooler.

How does shifting weather around warm the planet?