Tracking the el nino

[eagle1462010]

Yes, El Nino is a natural event. The increasing intensity of the El Nino is not a natural event. Look at the graph, even though it only goes to 2011, you can see the increasing intensity and increasing temperatures, not only in the El Nino events, but also in the neutral ENSO, and even increasing temperatures in the La Nina events. In fact, the last two La Nina's have been warmer than the 1994 El Nino. Last year, on a neutral ENSO we had a year that matched 1998, 2005, and 2010. This year, on what looks like a strong El Nino, I think that we will see a new record set.

We know that CO2, CH4, and NOx are GHGs. We know that increasing these gases in the atmosphere will create a warmer atmosphere. We have evidence that points this out from past geological eras. The physics of the situation does not change because this time it is mankind, rather than a natural event that is putting the GHGs into the atmosphere.

Climate Prediction Center - Monitoring Data ENSO Impacts on the U.S. - Previous Events

Prove it.

The proof of the effectiveness of water vapor, CO2, CH4, and NOx as GHGs was proven in 1858 by John Tyndall. The graph is evidence of the increasing intensity of the weather associated with the natural ENSO cycles.

He was the first one to measure it................and his conclusions was that water vapor was the main culprit for trapping heat at that time.......

It was much later they advanced studies to conclude that CO2 was the primary source of absorbing radiant heat.............

It doesn't prove how much is caused by man.................and your side still can't quantify how much is caused by nature......and how much is adapted by Nature.......................

El Nino sends heat across the oceans...........it also helps create Mother Natures air conditioners............Super Cyclones and Super Typhoons................which act as a cooling effect............aka they are a giant ass cooling fan.............how much heat do these storms dissipate...............Have your scientist jumped into the storms and measured that aspect.................

Tropic Rain Forrest are hot as hell..............the water vapor traps heat.......would that be correct...............but we need to save them......................or CO2 is not going to be absorbed.............Yet more rain forrest actually bring up the temps in those areas due to water vapor..............where is that in your studies.............

Trees absorb and grow faster in higher CO2............proof when they carbon date them.......would that be correct........your side deflects this by saying eventually they will be saturated and stop absorbing..............where are the studies PROVING the TREES stop growing in this country.............

I haven't seen the trees stop growing have you????????????

They are now growing food with higher CO2 levels to increase output.............and it is working.....

and so on................The SCIENCE isn't settled............it is infantile compared to the millions of years of the earth.

 

[Old Rocks]

Mr. Eagle, rather then displaying your massive ignorance for all to see, why don't you actually read the articles that the scientists write? Go to Google Scholar, and type in whatever questions you have on climate, GHGs, ect.

As far as quantifying how much of the warming is natural, and how much is caused by the increase in GHGs, that is pretty simple. The earth heat balance is maintianed by two factors, how much heat it receives from the sun, and how much of that heat it retains. Were there no greenhouse effect, the oceans would be frozen down to the equator. With the greenhouse effect, the average temperature is about 60 F. We know what the TSI is from the satellites we have monitoring it.We know how much the earth has been warming. When the equilibrium is out of balance, then there has to be a reason. With the warming, it looks like most of it is from the GHGs we have added. Particulary as our warmest years have all occurred since there has been a slight decrease in the TSI.

 

[eagle1462010]

Mr. Eagle, rather then displaying your massive ignorance for all to see, why don't you actually read the articles that the scientists write? Go to Google Scholar, and type in whatever questions you have on climate, GHGs, ect.

As far as quantifying how much of the warming is natural, and how much is caused by the increase in GHGs, that is pretty simple. The earth heat balance is maintianed by two factors, how much heat it receives from the sun, and how much of that heat it retains. Were there no greenhouse effect, the oceans would be frozen down to the equator. With the greenhouse effect, the average temperature is about 60 F. We know what the TSI is from the satellites we have monitoring it.We know how much the earth has been warming. When the equilibrium is out of balance, then there has to be a reason. With the warming, it looks like most of it is from the GHGs we have added. Particulary as our warmest years have all occurred since there has been a slight decrease in the TSI.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies National Centers for Environmental Information NCEI

Nice red line across the equator....set the dates at this site as desired..........seems the hotter water is being drawn towards the equator to me...............

The heat is only being drawn up in small areas. The cooling waters however are at depth and rising. The Kelvin wave is falling apart. The easterly winds needed to drive El Nino heat back across the pacific are nonexistent. without winds to drive the heat back the El Nino dies.

The cold water now building will, at some point, cut off the warm flows causing the ocean temps to plummet. the timming of this event is tricky. The fact that the heat is not being pushed east across the pacific at mid latitudes and the presence of large amounts of -2 deg C waters building indicate that El Nino is dying and the flip is imminent.

The cold pool in region 3 is going to cripple the heat transfer. The point of flip is nearing as the heated water is constricted at the equator.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Mr. Eagle, rather then displaying your massive ignorance for all to see, why don't you actually read the articles that the scientists write? Go to Google Scholar, and type in whatever questions you have on climate, GHGs, ect.

As far as quantifying how much of the warming is natural, and how much is caused by the increase in GHGs, that is pretty simple. The earth heat balance is maintianed by two factors, how much heat it receives from the sun, and how much of that heat it retains. Were there no greenhouse effect, the oceans would be frozen down to the equator. With the greenhouse effect, the average temperature is about 60 F. We know what the TSI is from the satellites we have monitoring it.We know how much the earth has been warming. When the equilibrium is out of balance, then there has to be a reason. With the warming, it looks like most of it is from the GHGs we have added. Particulary as our warmest years have all occurred since there has been a slight decrease in the TSI.

You can not quantify mans contribution to CO2 in our atmosphere or how much nature is placing or removing from it. With that in mind, your whole post is nothing but pure conjecture. You cannot derive causation without knowing all three quantities and how the system actually works.

Your Ignorance is astounding..

 

[Crick]

What natural effect besides changes in TSI (and a Milankovich change would exhibit itself as just a change in TSI) would move the Earth away from radiative equilibrium?

 

[ScienceRocks]

El nino is natural but may have the effect of increasing global temperatures during positive events.

 

[flacaltenn]

Mr. Eagle, rather then displaying your massive ignorance for all to see, why don't you actually read the articles that the scientists write? Go to Google Scholar, and type in whatever questions you have on climate, GHGs, ect.

As far as quantifying how much of the warming is natural, and how much is caused by the increase in GHGs, that is pretty simple. The earth heat balance is maintianed by two factors, how much heat it receives from the sun, and how much of that heat it retains. Were there no greenhouse effect, the oceans would be frozen down to the equator. With the greenhouse effect, the average temperature is about 60 F. We know what the TSI is from the satellites we have monitoring it.We know how much the earth has been warming. When the equilibrium is out of balance, then there has to be a reason. With the warming, it looks like most of it is from the GHGs we have added. Particulary as our warmest years have all occurred since there has been a slight decrease in the TSI.

Don't ever bug me again about WHO is saying that Earth's climate reacts INSTANTLY to forcings. Because YOU would be expecting that if you expect to see the warmest years caused directly by the state of sun IN THAT YEAR.

It's 10s and 100s of years to reach temperature equilibrium from a forcing. And this current temperature blip MIGHT be an uptick on a new equilibrium --- but it's just as likely to be the oscillatory "ringing" from a previous forcing.. Don't know because we don't have 50 year resolution in those Global proxy studies of long past temps..

 

[flacaltenn]

Mr. Eagle, rather then displaying your massive ignorance for all to see, why don't you actually read the articles that the scientists write? Go to Google Scholar, and type in whatever questions you have on climate, GHGs, ect.

As far as quantifying how much of the warming is natural, and how much is caused by the increase in GHGs, that is pretty simple. The earth heat balance is maintianed by two factors, how much heat it receives from the sun, and how much of that heat it retains. Were there no greenhouse effect, the oceans would be frozen down to the equator. With the greenhouse effect, the average temperature is about 60 F. We know what the TSI is from the satellites we have monitoring it.We know how much the earth has been warming. When the equilibrium is out of balance, then there has to be a reason. With the warming, it looks like most of it is from the GHGs we have added. Particulary as our warmest years have all occurred since there has been a slight decrease in the TSI.

Don't ever bug me again about WHO is saying that Earth's climate reacts INSTANTLY to forcings. Because YOU would be expecting that if you expect to see the warmest years caused directly by the state of sun IN THAT YEAR.

It's 10s and 100s of years to reach temperature equilibrium from a forcing. And this current temperature blip MIGHT be an uptick on a new equilibrium --- but it's just as likely to be the oscillatory "ringing" from a previous forcing..

What natural effect besides changes in TSI (and a Milankovich change would exhibit itself as just a change in TSI) would move the Earth away from radiative equilibrium?

Changes in albedo due to man-made construction or land use.. Or land use in GENERAL for a couple good ones.
You can actually see the IPCC attempt to put numbers to land use, but they are largely AGRICULTURAL in nature and dont include urban expansion..

Then there are all the oscillatory natural effects in different regions. Arctic Oscillations, Ocean oscillations, etc.

The BIGGIES are stuff we don't even know yet.. Only had SERIOUS satellites up for about 25 years. One HUGE natural change would be small shifts in the SPECTRUM of the sun.. Not the TSI.. Small shifts from IR to UV (or vice versa) would CHANGE the greenhouse window in MASSIVE ways. Because the gases in the atmos absorb in very NARROW spectral lines. So if the POWER of the sun remains constant.. But it's color spectrum changes -- the energy balance would be changed.

Can't study this from the surface because the gases that are absorbing various parts of the spectrum are in the way.. Only real way is to observe solar spectrum, from space, over a couple decades. Maybe 50 to 100 yrs --- to see how stable the color of sun really is..

 

[Old Rocks]

Very simple physics. We are increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere, the atmosphere is warming. It is not going to stop warming while we wait for some imaginery 'natural cycle' to create a cooling. We wait another 50 years to cease adding the GHGs, then we will see major, and possibly, irreversible effects from the warming.

 

[jc456]

Very simple physics. We are increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere, the atmosphere is warming. It is not going to stop warming while we wait for some imaginery 'natural cycle' to create a cooling. We wait another 50 years to cease adding the GHGs, then we will see major, and possibly, irreversible effects from the warming.

Is the atmosphere warming or cooling which is it?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Mr. Eagle, rather then displaying your massive ignorance for all to see, why don't you actually read the articles that the scientists write? Go to Google Scholar, and type in whatever questions you have on climate, GHGs, ect.

As far as quantifying how much of the warming is natural, and how much is caused by the increase in GHGs, that is pretty simple. The earth heat balance is maintianed by two factors, how much heat it receives from the sun, and how much of that heat it retains. Were there no greenhouse effect, the oceans would be frozen down to the equator. With the greenhouse effect, the average temperature is about 60 F. We know what the TSI is from the satellites we have monitoring it.We know how much the earth has been warming. When the equilibrium is out of balance, then there has to be a reason. With the warming, it looks like most of it is from the GHGs we have added. Particulary as our warmest years have all occurred since there has been a slight decrease in the TSI.

Don't ever bug me again about WHO is saying that Earth's climate reacts INSTANTLY to forcings. Because YOU would be expecting that if you expect to see the warmest years caused directly by the state of sun IN THAT YEAR.

It's 10s and 100s of years to reach temperature equilibrium from a forcing. And this current temperature blip MIGHT be an uptick on a new equilibrium --- but it's just as likely to be the oscillatory "ringing" from a previous forcing..

What natural effect besides changes in TSI (and a Milankovich change would exhibit itself as just a change in TSI) would move the Earth away from radiative equilibrium?

Changes in albedo due to man-made construction or land use.. Or land use in GENERAL for a couple good ones.
You can actually see the IPCC attempt to put numbers to land use, but they are largely AGRICULTURAL in nature and dont include urban expansion..

Then there are all the oscillatory natural effects in different regions. Arctic Oscillations, Ocean oscillations, etc.

The BIGGIES are stuff we don't even know yet.. Only had SERIOUS satellites up for about 25 years. One HUGE natural change would be small shifts in the SPECTRUM of the sun.. Not the TSI.. Small shifts from IR to UV (or vice versa) would CHANGE the greenhouse window in MASSIVE ways. Because the gases in the atmos absorb in very NARROW spectral lines. So if the POWER of the sun remains constant.. But it's color spectrum changes -- the energy balance would be changed.

Can't study this from the surface because the gases that are absorbing various parts of the spectrum are in the way.. Only real way is to observe solar spectrum, from space, over a couple decades. Maybe 50 to 100 yrs --- to see how stable the color of sun really is..

Solar Spectral Change. We are currently in flux to a lower wave length of solar output. For the last 60 years or so the main area of input from the sun was around 1.2um (peak portion of down-welling radiation.) In the last 19 years that has shifted to 1.6um and correlates strongly with the current stop in warming. The Boulder Co Solar Physics Lab is currently doing a study on precisely this. The ACE space craft is the main collector of data but there are three other space craft globally doing work. There are three ares that have changed rather impressively.

 

[mamooth]

It's the "University of Colorado’s Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP)", not the "Boulder Solar Physics Lab".

And just present the paper.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/3945/2013/acp-13-3945-2013.pdf

What does it say?

Solar spectrum measurement is really complicated.

UV variation over a solar cycle is bigger than previously thought.

That will affect the atmosphere in complex ways. Exactly how, not so clear. Deniers have faith it somehow completely destroys global warming theory, because they want it to.

 

[flacaltenn]

May have to have real-time data for SEVERAL solar cycles to get a handle on how Solar Spectrum varies. If for instance the total solar output remains constant but some portions of the spectrum shift OUT of water vapor absorption bands -- you'd only need about 6% or so variation at TOAtmosphere to get a large portion of the 3.6W/M2 that represents our warming..

Studying climate change without 50 years of space science is like trying to study nuclear engineering without so much as a Geiger counter.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Daily 3.4 region index now above 1.5 degree Celsius

 

[Old Rocks]

Shhhhh.......... You are upsetting Mr. Billy Bob. He said it could not do that.

Really looks like we are going to get a strong El Nino, with all that entails. 2015 will definately be a hot year. No cooling this year.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Shhhhh.......... You are upsetting Mr. Billy Bob. He said it could not do that.

Really looks like we are going to get a strong El Nino, with all that entails. 2015 will definately be a hot year. No cooling this year.

Where did I say it could not happen? And if the flip occurs next month, as some are predicting then what? The NATURAL VARIATION WARMING your frothing at the mouth about is not caused by MAN...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Daily 3.4 region index now above 1.5 degree Celsius

Not according to NOAA.

It has actually peaked and appears to be dropping as the previous week was at 1.37 and we are now at 1.30 deg C anomaly.

 

[Crick]

This is very similar to the global SST graphs from 2014 and 2015 you showed us: the one with the clear and intense el Nino that claimed to show nothing but cooling. You put up a graph that clearly shows a increasing temperature trend and then try to extrapolate a tiny, seasonal - APPARENTLY OFF-GRAPH variation to say what is patently false to EVERY other person looking at this graph. If you boys are really looking for someone who can't read a graph, I think Billy Boy's your man. Or your boy.

 

[mamooth]

Cyclone Raquel forms as earliest big storm recorded off Australia s north-east
---
Tropical Cyclone Raquel has formed in the south-west Pacific near the Solomon Islands, triggering the earliest cyclone warning on record issued for the Queensland zone.

"Certainly it's a unique scenario," Jess Carey, a spokesman from the bureau's Queensland office, said. "Since we've been tracking cyclones with satellite-based technology, we haven't seen one in July."

...

Cyclone Raquel is likely to trigger westward wind bursts that would reinforce the reversal of the easterly trade winds, shifting more heat to the west as is typical during El Nino events.

The previous mid-year event off north-eastern Australia – 1972's Cyclone Ida – came prior to a powerful El Nino event forming later that year.
---