A warm La Nina

[Old Rocks]

Well, here we are in a year that has featured a deep La Nina since August, yet tied 2016 as the warmest year on record.

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

If nothing else.....the Left has perfected fear mongering.

 

[Old Rocks]

If nothing else.....the Left has perfected fear mongering.

If nothing else fools like you have perfected the Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

 

[Disir]

Well, here we are in a year that has featured a deep La Nina since August, yet tied 2016 as the warmest year on record.

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

What changes would you need to make and what is the time line for those changes to take effect? Specifically, how long would it take to get to the desired state.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, here we are in a year that has featured a deep La Nina since August, yet tied 2016 as the warmest year on record.

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

What changes would you need to make and what is the time line for those changes to take effect? Specifically, how long would it take to get to the desired state.

It will take decades, and involves far more than just changing to renewable energy. We also have to address how we do agriculture and follow China's lead in reforesting wasteland. For we also have to draw the down the present CO2 level. And in the meantime, we will have to deal with the results of what we have already done. Here is one of the better people on that subject;

 

[Disir]

Well, here we are in a year that has featured a deep La Nina since August, yet tied 2016 as the warmest year on record.

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

What changes would you need to make and what is the time line for those changes to take effect? Specifically, how long would it take to get to the desired state.

It will take decades, and involves far more than just changing to renewable energy. We also have to address how we do agriculture and follow China's lead in reforesting wasteland. For we also have to draw the down the present CO2 level. And in the meantime, we will have to deal with the results of what we have already done. Here is one of the better people on that subject;

So, you don't know what you are looking at or for.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, here we are in a year that has featured a deep La Nina since August, yet tied 2016 as the warmest year on record.

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

What changes would you need to make and what is the time line for those changes to take effect? Specifically, how long would it take to get to the desired state.

It will take decades, and involves far more than just changing to renewable energy. We also have to address how we do agriculture and follow China's lead in reforesting wasteland. For we also have to draw the down the present CO2 level. And in the meantime, we will have to deal with the results of what we have already done. Here is one of the better people on that subject;

Follow the planets biggest polluter

Hmmmmkay!

We have 8 years left, right? So how can we take decades for a solution to a non-problem?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, here we are in a year that has featured a deep La Nina since August, yet tied 2016 as the warmest year on record.

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

What changes would you need to make and what is the time line for those changes to take effect? Specifically, how long would it take to get to the desired state.

It will take decades, and involves far more than just changing to renewable energy. We also have to address how we do agriculture and follow China's lead in reforesting wasteland. For we also have to draw the down the present CO2 level. And in the meantime, we will have to deal with the results of what we have already done. Here is one of the better people on that subject;

So, you don't know what you are looking at or for.

Q. By how much must we lower CO2 to stop climate change?

A. $78,000,000,000,000

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

If nothing else.....the Left has perfected fear mongering.

If nothing else fools like you have perfected the Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

The irony of you...calling others stupid.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Well, here we are in a year that has featured a deep La Nina since August, yet tied 2016 as the warmest year on record.

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

Not going to read 32 page report, it is silly anyway since year 2016 was about .5C warmer than now.

No year 2016 was a LOT warmer than this year, you really need to stop LYING!

LINK

Here is the running mean since 2016

LINK

 

[Disir]

Well, here we are in a year that has featured a deep La Nina since August, yet tied 2016 as the warmest year on record.

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

What changes would you need to make and what is the time line for those changes to take effect? Specifically, how long would it take to get to the desired state.

It will take decades, and involves far more than just changing to renewable energy. We also have to address how we do agriculture and follow China's lead in reforesting wasteland. For we also have to draw the down the present CO2 level. And in the meantime, we will have to deal with the results of what we have already done. Here is one of the better people on that subject;

So, you don't know what you are looking at or for.

Q. By how much must we lower CO2 to stop climate change?

A. $78,000,000,000,000

I don't understand how people don't recognize an end in this scenario.

 

[ding]

If nothing else.....the Left has perfected fear mongering.

If nothing else fools like you have perfected the Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

You have literally just provided a textbook example of the dunning effect. I am thinking you don't really understand the findings of Dunning-Kruger.

 

[ding]

...we also have to draw the down the present CO2 level...

Why in the world do you want to do that? Do you want another ice age?

 

[Sunsettommy]

...we also have to draw the down the present CO2 level...

Why in the world do you want to do that? Do you want another ice age?

We are already in an ice age, has been for around 2.6 million years.

Water vapor would just take up more of the IR absorption when CO2 levels drops down, since they have a significant overlap in the main bandwidth area, the overall heat budget change is small, of an already small heat budget effect.

I find this presentation interesting:

What would the temperature of the Earth be without CO2 in the Atmosphere?

LINK


"If CO2 were removed, the change in energy transfer would be 3.3 W/m^2 which is 2.75% of the total. That change corresponds to a total change to the GHE of 0.9 °C which I will consider 1 °C as the ozone transfer really takes place in the stratosphere.

Since the Earth’s temperature is ~287K, the temperature of the Earth without CO2 would be ~286K."

Very small difference, and that is without Water Vapor taking up some of loss of IR absorption, with CO2 removed.

 

[ding]

...we also have to draw the down the present CO2 level...

Why in the world do you want to do that? Do you want another ice age?

We are already in an ice age, has been for around 2.6 million years.

Water vapor would just take up more of the IR absorption when CO2 levels drops down, since they have a significant overlap in the main bandwidth area, the overall heat budget change is small, of an already small heat budget effect.

I find this presentation interesting:

What would the temperature of the Earth be without CO2 in the Atmosphere?

LINK


"If CO2 were removed, the change in energy transfer would be 3.3 W/m^2 which is 2.75% of the total. That change corresponds to a total change to the GHE of 0.9 °C which I will consider 1 °C as the ozone transfer really takes place in the stratosphere.

Since the Earth’s temperature is ~287K, the temperature of the Earth without CO2 would be ~286K."

Very small difference, and that is without Water Vapor taking up some of loss of IR absorption, with CO2 removed.

Your terminology is incorrect we are in an interglacial cycle. What you refer to as an ice age is more appropriately referred to as an ice house planet which is what we transitioned into about 3 million years ago from a greenhouse planet. An ice house planet has high thermal gradients between the poles and equator (relative to a greenhouse planet) and cycles between glacial and interglacial cycles.

 

[Sunsettommy]

...we also have to draw the down the present CO2 level...

Why in the world do you want to do that? Do you want another ice age?

We are already in an ice age, has been for around 2.6 million years.

Water vapor would just take up more of the IR absorption when CO2 levels drops down, since they have a significant overlap in the main bandwidth area, the overall heat budget change is small, of an already small heat budget effect.

I find this presentation interesting:

What would the temperature of the Earth be without CO2 in the Atmosphere?

LINK


"If CO2 were removed, the change in energy transfer would be 3.3 W/m^2 which is 2.75% of the total. That change corresponds to a total change to the GHE of 0.9 °C which I will consider 1 °C as the ozone transfer really takes place in the stratosphere.

Since the Earth’s temperature is ~287K, the temperature of the Earth without CO2 would be ~286K."

Very small difference, and that is without Water Vapor taking up some of loss of IR absorption, with CO2 removed.

Your terminology is incorrect we are in an interglacial cycle. What you refer to as an ice age is more appropriately referred to as an ice house planet which is what we transitioned into about 3 million years ago from a greenhouse planet. An ice house planet has high thermal gradients between the poles and equator (relative to a greenhouse planet) and cycles between glacial and interglacial cycles.

Incorrect, we ARE in an ICE AGE now, but it consist of two parts, GLACIATION and INTERGLACIAL, currently we are in the waning days of the Interglacial part of the cycle.

It is called the Quaternary glaciation

The Quaternary glaciation, also known as the Pleistocene glaciation, is an alternating series of glacial and interglacial periods during the Quaternary period that began 2.58 Ma (million years ago), and is ongoing.

 

[ding]

...we also have to draw the down the present CO2 level...

Why in the world do you want to do that? Do you want another ice age?

We are already in an ice age, has been for around 2.6 million years.

Water vapor would just take up more of the IR absorption when CO2 levels drops down, since they have a significant overlap in the main bandwidth area, the overall heat budget change is small, of an already small heat budget effect.

I find this presentation interesting:

What would the temperature of the Earth be without CO2 in the Atmosphere?

LINK


"If CO2 were removed, the change in energy transfer would be 3.3 W/m^2 which is 2.75% of the total. That change corresponds to a total change to the GHE of 0.9 °C which I will consider 1 °C as the ozone transfer really takes place in the stratosphere.

Since the Earth’s temperature is ~287K, the temperature of the Earth without CO2 would be ~286K."

Very small difference, and that is without Water Vapor taking up some of loss of IR absorption, with CO2 removed.

Your terminology is incorrect we are in an interglacial cycle. What you refer to as an ice age is more appropriately referred to as an ice house planet which is what we transitioned into about 3 million years ago from a greenhouse planet. An ice house planet has high thermal gradients between the poles and equator (relative to a greenhouse planet) and cycles between glacial and interglacial cycles.

Incorrect, we ARE in an ICE AGE now, but it consist of two parts, GLACIATION and INTERGLACIAL, currently we are in the waning days of the Interglacial part of the cycle.

It is called the Quaternary glaciation

The Quaternary glaciation, also known as the Pleistocene glaciation, is an alternating series of glacial and interglacial periods during the Quaternary period that began 2.58 Ma (million years ago), and is ongoing.

The transition was from a greenhouse world to an ice house world.

 

[westwall]

If nothing else.....the Left has perfected fear mongering.

If nothing else fools like you have perfected the Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

No, you are the king of the stoopids. You constantly whine about how warm it is, but nothing ever changes. Everything you point to and scream "oh, oh, oh" invariably turns out to be caused by something else.

You are adept at forcing your head so far up your ass that all you see is brown.

 

[Sunsettommy]

...we also have to draw the down the present CO2 level...

Why in the world do you want to do that? Do you want another ice age?

We are already in an ice age, has been for around 2.6 million years.

Water vapor would just take up more of the IR absorption when CO2 levels drops down, since they have a significant overlap in the main bandwidth area, the overall heat budget change is small, of an already small heat budget effect.

I find this presentation interesting:

What would the temperature of the Earth be without CO2 in the Atmosphere?

LINK


"If CO2 were removed, the change in energy transfer would be 3.3 W/m^2 which is 2.75% of the total. That change corresponds to a total change to the GHE of 0.9 °C which I will consider 1 °C as the ozone transfer really takes place in the stratosphere.

Since the Earth’s temperature is ~287K, the temperature of the Earth without CO2 would be ~286K."

Very small difference, and that is without Water Vapor taking up some of loss of IR absorption, with CO2 removed.

Your terminology is incorrect we are in an interglacial cycle. What you refer to as an ice age is more appropriately referred to as an ice house planet which is what we transitioned into about 3 million years ago from a greenhouse planet. An ice house planet has high thermal gradients between the poles and equator (relative to a greenhouse planet) and cycles between glacial and interglacial cycles.

Incorrect, we ARE in an ICE AGE now, but it consist of two parts, GLACIATION and INTERGLACIAL, currently we are in the waning days of the Interglacial part of the cycle.

It is called the Quaternary glaciation

The Quaternary glaciation, also known as the Pleistocene glaciation, is an alternating series of glacial and interglacial periods during the Quaternary period that began 2.58 Ma (million years ago), and is ongoing.

The transition was from a greenhouse world to an ice house world.

What time frame are you referring to?

You are getting confused.....

 

[ding]

...we also have to draw the down the present CO2 level...

Why in the world do you want to do that? Do you want another ice age?

We are already in an ice age, has been for around 2.6 million years.

Water vapor would just take up more of the IR absorption when CO2 levels drops down, since they have a significant overlap in the main bandwidth area, the overall heat budget change is small, of an already small heat budget effect.

I find this presentation interesting:

What would the temperature of the Earth be without CO2 in the Atmosphere?

LINK


"If CO2 were removed, the change in energy transfer would be 3.3 W/m^2 which is 2.75% of the total. That change corresponds to a total change to the GHE of 0.9 °C which I will consider 1 °C as the ozone transfer really takes place in the stratosphere.

Since the Earth’s temperature is ~287K, the temperature of the Earth without CO2 would be ~286K."

Very small difference, and that is without Water Vapor taking up some of loss of IR absorption, with CO2 removed.

Your terminology is incorrect we are in an interglacial cycle. What you refer to as an ice age is more appropriately referred to as an ice house planet which is what we transitioned into about 3 million years ago from a greenhouse planet. An ice house planet has high thermal gradients between the poles and equator (relative to a greenhouse planet) and cycles between glacial and interglacial cycles.

Incorrect, we ARE in an ICE AGE now, but it consist of two parts, GLACIATION and INTERGLACIAL, currently we are in the waning days of the Interglacial part of the cycle.

It is called the Quaternary glaciation

The Quaternary glaciation, also known as the Pleistocene glaciation, is an alternating series of glacial and interglacial periods during the Quaternary period that began 2.58 Ma (million years ago), and is ongoing.

The transition was from a greenhouse world to an ice house world.

What time frame are you referring to?

You are getting confused.....