<a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/" rel="nofollow">Here</a> is the BoM announcement.
Comment on ENSO and the anchovy by Nick Stokes
↧
↧
Comment on ENSO and the anchovy by genghiscunn
The Overview is pretty modest. No beat up, just information and a modest assessment rather than crying “Wolf!”
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by edimbukvarevic
Don, what’s to explain? Nature is and has been a sink. It reacts to the (relatively) minor and slow human input (CO2 emissions) by absorbing about half of it (now more and increasing). Even consensus agrees, that without the human CO2, nature would not have been a net sink, but net about zero or a minor source from the minor natural warming. It’s obvious that nature can be a net sink and still cause a part of the rise. It simply means that without the human input, nature would have been a net source.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by dikranmarsupial
edimbukvarevic wrote “It simply means that without the human input, nature would have been a net source.”
For which you have provided no evidence whatsoever. Note as I pointed out above, our knowledge of natural forcings indicates that the climate would have cooled, rather than warmed, over the last 50 years in the absence of anthropogenic emissions.
↧
Comment on ENSO and the anchovy by Bob Tisdale
Mike Flynn, I’m not sure why you believe “sea water at its maximum density” is rising “THROUGH [my caps] less dense water”. There is continuous upwelling along the equatorial Pacific. Sunlight warms the water as it rises to the surface.
↧
↧
Comment on ENSO and the anchovy by Bob Tisdale
Mike Flynn says: “Referring to NOAA bloggers pushing modelling doesn’t provide an answer.”
Where in the ENSO blog post I linked…
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/oceanic-kelvin-waves-next-polar-vortex
…do they push modeling?
↧
Comment on ENSO and the anchovy by JCH
The BoM model has ONI between 1.5 and 1.9 by summer and fall. Long and hot. The slow ENSO neutral burn that started in 2011 has rendered the pause to all but roadkill, and now it will get its final glaze in a summer barbecue. It’s going to be good eating all the way through the NH autumn.
And oh yeah, 2014 was clearly the warmest year, but not for long. Lol.
Maybe the PDO index will get updated today. Oh what a relief that’s going to be.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by AK
I think we have clearly demonstrated that the rise is anthropogenic, and those like apparently now yourself, simply ignore the facts.
You haven’t demonstrated squat. Nobody here has. Everybody seems to be arguing in question-begging circles.
↧
Comment on ENSO and the anchovy by waz88
Nick, thanks, I couldn’t find that earlier.
This is the report with the interview I was referring to http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/bureau-of-meteorology-declares-el-nino-event-in-australia-20150512-ggzdgy.html
(Sorry don’t know how to link on this ipad)
I agree with genghiscunn, the official press release is pretty straight.
The Sydney Morning Herald is a fervent reporter and campaigner for the catastrophic end of AGW, hyping up the warriors and generally taking hard and denigrating lines towards anyone who doesn’t toe the line. But it was the only story I found at the time quoting some specifically in the BOM. Perhaps it’s not so much David Jones quote that had the odd to of such certainty it was going to be large, but the way it was reported.
↧
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by AK
No-one cares that there are cranks on the internet who believe all sorts of complete nonsense, including magical CO2 production.
Dishonest rhetoric. IMO worse than begging the question. Usually people doing the latter are f00ling themselves.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by AK
[…] please explain in what sense the natural environment can be considered a cause of the increase while taking more CO2 out of the atmosphere than it puts in.
“Cause and effect” is a myth.
↧
Comment on ENSO and the anchovy by Mike Flynn
Bob Tisdale,
“But something happens and you lose. El Niño doesn’t occur. Oh the horror! Does that mean the model is totally useless? After all it forecasted a 90% percent chance of an El Niño and it didn’t happen. You might think that means the model was awful and next time you may not trust your money with such a prediction.
These sorts of bets occur all the time. And probabilistic forecasts (models that tell you there is a certain percentage (%) chance of an outcome) are becoming more popular. An example is FiveThirtyEight’s election and sports predictions.”
You can read more along the same lines. The thrust is trust the models, they will eventually prove to be correct.
But anyway, rather than get into arguments about why you choose to use a blogger to explain what you choose not to answer, I’ll ask again.
What causes denser (colder) water to rise to the surface. You say colder water is ascending to a higher level. As water cools with depth, something is causing the denser water to rise.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by angech2014
“I’ve been waiting for months for the next images from the Carbon Observatory satellite.”
“The first images were rather disconcerting to the consensus.”
Eli rabett
“They are available.The first images were exactly what had been expected for the time of year with significant agricultural burning in the Southern Hemisphere.”
really? then why are you bothering to say this?
“It was what was expected because it was what had been earlier seen from a number of other satellites at that time of year”.
really? then why was it rather disconcerting to the consensus [Eli] enough to contradict discomfort and this comment?
Better to keep quiet rather than speak out and let everyone know you are really alarmed.
↧
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Peter Davies
Global averages are an artifact and are not appropriate for use in climate trend analyses. This has always been my main concern with climate science as it is being practiced. Tomas Milanovic comment clearly demonstrates this.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Jim D
Bartemis, you say “from whatever source” but you have ruled out the single biggest growing source which is fossil fuels? Which “coincidentally” has been rising at the same rate and is large enough that it can account for observed carbon increases both in the air and in the ocean.
↧
Comment on True costs of wind electricity by ristvan
Suspect you are right on that. For several reasons outside the scope of our post on wind. Perhaps later…
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Jim D
The first images were for a month around November and showed the expected Southern Hemisphere max around vegetation. If they did one for May, you would see the annual Northern Hemisphere peak which is much bigger due to the greater size of the vegetated area. These pictures are good for seeing the annual 6 ppm cycle, but don’t show where emissions are really coming from because those changes are more diffuse and have lower change rates in any given month.
↧
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by angech2014
Don Monfort | May 12, 2015 at 1:54 pm | Reply
1. Do you believe that the natural environment has been a net sink in at least the last 50 years?
Yes
2. Can you, will you explain in what sense the natural environment can be considered a cause of the increase, while taking more CO2 out of the atmosphere than it puts in?
Nonsense question Don, of the beating the wife variety.
Logically if it takes more CO2 out than it puts in it cannot cause an increase if you are dealing with a fixed base source of CO2 .
But the question is rather
“Can the natural environment put more CO2 overall out and take more in so there is a bigger amount of CO2 being put into the atmosphere in the first place.”
Yes.
You just need an increase in the CO2 base to do this.
In which case there can be an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere while there is also an even bigger removal of CO2 from the atmosphere if the total amount being put in has increased dramatically.
ie if the turnover rate is a lot higher there can be more CO2 in the air and the sea with the sea putting out more CO2 into the air but also absorbing and sequestrating more at the same time.
So imagine a giant series of sub sea volcanic eruptions CO2 rich which put up the CO2 level in the sea plus a rise in CO2 which puts more of that CO2 level into the air The higher CO2 in the air puts more into plants, sea vegetation and shellfish shells and chemical reactions in the seabed absorbing the CO2.
So all the CO2 sequestrations lead to more CO2 removed.
CO2 level goes up at rate of increasing OHC so CO2 has gone up.
Must balance with the amount in the sea
Extra volcanic [natural] , human, whatever cause of CO2 input balanced by extra absorption and binding.
What is so hard about it.
apart from your silly question.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Jim D
angech, how sure are you that it is volcanoes and not fossil fuels on a scale of 1 to 10, and what fraction would you give to volcanoes? If fossil fuels added 2x and the atmosphere increased by x, where do the volcanoes contribute? Don’t you think the other x went into the ocean and caused acidification? Why isn’t that the most obvious candidate to you for what happened, and what specifically makes you doubt it?
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by PA
SDP…
Well…
The rise in CO2 doesn’t correlate well with emissions.
The natural variability and the long term trend have the same C13/C12 ratio.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the rise in CO2 is mostly natural or the result of destruction of carbon sinks (which has nothing to do with – and is actually reduced by fossil fuel use).
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
