Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Current CO2 will vary this year between say 411 to 417 PPM (natural variation, this number drops spring through summer, rises fall through winter).
We have been overall increasing CO2 at a rate of around 3 PPM per year or about .72 percent.
Assume the 8 percent drop last all year (it might with the way things are now turning going into winter), instead of a .72 percent increase, we only get a .66 percent increase. But we still have an increase, just a little bit less than we would have.
The natural yearly CO2 PPM variation is about 2.16 percent.
If this was your checking account and you had it for many years getting .72 percent increase per year and then one year you only got .66 percent increase, would you expect the amount of money in your checking account to dramatically or even noticeably change.. Not really and it still went up.
It also somewhat points out how difficult it actually will be to make a dent in the upwards warming trend.
A couple points about the article: they don't measure "co2 emissions." The infer it from fossil fuel usage. That article used the info stated in the OP.
More importantly-- from the article
"Warmer-than-usual weather across much of the northern hemisphere also meant that emissions were somewhat lower than they would have been in the same period of last year."
That supports my contention that reduced fossil fuel usage/co2 emissions had no discernible effect on temps (or atm[co2])
The GHG Theory may be right qualitatively, but quantitatively is of minor importance in determining weather & climate.
My contention is that I don't believe only 3 or 4 months of less emissions that started in spring is going to instantly change the temperatures of the oceans to colder than they were at the same time last year.
They're going to stay warm, and remember it's the oceans' temperatures that drive the climate and weather and surface temperatures, it's not the emissions in the atmosphere that are in the driver's seat. The oceans capture heat and the emissions in the atmosphere lock it in like a blanket.
At this point there is no reason for there to be a drop in ocean temperatures anywhere. Not even several more months of reduction in fossil fuel usage/CO2 emissions would have done that. Maybe if there was a major reduction in emissions around the world for a full two or three years or longer then we'd see ocean temperatures dropping more noticeably.
At this point there is no reason for there to be a drop in ocean temperatures anywhere.
.
La Nina conditions in equatorial pacific. Plenty of cooling elsewhere also. https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/anomaly/ AMO, PDO and other decadal long ocean cycles appear to match air temp changes better than co2 levels, as do sun cycles-- very high correlation for those as opposed to the low correlation of co2:temps.
Temp sensor buoys placed off US East coast ~10 yrs ago for the first time. Gulf stream appears to be cooling last couple years and may portend cooler weather for Europe & polar ice melt in the near future. https://www.bing.com/images/search?v...RST&ajaxhist=0
La Nina conditions in equatorial pacific. Plenty of cooling elsewhere also. https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/anomaly/ AMO, PDO and other decadal long ocean cycles appear to match air temp changes better than co2 levels, as do sun cycles-- very high correlation for those as opposed to the low correlation of co2:temps.
Nope. I think you posted the wrong thing by mistake, easy to do since that map is a bit misleading in its purpose. That map is of coral reef bleaching monitoring, not water temps monitoring.
Every action on Earth is connected. Nobody and nothing operates in a vacuum. Man's actions definitely have an impact on local environments, which impact regional and global environmental structure. These actions in combination with natural actions and reactions affect the atmosphere. The combination of environmental and atmospheric factors change the climate over time. The temperatures of the air, land and seas and as a consequence the wind and ocean currents, and the organisms that populate the skies, terrestrial and aquatic life are all affected. It is entirely logical. Arguing that man has no impact on the climate follows the same past failed campaigns, driven by self-interest, that man has no impact on his environment, that smoking has no impact on health, and other similar falsehoods sold to the masses in the past.
Reducing carbon is a key part of the long-term solution to mitigate climate change. However, in the short term it is argued that a quick reduction in carbon most likely will actually raise the temperature due to removing some of the particles that block the heating of the atmosphere in certain parts of the world. Changes are not easily observable in real time since there is a lag effect when the variables are changed that may not be evident until several years after a change was implemented. The change also needs to be of a sufficient duration to have a meaningful long-term affect on the climate. The problems we are experiencing today are amplified by the fact that our planet's population went from just over 1.5 billion in 1900 to 6 billion in 2000 (now at 7.5 billion) in conjunction with the greatest level of growth in extraction, consumption, production and the burning of fossil fuels.
"The Future Earth" by Eric Holthaus discusses some of these challenges which may possibly ironically require deliberate geoengineering by man to reintroduce aerosols to reflect some of the heat back during the transition.
Climate change posses one of the greatest challenges to modern societies. However, it also provides some of the greatest opportunities. The changes to infrastructure, energy production and supply, technology, and food production amongst other industries can be major growth opportunities for our country and others generating new, good-paying jobs. There is little downside risk in working to minimize man's impact on the planet. However, there is plenty of risk in doing nothing for once the change is clearly evident to everyone it is most likely too late to meaningfully address the situation.
Nope. I think you posted the wrong thing by mistake, easy to do since that map is a bit misleading in its purpose. That map is of coral reef bleaching monitoring, not water temps monitoring.
Your map lists actual ocean temps. Mine was "SST Anomaly"--Sea Surface temp differences (from the arbitrary baseline) It's from the NOAA "Coral Bleaching Monitoring Program."
This is predicted to be a strong La Nina winter https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...%C3%B1a-update
And, BTW, as long as you bring it up with your map, how is it that polar ice is melting when the ocean water is below 0degC?
...And keep in mind that "La Nina" is Spanish for "The Nina."
Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 10-16-2020 at 05:05 PM..
The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums, and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization—including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)—that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk.
There are more humans in the world today, with more material wealth and living longer than at any time in recorded history. Yet, we are supposed to believe that climate change is going to annihilate us in short order? Sounds fishy to me.
These "scientists" need to get back to the drawing board. They seem not to understand the extent of human adaptability.
I don't want to start another thread for our endless bickering about important factors in determining climate, so I'll throw this in here....I finally found a graph illustrating the additive effects of multiple cycles of various periods....This one happens to represent a problem in acoustics, but the principle applies.
Is that bottom summation graph reminiscent of anything?
I don't want to start another thread for our endless bickering about important factors in determining climate, so I'll throw this in here....I finally found a graph illustrating the additive effects of multiple cycles of various periods....This one happens to represent a problem in acoustics, but the principle applies.
Is that bottom summation graph reminiscent of anything?
...And keep in mind that "La Nina" is Spanish for "The Nina."
La Niña is Spanish for The Little Girl, the opposite phase of El Niño which is Spanish for The Little Boy, or Christ Child. There's explanations at this link for why the phases were given those names for the ENSO cycles:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
