Greenhouse gases go up and down in three ways.
First, there is the annual up and down cycle that happens because there is more land in the Northern Hemisphere. I won't explain that to you now because I know you can figure out why that happens.
Second, there is natural variation up and down aside from that annual cycle that has to do with things like volcanoes and such. This includes the rate of forest fires, which increase greenhouse gases by turning some of the Carbon trapped in plant tissue into gas form as CO2. (That was a hint for the answer to the first reason!)
There was a big spike in CO2 concentration this year, and it was caused by El Nino increasing forest fire output, which in turn, freed up some of that CO2. Also, regional drought in some places simply slowed down plant growth, leaving some Carbon stranded in the atmosphere.
So was that natural? Not at all. ENSO cycles, that cause El Nino and La Nina constitute and oscillation in rainfall patterns, and part of that results in extra forest fires or other effects as mentioned. But these effects are caused directly by weather disruption. Human caused global warming was already doing that. The severe El Nino of 2014-2016 was more severe (and probably longer) than any, or almost any, ever observed, precisely because it was a big dermatological monster sitting on top of a big hill made by anthropogenic global warming.
But there is also another,subtler but very important lesson in this event. At any given time we could have what would normally be a "natural" shift to bad conditions. But under global warming, such a shift can be transformed from a disaster to a much bigger disaster. In this way, think of climate change as the steepening of the drop off alongside the road from a 2 foot ditch to a 10 foot embankment. When we drive off the road due to natural forces (some ice, for example) without global warming,we get bounced around a bit. With global warming we get to rely on our airbags to save us, but the airbag deployment will probably break both our arms and mess up our face.
Anyway, the confirmation of the role of El Nino comes from new research discussed here.
Ha ha ha!
I asked for the 2017 preliminary digital CO2 data for BRW, MLO, SMO and SPO just yesterday (actually three days ago).
Thank you Kirk at NOAA.
There is a more conventional explanation for CO2 variations, which is a function of temperature (among the other factors mentioned above).
Could enough forest fires cause a "Fire Winter" like a mild Nuclear Winter/
"There is a more conventional explanation for CO2 variations,"
Which is that oxydiation of hydrocarbons produce water, CO2 and energy I am sorry that you have to look for esoteric and poorly understood features to keep your insanity alive, Francis. Maybe one day you'll get better.
Thomas, no. The nuclear winter is from stratospheric dust which doesn't rain out in a couple of days. Fires don't cause that much lift.
AGW denialists would be funny if they weren't trying to kill people. Every unusually hot year, every new record, is blamed on El Nino, and while they are El Nino years, they conveniently ignore the fact that, over the past few decades, any major El Nino event is generally hotter than the one before.
There is a well known ~2nd order effect of temperature on atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The ocean CO2 sink in the overall carbon cycle get's slightly smaller during El Nino and slightly larger during La Nina.
This is best seen in the 1st derivative of the CO2 time series. I'm using the weekly (and monthly) time series from MLO. Of course, the 1st derivative loses the primary 1st order anthro contribution to atmospheric CO2.
I am in no way questioning the overall net anthro contribution to atmospheric CO2. The article GL points to, and the MLO chart that GL shows, points out some subtleties of the atmospheric CO2 time series.
One subtlety is the uptake of CO2 by the ocean sink as the oceans warm (or cool) (e. g. the ENSO).
So, atmospheric CO2 increases are 100% anthro. How it traverses the end points of the observational time series is of some interest, as GL points out in the linked article and the included MLO CO2 graph (for the most recent El Nino).
That is all.
Where did wow get the meta-myth that :
"The nuclear winter is from stratospheric dust which doesn’t rain out in a couple of days. Fires don’t cause that much lift." ?
Where did teapot get the meth myth that it was a metamyth?
"There is a well known ~2nd order effect of temperature on atmospheric CO2 concentrations."
There is a well known first order effect of burning that it produces CO2. And it was known in the early days of chemistry.
Meanwhile CO2's degassing was not known about until much later.
Sorry, Frankie, the asinine claim is still assinine.
"And it was known in the early days of chemistry."
Would that be in the Stone Age, Iron Age or the Bronze Age?
"Would that be in the Stone Age"
I would suggest you ask a schoolchild about what chemistry is. Clearly when you were fed that line you prattled out in your first post, this was just a script you were reading from.
"Clearly when you were fed that line you prattled out in your first post, this was just a script you were reading from."
Are you an atmospheric CO2 rate of change denier? :(
Are you clinically in a vegetative state? There is clearly no discernable brain activity going on there.
You deny combustion. Confuse chemistry with Alchemy, and have zero reading comprehension.
How many harmonics of the weekly MLO CO2 time series does NOAA take out to derive their "increase since 1800" time series?
The correct answer is four (including the annual harmonic). :(
Are you seriously math impaired? :(
You traffic in informal logical fallacies, the current one being a straw man. :(
"How many harmonics of the weekly MLO"
Meaningless. Combustion of hydrocarbons produce CO2. Ask the internet how much fossil fuel we burn in a year. If you don't trust the leftist internet, ask the fossil fuel corporations.
Are you on meth?
"including the annual harmonic"
You're blind to reality because of all the mathturnation you've been fed by people who attended school and have found in you a gullible idiot to hide behind.
Meaningless? Then I would very kindly suggest that you notify NOAA as to their "meaningless" column of data. Mkay? :(
Note to self: Combustion of carbon into CO2 is a given along with anthro carbon emissions. Dealing with meth (er math) impaired internet trolls, not so much. :(
Are you seriously math impaired?
He thinks that if you plot the natural log of CO2 forcing against CO2 ppmv, the result is a linear 1:1 relationship. So, yes.
"You’re blind to reality because of all the mathturnation you’ve been fed by people who attended school and have found in you a gullible idiot to hide behind."
Still trafficking in the straw man informal logical fallacy, I see. :(
FFS go back and read what FES actually wrote at #1 and #5. He is correct and you have not understood what he wrote and are now doing your standard rabid idiot attack thing.
Your target acquisition software is buggy.
Sorry, to be clear, my #20 referred to a 'conversation' with Wow on an earlier thread.
You will get no sense out of the man. Be warned.
"He thinks that if you plot the natural log of CO2 forcing against CO2 ppmv, the result is a linear 1:1 relationship. So, yes."
I'm not sure if that one deserves a /sarc tag.
As in he could be me.
"FFS go back and read what FES actually wrote at #1 and #5."
I did. It was content free and even letter lite, being mostly initials and an ftp graph.
"He is correct "
Where? He's not correct in denying combustion of CO2 was known about long before outgassing from oceans. Nor about the combustion happens.
Thanks BBD. :)
"You will get no sense out of the man"
Don'tlsten to the hysterical woman. they've been eternally butthurt over her nuke fluffing being destroyed. Just like with the fake "I'm not an *atheist*, I'm an agnostic, I don't believe there's a god, and that's the only sane option!". She gets self gratification by pretending to be a moderate accepting "both sides" therefore *better than either*. And therefore Mackay's nuke fluff and renewable attack piece really frotted her trotters. It used rhetoric to make "both sides" wrong and therefore all true followers (tm) of Mackay the best of everyone.
Still on meths, I see.
"Meaningless? Then I would very kindly suggest that you notify NOAA "
No need. They don't deny chemistry and combustion. You do.
"Note to self: Combustion of carbon into CO2 is a given along with anthro carbon emissions."
Then why did you not say so in your first post? Why wait until now to recant your idiocy?
"Dealing with meth (er math) impaired internet trolls,"
Then stop taking meth and stop the impairment getting worse.
"if you plot the natural log of CO2 forcing against CO2 ppmv, the result is a linear 1:1 relationship."
Have you even looked at how to calculate the CO2 forcing from QM first priniciples? I did not but worked in the next nissan hut from someone who did and looked over some of the coding of the maths as a double check (along with another coworker independently: we scientists take rigour quite seriously, especially when programming and knowing we are not computer graduates).
You are just a tired old moron digging for something that you believe merely on the basis of you believe is other than reality says.
"Where? He’s not correct in denying combustion of CO2 was known about long before outgassing from oceans. Nor about the combustion happens."
You DO understand informal logical fallacies?
If not, as would appear to be the present case, then look into "straw man fallacy" as you are putting your own words into my mouth.
You have now made several incorrect statements and have assigned them to me. :( :( :(
"You DO understand informal logical fallacies?"
You DO realise that blank assertions like that lies, right? That by asking that question you are asserting by insinuation that I do not and that therefore I am wrong without having in any way whatsoever to provide any argument, evidence or proof of the assertion, leaving it entirely up to me to do all the work, and that this offloading is why the gish gallop and the associated fallacy is used?
"then look into “straw man fallacy”"
Since the only one was the one you made in #12, why should I be the one to look into it? I already know what it is. You are the incompetent moron who cannot comprehend what one is. Or playing the incompetent moron. Neither works out well for you.
"You have now made several incorrect statements"
Ah, projection too.
Hey BBD, is Wow aka Blogger profile from RR infamy?
Just, you know, sayin'
"Just, you know, sayin’"
Here's the problem. "just sayin'" what? No, actual information is not conducive and besides as long as you keep it to insinuation, to find out you're wrong means everyone else has to do more work, and you don't nee anyone to find out you're right because you know you are even if you aren't.
As long as you keep it vague, nothing can be done without punishing those who dare not accept your sayin's.
Which is what deceptive morons and charlatans do. Takes less effort that way and anyway information makes your brain hurt.
Moving on to ad hominems, I see.
Six posts in a row, wow!
Time to steal me some quotes from the internets ...
There are no more barriers to cross. All I have in common with the uncontrollable and the insane, the vicious and the evil, all the mayhem I have caused and my utter indifference toward it I have now surpassed. My pain is constant and sharp, and I do not hope for a better world for anyone. In fact, I want my pain to be inflicted on others. I want no one to escape. But even after admitting this, there is no catharsis; my punishment continues to elude me, and I gain no deeper knowledge of myself. No new knowledge can be extracted from my telling. This confession has meant nothing.
"Moving on to ad hominems,"
"Six posts in a row, wow!"
So you watched and learned from Sesame Street! AMAZING!
Oh, and a argument by irrelevant comparison "You're posting therefore your argument is wrong".
And still more continuing with the unformed accusation so it cannot be verified or rejected. How is that working out for you, cupcake?
"This confession has meant nothing."
So now you recant on the "It's NOT meaningless! Go tell NOAA!!!!".
And then you delve into insanity.
Hey BBD, is Wow aka Blogger profile from RR infamy?
we scientists take rigour quite seriously,
You are, at best, a PC tech, Wow. You are not, and have never been, a scientist.
Stop lying. It's not even funny.
"You are, at best, a PC tech,"
" You are not, and have never been, a scientist"
bullshit claim made because you are clueless but have great opinions. There's an orangutan in a big house just like you, dumdum.
Stop making shit up, retard.
"It’s not even funny."
Yet more meaningless babble from dumdum.
"Yet more meaningless babble from dumdum."
Yeah, he's a dumdum.
No thinking apparent.
we scientists take rigour quite seriously,
Once again, for the record, this is Wow lying about being a scientist.
Abusive, delusional and downright dishonest.
For the record.
Once again, you're wrong, dumdum.
When it comes to your ped peeves, you're as ignorant yet strongly opinionated as dick.
"Abusive, delusional and downright dishonest. "
Says someone who KNOWS they have no evidence for their claim and insists that I can't be a scientist, because, well, she wants to denigrate me for not accepting their batshittery merely because they accept that AGW is real, and thinks that this will work. Which is abusive, delusional and downright dishonest.
Making the claim there ironic.
There's only one thing to say about this thread ... wow.
Every time I see or have to read a Wow post I go ...
OMFG! Humanity is s-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o DOOMED!
Just realised what I wrote at #20. Which was not what I *thought* I wrote. Because if I had written that a plot of CO2 forcing (W/m^2) against CO2 conc (ppm) does not yield a linear 1:1 relationship, then I would have said what I meant.
Don't be so hard on yourself. You said "natural log of CO2 . . ." in #20. I thought that using the logarithm of one or more variables instead of the un-logged form makes the effective
relationship non-linear, while still preserving the linear model. So I didn't think your #20 was wrong in the first place.
>looked over some of the coding of the maths as a double check (along with another coworker independently: we scientists take rigour quite seriously, especially when programming and knowing we are not computer graduates).
Now that's funny. You couldn't even recognize the code you posted didn't match your files, after having it pointed out to you.
"OMFG! Humanity is s-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o DOOMED!"
Ah, yes, lacking any argument, you talk bollocks. Well done, moron. I'm sure you're a legend in your own mind.
"You couldn’t even recognize the code you posted didn’t match your files"
Ah, the alternative reality. You mean when you posted a link and claimed it had some lines in it you quoted, the lines did not appear. And somehow that is my fault...?
"plot of CO2 forcing (W/m^2) against CO2 conc (ppm) does not yield a linear 1:1 relationship"
Yeah, other way round.
Log co2 vs temp. Linear coefficient. Dumdum thinks not. Neither does dick.