Source: http://ane4bf-datap1.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/wmocms/s3fs-public/GHG_Bulletin_12_EN_web_JN161640.pdf?aZaKZhdpDfJdmHvtbSvLwbj6zb_PWwdz In 2015, Earth experienced the start of a strong El Niño event. El Niño events are natural fluctuations of the climate system where unusually warm water accumulates in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. El Niño events are associated with abnormal weather patterns such as strong storms in some places and droughts or flooding in others. A typical El Niño event lasts 9 months to 2 years. This phenomenon is witnessed roughly every 2–7 years, although such a significant El Niño event had not occurred for the past 18 years. Bob Wilson
Not so very many folks wish to read these things I suppose. Or else they would have read the previous 11. Greater CO2 increase during El Ninos (which is because of less net biological uptake) is a matter of great interest for some of us. Terrestrial photosynthesis may be less (drought in some places) but decomposition not also decreased? I have a manuscript (in internal review) on a local aspect of this, possibly with broader implications. The whole thing here is much more than terrestrial decomposition, but that's my lens.
This is 2016 and La Nina is about to set in.El Nino caused the record temps of 2016 but that is mostly behind us.As the world will be entering a cooling phase caused by a dormant Sun.(the past 160 years of earths warming coincided with an active period of Sun spots) It will soon become quite obvious that CO2 has next to nothing to do with climate.
The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey | Watts Up With That? "Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members" "Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human. The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause."
I had not gone out of my way to read the earlier ones in part because that has never been a motivation for a Prius or any other ride. I am too fuel cheap to care. I knew in 1962 the hazards of CO{2} . . . Venus. More recent information suggests there is a species risk. But the irony is I had not realized the degree manufacturing gasses had a role to play. Bob Wilson
In 1962 Mariner 2 took a microwave look at Venus, but I think it's CO2 'measurements' might have been slightly overstated above. Along with young Bob's science acumen at the time. +++ Sunspot numbers records show ups and downs through time, but 160 years of high is not accurate description Yearly mean and monthly smoothed sunspot number | SILSO Most interesting recently is a downward trend since 1980, opposite of surface temperature. Opposite.
Uh, I think you need to reconsider that in 1962-63, having a spacecraft pass by Venus was brilliant. The Russians later landed on the planet and verified the surface temperature ... melted lead. In engineering we have the concept of 'back of the envelope' versus a more refined model. Yet the wise engineers realize there are ranges in 'back of the envelope' versus lab versus 'in real life.' Physics, chemistry, and math have a certain degree of accuracy that we can use for our ... purposes. So I am fairly sanguine about the climate models and how they work. And I have no expectations beyond the limits of what they can accomplish. Going back to the original, I found a curious posting about a news source that suggested this report had insights about climate change. It was news to me and hopefully others. I have no expectations about the usual suspects given their bad behavior in the past. So I thought to share it. Bob Wilson
In 1962 a 35,000 km (?) Venus flyby, 3 microwave emission measurements, and sending numbers back home was top-notch stuff. But it did not establish any details of atmosphere. Venera 4, 1967, started that. Several others and by Pioneer (1978) it was known in good detail. Based on details then known, 'runaway greenhouse' papers appeared first in 1969 and 1970. The 1960-ish Carl Sagan stuff was data-free and based on steam tables (interestingly enough). I just think there is no point overstating how things were in 1962. Much less so, as known to we children at the time.
Memories are a funny thing: Observations and explorations of Venus - Wikipedia I have a distinct memory of reading about hot Venus back in the 1960s. At the time, living at home, we subscribed to Scientific American, a weekly Science News and Time magazine. I would be hard pressed to remember the specific source but I knew for sure there were no scantily clad women. I don't remember the CO{2} global warming models until more recently. My understanding the earliest work comes from Svante August Arrheius. Arrhenius developed a theory to explain the ice ages, and in 1896 he was the first scientist to attempt to calculate how changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.[18][19] Just I can not say whether or not his and subsequent work was in the sources we had at home in the 1960s to explain Venus. Sometimes it is hard to unscramble the omelet. Bob Wilson
My region continued record high temperatures into November as well. Snowpack is off to a rotten start. I've been hearing this for several years. Unfortunately, 'soon' continues to stay in hiding around the next corner, over the next hill, and out of sight. And now, for the first time, we have record low Arctic and Antarctic ice simultaneously. That high Antarctic ice that have been 'saving' us or 'counterbalancing' the Arctic loses the past several years, is gone: CNN: Amid higher global temperatures, sea ice at record lows at poles Google: Arctic Sea Ice Graphs
We've got two climate deniers in Huntsville and they still ignore local temperature records and the drought. Frogs in the warming pot. Bob Wilson
