Is happening.

Yes, AGW is happening and that can be shown by spectrometer readings—no models or theories needed.

See: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464603948/1856#1856

That settled, what problems is AGW causing?

Low global oceanic oxygen is one. We know the oceans are absorbing a lot of the CO2 we emit and this causes problems for organisms to create their calcium carbonate shells, especially by the plankton that is the base of the food pyramid in our seas—ocean acidification, which means our oceans are getting less alkaline and so more acid, not that our oceans are becoming acidic. Mention that because people get that term wrong.

Lack of global oxygen is another.


Quote:

A large research synthesis, published in one of the world’s most influential scientific journals, has detected a decline in the amount of dissolved oxygen in oceans around the world — a long-predicted result of climate change that could have severe consequences for marine organisms if it continues. The paper, published Wednesday in the journal Nature by oceanographer Sunke Schmidtko and two colleagues from the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel, Germany, found a decline of more than 2 percent in ocean oxygen content worldwide between 1960 and 2010. The loss, however, showed up in some ocean basins more than others. The largest overall volume of oxygen was lost in the largest ocean — the Pacific — but as a percentage, the decline was sharpest in the Arctic Ocean, a region facing Earth’s most stark climate change.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/15/its-official-the-oceans-are-losing-oxygen-posing-growing-threats-to-marine-life/?utm_term=.b1f66ed8248e

If you think it odd that the ocean can absorb more CO2 but lose oxygen content then remember that there is a lot more O2 than CO2 in our seas: 18% oxygen v .04% CO2 in the atmosphere


Quote:

Ocean oxygen is vital to marine organisms, but also very delicate — unlike in the atmosphere, where gases mix together thoroughly, in the ocean that is far harder to accomplish, Schmidtko explained. Moreover, he added, just 1 percent of all the Earth’s available oxygen mixes into the ocean; the vast majority remains in the air.

So any loss of oxygen will be hard to replace. And the loss of oxygen is not evenly spread in depth:


Quote:

“When the upper ocean warms, less water gets down deep, and so therefore, the oxygen supply to the deep ocean is shut down or significantly reduced,” Schmidtko said.

Oxygen enters the sea directly from the atmosphere and by photosynthesis by ocean plants and algae, including the algae living symbiotically with coral.


Quote:

The new study represents a synthesis of literally “millions” of separate ocean measurements over time, according to GEOMAR. The authors then used interpolation techniques for areas of the ocean where they lacked measurements. The resulting study attributes less than 15 percent of the total oxygen loss to sheer warmer temperatures, which create less solubility. The rest was attributed to other factors, such as a lack of mixing.

Quote:

“Natural variations have obscured our ability to definitively detect this signal in observations,” Long said in an email. “In this study, however, Schmidtko et al. synthesize all available observations to show a global-scale decline in oxygen that conforms to the patterns we expect from human-driven climate warming. They do not make a definitive attribution statement, but the data are consistent with and strongly suggestive of human-driven warming as a root cause of the oxygen decline. “It is alarming to see this signal begin to emerge clearly in the observational data,” he added. “Schmidtko and colleagues’ findings should ring yet more alarm bells about the consequences of global warming,” added Denis Gilbert, a researcher with the Maurice Lamontagne Institute at Fisheries and Oceans Canada in Quebec, in an accompanying commentary on the study also published in Nature.

It gets worse:

Quote:

Because oxygen in the global ocean is not evenly distributed, the 2 percent overall decline means there is a much larger decline in some areas of the ocean than others. Moreover, the ocean already contains so-called oxygen minimum zones, generally found in the middle depths. The great fear is that their expansion upward, into habitats where fish and other organism thrive, will reduce the available habitat for marine organisms. In shallower waters, meanwhile, the development of ocean “hypoxic” areas, or so-called “dead zones,” may also be influenced in part by declining oxygen content overall. On top of all of that, declining ocean oxygen can also worsen global warming in a feedback loop. In or near low oxygen areas of the oceans, microorganisms tend to produce nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas, Gilbert writes. Thus the new study “implies that production rates and efflux to the atmosphere of nitrous oxide … will probably have increased.”

Positive feedback loops are going to see a jump in atmospheric methane and CO2 and now we see nitrous oxide, a minor greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, is also increasing in the atmosphere. Not good.

cont’d

cont’d


Quote:

The new study underscores once again that some of the most profound consequences of climate change are occurring in the oceans, rather than on land. In recent years, incursions of warm ocean water have caused large die-offs of coral reefs, and in some cases, kelp forests as well. Meanwhile, warmer oceans have also begun to destabilize glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, and as they melt, these glaciers freshen the ocean waters and potentially change the nature of their circulation.

I have been reading in various papers that kelp forests are disappearing from large swathes of offshore seas. Consequences for the survival of species that grow to maturity in the cover of these forests (and I have seen the other nursery of the sea, mangrove swamps are starting to die too.) Not good for people relying on marine fish for their protein.

the Ocean stole my Global Warming ..  ;D

Antarctic sea ice extent diminishing:

https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2017/02/S_stddev_timeseries-Feb-14.png


Quote:

Floating sea ice in another cold place, the Arctic, is clearly shrinking, as are Arctic and Antarctic glaciers, and we don’t fully understand all the drivers behind the vast and complex Antarctic sea ice system. So don’t leap to the conclusion that odd behavior in floating Antarctic ice, which indeed has been growing slightly in recent years, undermines climate concerns. Now, though, the argument for doubters just got even more complicated. After seeing a record high for total extent in the year 2014, Antarctic sea ice had been running very low in late 2016 and early 2017. And now, as of data recorded on Monday and Tuesday by the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the extent of Antarctic sea ice now appears to have hit a record low (although scientists still have to confirm this and have not made an official announcement yet). It’s summer in Antarctica right now, and floating sea ice on Monday only covered 2.287 million square kilometers, according to “near-real-time data” from the National Snow and Ice Data Center. If that’s correct, that would barely edge out the previous record low of 2.290 million square kilometers on Feb. 27, 1997. The records go back to 1979.

Growing now shrinking. Must be caused by something.


Quote:

“Record low sea ice extent in the Arctic has, in a sense, become old news,” said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. “But now the Antarctic is getting into the act.  There are certainly many questions out there as to why Antarctic sea ice is also at a record low, but we can’t deny the reality that things are changing and they are changing fast.”

This is a scientist talking. No dogmatic statements, questions and talking about things changing and changing fast—obviously the right questions need to be asked and answers found to satisfactorily answer those questions, the framing of hypotheses etc.


Quote:

Sea ice is almost completely absent right now along the coast of West Antarctica in particular, a region where huge and fast-retreating glaciers have raised major concerns about potential sea-level rise. It’s unclear if lack of sea ice in the area might also signal that the oceans are having an effect on the continent’s marine-based glaciers.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2017/02/S_daily_extent_hires-Feb-14.png

As we can see, the ice loss is not uniform.


Quote:

Gerald Meehl, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., has published research suggesting that floating Antarctic ice is actually controlled in part by the state of the distant Pacific Ocean, whose influence on wind and weather patterns ultimately stretches all the way down to the Antarctic. That study focused on a natural climate wobble called the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, or IPO, whose negative phase is one in which heat ends up getting buried in the Pacific Ocean, and whose positive phase unleashes it. The IPO was in a negative phase through much of the 2000s, but it may now be shifting back, Meehl says. And that could be playing a role in sea ice.

“could be playing a role” again, questions not dogmatic statements. Words of a scientist, not a paid propagandist.


Quote:

. . .we can’t say that Antarctic sea ice will stay at this low extent indefinitely. But the evidence from IPO connections is pointing in the right direction for a possible decadal trend toward reduced sea ice extent.”

The WP article ends with:

Quote:

In the end, since Antarctic sea ice was previously trending upward, the sudden reversal shouldn’t be a reason to turn on a dime and suggest that the ice is now declining — yet. Instead, it further underscores that we don’t fully understand what’s going on with this system. Which is precisely why it’s so dangerous to cite Antarctic ice to undermine the overwhelming evidence of climate change elsewhere.

Yup.

thats the thing with you GW loons...  :D

its not only that the information (that has been adjusted) that you are spreading is Fake Science... its also what they don't report on..

like record low temperatures and rain across australia, tassie, New Zealand..

shhhhh... keep all of that quiet.. wink wink

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487623939/0#8

Anybody has questions I will try to answer them.

Idiots will be ignored.

Quote:

Newly published research shows regional climate variability caused an "unusual" period in which some of New Zealand's glaciers grew bigger, while glaciers worldwide were shrinking. The research, carried out by scientists from Victoria University of Wellington and the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), was published today in scientific journal Nature Communications. At least 58 New Zealand glaciers advanced between 1983 and 2008, with Franz Josef Glacier (Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere) advancing nearly continuously during this time. "Glaciers advancing is very unusual—especially in this period when the vast majority of glaciers worldwide shrank in size as a result of our warming world," says lead-author Associate Professor Andrew Mackintosh from Victoria's Antarctic Research Centre. "This anomaly hadn't been satisfactorily explained, so this physics-based study used computer models for the first time to look into it in detail. "We found that lower temperature caused the glaciers to advance, rather than increased precipitation as previously thought. These periods of reduced temperature affected the entire New Zealand region, and they were significant enough for the glaciers to re-advance in spite of human-induced climate change." Associate Professor Mackintosh says the climate variability, which includes the cooler years, still reflects a climate that's been modified by humans. "It may seem unusual—this regional cooling during a period of overall global warming—but it's still consistent with human-induced climate change. The temperature changes were a result of variability in the climate system that's specific to New Zealand. "New Zealand sits in a region where there's significant variability in the oceans and the atmosphere—much more than many parts of the world. The climate variability that we identified was also responsible for changes in the Antarctic ice sheet and sea ice during this period."

https://phys.org/news/2017-02-zealand-unusual-glaciers.html

In the article on the Antarctic see ice extent above we saw the changes to the Antarctic sea ice and temperatures. Not unreasonable those changes would impact NZ.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 5:27am:

Is happening.

That's the theory.

There's no proof though.

I believe in AGW but it's not going to cause end times like the  merchants of panic believe.

Gordon wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 9:50am:

I believe in AGW but it's not going to cause end times like the  merchants of panic believe.

It will cause hotter heatwaves, shorter cold periods and the sea level rises caused by it will worsen flooding. Wildfires (Australia, Chile, the US and Russia are countries I have seen mentioned in this regard) will start earlier in spring and get bigger, wilder and more destructive—things can be done about this, e.g. design rules for communities and individual housing to make them more bushfire resistant.

I don’t believe in panicking, that only results in destruction. Face the facts and do what you can do about it, yourself personally and by getting things like ETSs implemented. Even the Libs will have to implement an ETS or a scheme dealing with emissions intensity.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 5:27am:

Yes, AGW is happening and that can be shown by spectrometer readings—no models or theories needed.

Spectrometers show global warming? :D :D Because CO2 is NOT a well-mixed gas it does not show effects of elevation on CO2.


Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 5:27am:

We know the oceans are absorbing a lot of the CO2 we emi

But don't warmer oceans outgas CO2? ;)
Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 5:27am:

this causes problems for organisms to create their calcium carbonate shells, especially by the plankton that is the base of the food pyramid in our seas—ocean acidification

Except for areas where it doesn't. Why are there perfectly good shells near CO2 vents?


Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 5:27am:

A large research synthesis, published in one of the world’s most influential scientific journals, has detected a decline in the amount of dissolved oxygen in oceans around the world — a long-predicted result of climate change that could have severe consequences for marine organisms if it continues.

from the paper -

"Regional observational data indicate a continuous decrease in oceanic dissolved oxygen concentrations in most regions of the global ocean with an increase reported in a few limited areas, varying by study"

You do understand synthesis; don't you? Shouldn't AGW affect all oceans the same way? Are oceans homogeneous. (Edit: they admit not.)  Does it depend on time of day for readings, as they have found with pH levels?


Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 5:27am:

Ocean oxygen is vital to marine organisms, but also very delicate — unlike in the atmosphere, where gases mix together thoroughly,

Uh-oh, back to the well-mixed gas theory. ;)



Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 5:27am:

Positive feedback loops

Gotta watch out for those positive feedback loops.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 6:43am:

Antarctic sea ice extent diminishing:

And here I thought AGW was more than one year's weather. And an El Nino year at that. ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 5:57am:

I have been reading in various papers that kelp forests are disappearing from large swathes of offshore seas.

And this has been attributed to AGW?

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 9:57am:

the sea level rises caused by it will worsen flooding.

"Sea-level change in Southeast Asia 6,000 years ago has implications for today"

https://phys.org/news/2017-02-sea-level-southeast-asia-years-implications.html

Gordon wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 9:50am:

I believe in AGW but it's not going to cause end times like the  merchants of panic believe.

it all depends on greenland

All I see is some new graphs pointing to some new theorey that will put pennies into the pockets of scientists and the Grubberment.

I have said many times that all climate scientists have to do is prove that they can predict the weather accurately 1 month in advance and everyone will believe them.

But this is impossible, because there are too many factors in play.

Then the same scientists say that climate science is different from weather???????

WTF  If you cant understand short term weather, how the hell can you possibly extrapolate on a theory using data from a tiny percentage of the worlds history?

This graph is just another furpy thrown into the Global climate farce.
Even the scientists cannot agree.
Some say global warming, some say cooling, both have a plethora of data to prove their point, but none can explain why our planet has gone through heating and cooling cycles in the millions of years of its existence.


more graphs, more theorems, more bull shite and more money for a bunch of loosers who have no idea.

Valkie wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 1:52pm:

All I see is some new graphs pointing to some new theorey that will put pennies into the pockets of scientists and the Grubberment. I have said many times that all climate scientists have to do is prove that they can predict the weather accurately 1 month in advance and everyone will believe them. But this is impossible, because there are too many factors in play. Then the same scientists say that climate science is different from weather??????? WTF  If you cant understand short term weather, how the hell can you possibly extrapolate on a theory using data from a tiny percentage of the worlds history? This graph is just another furpy thrown into the Global climate farce. Even the scientists cannot agree. Some say global warming, some say cooling, both have a plethora of data to prove their point, but none can explain why our planet has gone through heating and cooling cycles in the millions of years of its existence. more graphs, more theorems, more bull shite and more money for a bunch of loosers who have no idea.

Because weather is a specific measurement, climate referes to a trend.

By spectrometry we see that the five main greenhouse gases are blocking heat from escaping the atmosphere. No theory, no model, no graph. Greenhouse gases are making the atmosphere a greenhouse.

No argument debate or discussion. The greenhouse gases are blocking heat from escaping to space so warming the globe.

And climate is not the same as weather. Cooler weather in Vic is balanced by heatwave in NSW and Queensland etc: so the sum shows the globe warms. And the heat/cool etc is averaged over the globe and over the year.

And if you follow the comments to the Dubyne propaganda you will see heaps of people talking of their area—e.g. Chicago a warm winter in todays farrago of rubbish—but also other areas. So a yearly global temp takes all this into account.

Every few months there is a new finding that some climate scientist or other uses to PROVE that there is Global warming/ cooling.

Lots of facts, lots of figures, no real PROOF.

Just another junket

Not a theory, fact. Fact incapable of doubt.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 3:23pm:

Not a theory, fact. Fact incapable of doubt.

Nope. An hypothesis masquerading as a theory.

But your confirmation bias helps you believe. ;)

Valkie wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 1:52pm:

All I see is some new graphs pointing to some new theorey that will put pennies into the pockets of scientists and the Grubberment. I have said many times that all climate scientists have to do is prove that they can predict the weather accurately 1 month in advance and everyone will believe them. But this is impossible, because there are too many factors in play. Then the same scientists say that climate science is different from weather??????? WTF  If you cant understand short term weather, how the hell can you possibly extrapolate on a theory using data from a tiny percentage of the worlds history? This graph is just another furpy thrown into the Global climate farce. Even the scientists cannot agree. Some say global warming, some say cooling, both have a plethora of data to prove their point, but none can explain why our planet has gone through heating and cooling cycles in the millions of years of its existence. more graphs, more theorems, more bull shite and more money for a bunch of loosers who have no idea.

You're an idiot: joining issues is joining issues and that makes you guilty of false argument.

Valkie wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 3:18pm:

Every few months there is a new finding that some climate scientist or other uses to PROVE that there is Global warming/ cooling. Lots of facts, lots of figures, no real PROOF. Just another junket

False argument is false argument: you don't even convince yourself there is no proof!

lee wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 3:51pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 3:23pm: Not a theory, fact. Fact incapable of doubt. Nope. An hypothesis masquerading as a theory. But your confirmation bias helps you believe. ;)

lee loves kiddies long time

lee wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 11:09am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 5:57am: I have been reading in various papers that kelp forests are disappearing from large swathes of offshore seas. And this has been attributed to AGW?

"Here, we build and analyze a global database of kelp time series spanning the past half-century to assess regional and global trends in kelp abundances. We detected a high degree of geographic variation in trends, with regional variability in the direction and magnitude of change far exceeding a small global average decline (instantaneous rate of change = −0.018 y−1). Our analysis identified declines in 38% of ecoregions for which there are data (−0.015 to −0.18 y−1), increases in 27% of ecoregions (0.015 to 0.11 y−1), and no detectable change in 35% of ecoregions. "

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/48/13785

No great certainty there.

Pretty hard to ascribe kelp depletion to anything.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 3:03pm:

By spectrometry we see that the five main greenhouse gases are blocking heat from escaping the atmosphere. No theory, no model, no graph. Greenhouse gases are making the atmosphere a greenhouse.

Water vapour is increasing; it must be the water vapour.


Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 3:03pm:

And climate is not the same as weather.

But you used the Antarctic graphic to show AGW for the present. You need to stick to one method.

lee wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 5:56pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 3:03pm: By spectrometry we see that the five main greenhouse gases are blocking heat from escaping the atmosphere. No theory, no model, no graph. Greenhouse gases are making the atmosphere a greenhouse. Water vapour is increasing; it must be the water vapour. Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 3:03pm: And climate is not the same as weather. But you used the Antarctic graphic to show AGW for the present. You need to stick to one method.

We don't drill for water  :o :o :o :o

TheFunPolice wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 6:04pm:

We don't drill for water

Yes we do. That's why we have windmills and electric pumps; to draw water to the surface.

lee wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 6:12pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 6:04pm: We don't drill for water Yes we do. That's why we have windmills and electric pumps; to draw water to the surface.

Just ask Lee to get you some blue-chip shares  ::)

TheFunPolice wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 6:16pm:

lee wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 6:12pm: TheFunPolice wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 6:04pm: We don't drill for water Yes we do. That's why we have windmills and electric pumps; to draw water to the surface. Just ask Lee to get you some blue-chip shares  ::)

Perhaps if you wanted a different answer you should have proposed a better statement.  ::)

I dont care,,, I live 300plus metres above sea level.

You bottom dwelling scum suckers can drown.

lee wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 6:19pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 6:16pm: lee wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 6:12pm: TheFunPolice wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 6:04pm: We don't drill for water Yes we do. That's why we have windmills and electric pumps; to draw water to the surface. Just ask Lee to get you some blue-chip shares  ::) Perhaps if you wanted a different answer you should have proposed a better statement.  ::)

You can't give an answer so who the bugger cares  :D

TheFunPolice wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 6:25pm:

You can't give an answer so who the bugger cares

lee wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 6:12pm:

AnotherJourneyByTrain wrote Today at 4:04pm: We don't drill for water Yes we do. That's why we have windmills and electric pumps; to draw water to the surface.

That's an answer. Although obviously not the one you wanted. Tough titties (Ma Sheela)

Rift in Antarcticas fourth biggest ice shelf grows:

https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/larsen-c-rift.jpg


Quote:

The crack now stretches more than 100 miles in length. . . . [and] 1,500 feet across

When this crack reaches the end of the ice—it may not but I think it will—a giant iceberg will break off.


Quote:

The rift is expected to soon cleave a monster iceberg off the Larsen C ice shelf. Scientists estimate the iceberg could be up to 1,930 square miles in size, or roughly 10 percent of the whole ice shelf.

As these ice shelves collapse the warmer waters, that caused the ice shelves to collapse, can reach the base of the glaciers, causing them to melt faster.


Quote:

Scientists at Project MIDAS, an Antarctic research group monitoring the rift, wrote in January that the breakup “will fundamentally change the landscape of the Antarctic Peninsula” and leave the ice shelf in a less stable state. That could eventually cause it to collapse, a fate that befell the Larsen A and B ice shelves in 1995 and 2002, respectively. The Project MIDAS scientists wrote that the Larsen B breakup followed a similar massive iceberg calving event, which was caused by abnormally warm air in one of the world’s fastest warming places. Ice shelf health is a key metric researchers are watching all around Antarctica. The shelves act like bookends, holding up the massive stores of ice on the continent. If they disappear, it will cause more land ice to tumble into the ocean, raising sea levels. Since Larsen B’s collapse, the glaciers behind it have flowed to the sea six times faster.

Six times faster. Not a guess, not a wild unsupported claim, a measurement. This is science, measurement, not propaganda. ” “Could. . .” not will, the careful language and thought scientists use.


Quote:

The West Antarctic has some shelves very vulnerable to breakup, including the Pine Island Glacier ice shelf. It recently calved a comparatively small “aftershock” iceberg following a major July 2015 calving event. But satellites show that it has started to develop a large crack as well. Previous research has shown that an unstoppable melt that would drive oceans at least 10 feet higher could already be underway in West Antarctica, though it would take centuries for the process to play out. Warming oceans and air are the main culprits. Even East Antarctica, which is colder and thus considered to be more stable, has started to concern scientists. Research published late last year chronicled a massive meltwater lake inside the Roi Baudouin ice shelf due to warm winds blowing down from the ice sheet.

Not looking good. Really is time to act to reduce GHG emissions. You know, the four gases we emit by burning fossil fuel that cause an increase in the amount of water vapor in the air and the combined action of those GHG block more and more heat from escaping into space, warming the globe. This we have seen is shown to be happening by the use of spectroscopy—not a theory, fact.

http://grist.org/article/watch-the-ever-growing-rift-in-antarcticas-fourth-biggest-ice-shelf/

"Luckman says climate change is certainly influencing this region. Larsen C used to have two neighbors to the north, Larsen A and Larsen B. As the air and water warmed, those ice shelves started melting and then splintered into shards in 1995 and 2002.

But the crack in Larsen C seems to have happened on its own, for different reasons.

"This is probably not directly attributable to any warming in the region, although of course the warming won't have helped," says Luckman. "It's probably just simply a natural event that's just been waiting around to happen." "

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/16/509565462/an-ice-shelf-is-cracking-in-antarctica-but-not-for-the-reason-you-think

So a scientist who believes in AGW thinks this is just a natural event. ::)

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2017 at 7:54am:

This we have seen is shown to be happening by the use of spectroscopy—not a theory, fact.

"Infrared astronomers are quite familiar with the problem of atmospheric IR. IR astronomy is not easily done on the earth’s surface because the lower atmosphere is nearly opaque to IR because of moisture in the air. Consequently IR astronomy is done at high altitudes, at very cold, or at very dry locations, or all three. The Atacama Desert in Chile, the top of Mauna Kea in Hawaii, the south pole, airborne observatories, or satellites are the favored locations."

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/ed-caryl-modtran-shows-co2-doubling-will-have-almost-no-effect-on-temperature/



http://donaitkin.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Unknown-1.jpeg

Based on Callendar.

Please show the catastrophic warming that is yet to take place.

Hmmm something strange is happening—and it refutes all notions of a LIA caused by a solar minimum:


Quote:

The sun has been going through a period of weakness for years; It radiates less energy into space. The activity of the sun fluctuates regularly. It reaches a low point every eleven years, when there are hardly any dark spots on the stars. Climate calculations calculate that the ground-level air temperature on the earth cools down slightly when the sun weakens. But now measurements show: during the last drop in activity, intensified warming radiation reached the earth. "The data is extremely surprising," says the renowned solar researcher Sami Solanki from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research. Scientists around Joanna Haigh from the Imperial College in London have analyzed satellite data from the years 2004 to 2007. During this time, the activity of the star continually declined; In 2009, it reached its minimum. The data show that solar radiation has developed differently than climate models predict: as the sun weakened, more visible radiation and more infrared light came to the earth. UV radiation, on the other hand, weakened about five times more than expected. The results: The sun radiation did not lower the ground-level temperature on the earth, but it let it rise - about a twentieth degree, Joanna Haigh and her colleagues in the science magazine "Nature" report .

http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/klima-paradoxon-entdeckt-sonne-waermt-staerker-waehrend-schwaechephase-a-721715.html

So a solar minimum will actually very slightly INcrease the global temperature. Oh dear. How can this be?

Calculations showed—a bit of cooling but MEASUREMENT showed—a bit of warming! How?

“as the sun weakened, more visible radiation and more infrared light came to the earth” while UV radiation decreased. This changes the composition of the upper atmosphere—UV can split atoms etc.

So, no end to AGW. We really do have to show maturity and accept responsibility and act to reduce GHG emissions.

But the article cited is a scientific one, not bombastic propaganda:

Quote:

Predictions about the effect of the sun on the climate are therefore wrong - the cycles of solar activity do not seem to be in harmony with their climate effect. It is, however, too early to change past theories about the effects of the sun, writes Rolanda Garcia, an atmospheric chemist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, USA, in a commentary on Nature . Finally, it is unclear whether the sun behaves the same in every activity cycle. In addition, it would have to be shown how reliable the radiation data were. However, the experts clearly do not have a clue to question the measurements. The data comes from the satellite "Sorce" of the US space agency Nasa, which orbits the earth at an altitude of 645 kilometers and measures the sun radiation for seven years. "The conclusions of the study are plausible if one believes the measurement data," says Solanki. However, it will be time to see if the results are correct. The sun also amazes science in other ways. Although a new solar cycle has begun last year, there are hardly any new spots on the star. Two experts have recently prognosticated a spotless sun for decades - a slight cooling on Earth could be the result . According to the new "Nature" study, however, this conclusion seems more daring than ever: for clearly the sun's activity and the climate impact of the sun are not in harmony. However, the ever-increasing heat effect of the greenhouse gases would hardly be alleviated by the fluctuations of the solar radiation anyway. However, the speculations on the solar patches have also shown that reliable predictions of the climate effect of the sun are not yet possible.

Want more?
http://www.nature.com/articles/nature09426.epdf?referrer_access_token=lhOykOb1k7uHENJoUxJuctRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NSfq5hhGb55xh7jq_EIm9Qvgg-XCK2wlZz5hNJ4pJM3Pa-GesqKTrL8sbpxt3ckd9xlhpSLpvX8fQ8HDguzR0THF-z-6c6GeIFpw-mpGHkjUN4ejr6uiod4Ymj6TCaYPF4t76mOZhmN1XJIQaWP9EDKbbjI3eUaXtb8hBIOVxPMBcRJHGt_t0tJHKAYhxtKnbDNDa0j6rY7C4JFeGBoye8kyWOiZ8Ew5RKbsjNB4lBCoIeTjcYJAXe1ly4YRoKSoWPlf9e2LPBW3gsmFSZKQ7G&tracking_referrer=www.spiegel.de

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 24^th, 2017 at 11:05am:

Calculations showed—a bit of cooling but MEASUREMENT showed—a bit of warming! How?

Which shows we really know very little. We obviously don't know all the parameters. How sad for AGW tragics who like to tell us the science is settled. ;)

lee wrote on Feb 24^th, 2017 at 11:36am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 11:05am: Calculations showed—a bit of cooling but MEASUREMENT showed—a bit of warming! How? Which shows we really know very little. We obviously don't know all the parameters. How sad for AGW tragics who like to tell us the science is settled.

That's the bit that annoys me.

Saying the science is settled is unscientific, and extremely narrow-minded.

I'm an AGW skeptic, however, I keep an open mind on the subject.

If someone can show me some credible, reliable evidence that humans are causing global warming, I'm willing to be persuaded to subscribe to the AGW theory.

Until then, I remain skeptical (yet open-minded).

If humans had never evolved on this planet or they had remained in the hunter-gatherer stage, this planet would be cooler than it presently is.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 24^th, 2017 at 12:01pm:

lee wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 11:36am: Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 11:05am: Calculations showed—a bit of cooling but MEASUREMENT showed—a bit of warming! How? Which shows we really know very little. We obviously don't know all the parameters. How sad for AGW tragics who like to tell us the science is settled. That's the bit that annoys me. Saying the science is settled is unscientific, and extremely narrow-minded. I'm an AGW skeptic, however, I keep an open mind on the subject. If someone can show me some credible, reliable evidence that humans are causing global warming, I'm willing to be persuaded to subscribe to the AGW theory. Until then, I remain skeptical (yet open-minded).

No, Greg, you are just a common or garden AGW denier like Lees.

I have gone out of my way in this thread (and others) that scientists use careful language and look for ways to falsify theories etc.

Compare that to Dubyne who points out a bit of snow on a mountain in winter and says: global cooling.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 24^th, 2017 at 12:10pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 12:01pm: lee wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 11:36am: Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 11:05am: Calculations showed—a bit of cooling but MEASUREMENT showed—a bit of warming! How? Which shows we really know very little. We obviously don't know all the parameters. How sad for AGW tragics who like to tell us the science is settled. That's the bit that annoys me. Saying the science is settled is unscientific, and extremely narrow-minded. I'm an AGW skeptic, however, I keep an open mind on the subject. If someone can show me some credible, reliable evidence that humans are causing global warming, I'm willing to be persuaded to subscribe to the AGW theory. Until then, I remain skeptical (yet open-minded). No, Greg, you are just a common or garden AGW denier like Lees.

Why must you lie?

I just told you that I have an open mind on the subject, and now you turn around and say I don't.

I can tell you buddy, I know a lot more about what I'm thinking than you do.

This is the reason the AGW cult gets such a bad rap.

You don't listen to reason, and you continue to tell lies.

Now, for the last time: I am not an AGW denier. I am a skeptic, with an open mind.

If you continue to spread lies about me, it will be no more Mr Nice Guy from me.

Instead of attacking forum members, find some reliable, credible evidence to support your theory.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 24^th, 2017 at 12:01pm:

lee wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 11:36am: Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 11:05am: Calculations showed—a bit of cooling but MEASUREMENT showed—a bit of warming! How? Which shows we really know very little. We obviously don't know all the parameters. How sad for AGW tragics who like to tell us the science is settled. That's the bit that annoys me. Saying the science is settled is unscientific, and extremely narrow-minded. I'm an AGW skeptic, however, I keep an open mind on the subject. If someone can show me some credible, reliable evidence that humans are causing global warming, I'm willing to be persuaded to subscribe to the AGW theory. Until then, I remain skeptical (yet open-minded).

AGW is real. What is as clear as mud is what % of it can be attributed to human activity, and what effect our current activities will have in the future.

We should switch to clean energy for reasons of pollution which is a very real and measurable problem of which there is no doubt whatsoever.

Gordon wrote on Feb 24^th, 2017 at 12:15pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 12:01pm: lee wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 11:36am: Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 11:05am: Calculations showed—a bit of cooling but MEASUREMENT showed—a bit of warming! How? Which shows we really know very little. We obviously don't know all the parameters. How sad for AGW tragics who like to tell us the science is settled. That's the bit that annoys me. Saying the science is settled is unscientific, and extremely narrow-minded. I'm an AGW skeptic, however, I keep an open mind on the subject. If someone can show me some credible, reliable evidence that humans are causing global warming, I'm willing to be persuaded to subscribe to the AGW theory. Until then, I remain skeptical (yet open-minded). AGW is real.

There is no reliable, credible evidence to support that statement.

It's a real theory, sure.

But that's all, at this stage.

I posted the article on how spectroscopes on land and on satellites showed that GHGs do prevent long wave radiation from escaping into space.

You said it didn’t show anything—you gave no real argument why the study didn’t show AGW happening. You can reflect heat back to land and sea and it doesn’t warm land and sea? Not really believable.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 24^th, 2017 at 12:18pm:

—you gave no real argument why the study didn’t show AGW happening.

The onus is you to support your theory with reliable, credible evidence.

I don't have to prove anything - I'm not putting forward any theories.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 24^th, 2017 at 12:16pm:

Gordon wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 12:15pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 12:01pm: lee wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 11:36am: Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 11:05am: Calculations showed—a bit of cooling but MEASUREMENT showed—a bit of warming! How? Which shows we really know very little. We obviously don't know all the parameters. How sad for AGW tragics who like to tell us the science is settled. That's the bit that annoys me. Saying the science is settled is unscientific, and extremely narrow-minded. I'm an AGW skeptic, however, I keep an open mind on the subject. If someone can show me some credible, reliable evidence that humans are causing global warming, I'm willing to be persuaded to subscribe to the AGW theory. Until then, I remain skeptical (yet open-minded). AGW is real. There is no reliable, credible evidence to support that statement. It's a real theory, sure. But that's all, at this stage.

The vast majority of climate scientist support the theory.
I'll go with that, but as I've often said, it's nothing we have to panic about.

The people who are hysterical with warnings of doomsday scenarios are clearly using AGW as an atheist rapture alternative.

Gordon wrote on Feb 24^th, 2017 at 12:23pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 12:16pm: Gordon wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 12:15pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 12:01pm: lee wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 11:36am: Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 11:05am: Calculations showed—a bit of cooling but MEASUREMENT showed—a bit of warming! How? Which shows we really know very little. We obviously don't know all the parameters. How sad for AGW tragics who like to tell us the science is settled. That's the bit that annoys me. Saying the science is settled is unscientific, and extremely narrow-minded. I'm an AGW skeptic, however, I keep an open mind on the subject. If someone can show me some credible, reliable evidence that humans are causing global warming, I'm willing to be persuaded to subscribe to the AGW theory. Until then, I remain skeptical (yet open-minded). AGW is real. There is no reliable, credible evidence to support that statement. It's a real theory, sure. But that's all, at this stage. The vast majority of climate scientist support the theory.

1. No they don't.

2. Science is about evidence, not consensus

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 24^th, 2017 at 12:22pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 12:18pm: —you gave no real argument why the study didn’t show AGW happening. The onus is you to support your theory with reliable, credible evidence. I don't have to prove anything - I'm not putting forward any theories.

You are putting forward the theory that the earth is not warming, tho temperatures have been increasing, tho the science of heat trapping by GHGs have been confirmed. That is not rational, Greg. sorry.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 24^th, 2017 at 12:29pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 12:22pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 12:18pm: —you gave no real argument why the study didn’t show AGW happening. The onus is you to support your theory with reliable, credible evidence. I don't have to prove anything - I'm not putting forward any theories. You are putting forward the theory that the earth is not warming...

No, I am not.

Why do you insist on telling lies about me?

What have I ever done to you?

Gordon wrote on Feb 24^th, 2017 at 12:23pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 12:16pm: Gordon wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 12:15pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 12:01pm: lee wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 11:36am: Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 11:05am: Calculations showed—a bit of cooling but MEASUREMENT showed—a bit of warming! How? Which shows we really know very little. We obviously don't know all the parameters. How sad for AGW tragics who like to tell us the science is settled. That's the bit that annoys me. Saying the science is settled is unscientific, and extremely narrow-minded. I'm an AGW skeptic, however, I keep an open mind on the subject. If someone can show me some credible, reliable evidence that humans are causing global warming, I'm willing to be persuaded to subscribe to the AGW theory. Until then, I remain skeptical (yet open-minded). AGW is real. There is no reliable, credible evidence to support that statement. It's a real theory, sure. But that's all, at this stage. The vast majority of climate scientist support the theory. I'll go with that, but as I've often said, it's nothing we have to panic about. The people who are hysterical with warnings of doomsday scenarios are clearly using AGW as an atheist rapture alternative.

As is Booby with his “Ice sheets down to the Mediterranean.” He is fooling himself that the Southern Hemisphere will not be affected much—all major Ice Ages have covered the southern hemisphere with ice.

I have been pointing out how AGW is affecting the man on the land.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 24^th, 2017 at 12:18pm:

I posted the article on how spectroscopes on land and on satellites showed that GHGs do prevent long wave radiation from escaping into space.

Without any attribution Was it from a blog, scientific publication, or the MSM (lamestream Media)? I have noticed that the MSM doesn't really show the truth.

Remember the Kelp. 62% increasing or the same,but it was proof AGW was killing the kelp, according to the media.

And the oxygen - "“However, with measurements alone, we cannot explain all the causes,” adds Professor Martin Visbeck, “natural processes occurring on time scales of a few decades may also have contributed to the observed decrease.” "

http://www.geomar.de/en/news/article/weniger-sauerstoff-in-allen-meeren/

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 24^th, 2017 at 12:32pm:

I have been pointing out how AGW is affecting the man on the land.

Have you talked to the "man on the land" or merely listened to the media?

*

*

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 24^th, 2017 at 12:29pm:

You are putting forward the theory that the earth is not warming, tho temperatures have been increasing

Really. Where does Greg deny that the earth is warming?

You know that the "warming is natural" is the null hypothesis; don't you? Therefore obligation of any PROOF is yours.

Quote:

On the Tibetan Plateau in eastern China, 4 million solar panels silently soak up the sun as part of the Longyangxia Dam Solar Park. It’s the largest solar farm in the world, spreading over 10 square miles of the high desert landscape. The complex sprung into existence in 2013 and has been rapidly expanding ever since. Satellite imagery curated by NASA’s Earth Observatory chronicles its growth from a cluster of panels to a sprawling solar farm that looks like a giant, angular thought bubble as of January 2017. . . . . The installation currently has the capacity to generate 850 megawatts of electricity, or enough to power roughly 140,000 U.S. homes. The Longyangxia Dam Solar Park is one piece of the massive renewable energy revolution taking place in China. The country invested $103 billion into renewables in 2015, the last year with data available. That helped the world set a renewable investment high water mark of $286 billion. According to Greenpeace’s Energydesk, preliminary 2016 data show China installed the equivalent of one and a half soccer fields of solar panels every hour. That puts the country on track to meet its 2020 renewable goals sometime in 2018. The renewables targets line up with China’s international climate commitments. The government previously announced it would lower the carbon intensity of its economy 40-45 percent below 2005 levels. Under the Paris Agreement, China has pledged to peak its carbon dioxide emissions by 2030. Looking ahead, the government announced in early January that it plans to spend $361 billion on renewable power generation from now through 2020. The influx of cash is expected to help China produce a total of 110 gigawatts of solar power and 210 gigawatts of wind power by 2020.

http://grist.org/article/heres-what-the-worlds-biggest-solar-farm-looks-like-from-space/

Here we have a pathetic shambles going to use RE funds to build “clean coal” generators so going back on our Paris commitments.  Yet:


Quote:

The increase in investment coincides with a 40 percent drop in the cost of installing utility-scale solar in China since 2010. Solar is expected to become even cheaper in the coming years, further creating more bang for China’s buck (or yuan, as the case may be).

We could take advantage of the ever–declining costs of renewable energy and generate a lot more solar power than China more reliably because we are much closer to the equator.

Why is China building so much renewable energy? The answer to that lies in the Himalayan glaciers: they retreat too much and rivers like the Yellow River would shrink. The Mekong is another such river, as is the Ganges. Investing huge amounts in renewable energy will also reduce the huge pollution/smog in Chinese cities.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 24^th, 2017 at 12:32pm:

As is Booby with his “Ice sheets down to the Mediterranean.” He is fooling himself that the Southern Hemisphere will not be affected much—all major Ice Ages have covered the southern hemisphere with ice. I have been pointing out how AGW is affecting the man on the land.

Dear Jovial,
Let's get some facts straight:

do you agree that we are now in an interglacial period?

Do you agree that glacial periods last for about 100,000 years
& that interglacial periods last for only about 10,000 years?

Booby, we are not getting an Ice Age of any kind, OK? The globe is warming.

A grand solar minimum might see MORE heat reaching the Earth from the sun, less UV, more infrared.

Keep your Ice Age nonsense, as told by an oil seed (and snake oil) salesman, to your own thread, OK?

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 7:36am:

Bobby, we are not getting an Ice Age of any kind, OK? The globe is warming. A grand solar minimum might see MORE heat reaching the Earth from the sun, less UV, more infrared.

You haven't answered my simple questions.

You always avoid the truth.

Listen who is talking! Your stupid Ice Age thread is absolutely littered with my questions you have not even tried to answer, criticisms of the snake oil peddler’s so–called science of LIA you have not tried to refute!

We are warming the globe, Booby, by burning massive amounts of fossil fuels. We can see this is happening by the graphs of temperature and the action of greenhouse gases can be seen in the long wave frequencies radiation from the Earth using a spectrometer: the frequencies corresponding to the 5 main greenhouse gases are underrepresented, the heat absorbed and kept in the atmosphere, in hotter oceans and warmer land.

The warming of the oceans, the melting of the Greenland ice sheets (even in the Northern Hemisphere winter!) are seeing sea levels rising at increasing rates

Boston is considering spending untold billions of dollars on a seawall to protect itself from floods. Need I remind you of Hurricane Sandy and the flooding of the NT subway?

Dear Jovial,
Let's get some facts straight:

do you agree that we are now in an interglacial period?

Do you agree that glacial periods last for about 100,000 years
& that interglacial periods last for only about 10,000 years?

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 5:27am:

Is happening. Yes, AGW is happening and that can be shown by spectrometer readings—no models or theories needed. See: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464603948/1856#1856 That settled, what problems is AGW causing? Low global oceanic oxygen is one. We know the oceans are absorbing a lot of the CO2 we emit and this causes problems for organisms to create their calcium carbonate shells, especially by the plankton that is the base of the food pyramid in our seas—ocean acidification, which means our oceans are getting less alkaline and so more acid, not that our oceans are becoming acidic. Mention that because people get that term wrong. Lack of global oxygen is another.

Go tell these clowns that masquerade as scientists to get of their computer models and go out in to nature and get their hands dirty.

Farken idiots trying to scare farken idiots.

So in a hundred and fifty four years (1860 -2014) the ocean temperatures have risen 0.7°C and this will wipe out sea life......???

If the Earth's ecological system was so finely tuned and sensitive to such small changes to CO2, O2, temperature etc. there would be new species all the time while the superseded models die out.

For anyone who wants the truth on AGW or for that matter anything else just look back into Earth's history and our narrative.

Computer models are only as good as the information that is fed into them and we all know that old saying.

SH!T IN SH!T OUT..........!

http://i62.tinypic.com/2crm2jb.gif

The globe is warming, Booby.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 8:23am:

The globe is warming, Bobby.

The Earth is cooling.

You think the Earth is cooling, Booby? Have any evidence for that? Dubynes cherry picked videos with lots of lies and exaggerations are not evidence.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 8:41am:

You think the Earth is cooling, Booby? Have any evidence for that? Dubynes cherry picked videos with lots of lies and exaggerations are not evidence.

Apart from computer models, where is your evidence that man's emissions of CO2 are the cause of the current warming and all other doomsday prophecies........................????

Temperatures measured.

Spectrometer evidence.

Stay rational or I add you to the list of people I ignore. You are close to being added to that list already.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 8:53am:

Temperatures measured. Spectrometer evidence. Stay rational or I add you to the list of people I ignore. You are close to being added to that list already.

I asked you to give me the scientific evidence that points to man's emissions of CO2 being the cause of all this phenomena that you keep posting.

Simply saying temperature rising is not evidence, our history is littered with temperature rising and falling.

Show me the scientific evidence that unequivocally links man's emissions of CO2 to any of the malarkey that you post....!!!

On my ignore list.

Ajax wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 8:58am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 25th, 2017 at 8:53am: Temperatures measured. Spectrometer evidence. Stay rational or I add you to the list of people I ignore. You are close to being added to that list already. I asked you to give me the scientific evidence that points to man's emissions of CO2 being the cause of all this phenomena that you keep posting. Simply saying temperature rising is not evidence, our history is littered with temperature rising and falling. Show me the scientific evidence that unequivocally links man's emissions of CO2 to any of the malarkey that you post....!!!

Nice post - keep up the good work.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 8:59am:

On my ignore list.

That's the only way you lot think you have won the argument, make a monster of your opponent demand his execution claim that he or she is a witch.

The AGW science is a science like all other sciences.

There are people today that have progressed to the point of proving that Newton, Einstein and others where wrong in some areas of their work.

If we can scrutinise Newton, Einstein and other scientific works what the bugger makes you thing AGW science is sacred on a pedestal and cannot be questioned.

In science no law, no man, no organisation is sacred, once you publish your work, its always up for review....!!!

ALWAYS........!!!!!!

Booby, waiting for your real evidence the globe is cooling.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 9:15am:

Bobby, waiting for your real evidence the globe is cooling.

There are about 350 videos linked to here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464603948/1935#1935


Many are not connected with the person you have demonised called David DuByne.

I asked for evidence! Temperature readings, causes for the cooling.

A solar minimum now seems to increase global temperatures so I really cannot see that there is a mechanism for global cooling other than orbital perturbations which have not been detected.

REALLY looking forward to your explanation of global cooling, Booby!

I have pointed out here and on the last few video pages how the cold conditions are cherry picked and how he lies. An example of a recent lie: 58 NZ glaciers are advancing. That should have read: 58 NZ glaciers WERE advancing, for a few years up to 2008.

An article well worth reading:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weird-winter-weather-plot-thickens-as-arctic-swiftly-warms/

It talks a lot about the Jet Stream which has been responsible for the cold weather events Dubyne cherry picks to frighten credulous fools into buying his survival food.

.

Ajax wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 8:58am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 25th, 2017 at 8:53am: Temperatures measured. Spectrometer evidence. Stay rational or I add you to the list of people I ignore. You are close to being added to that list already. I asked you to give me the scientific evidence that points to man's emissions of CO2 being the cause of all this phenomena that you keep posting. Simply saying temperature rising is not evidence, our history is littered with temperature rising and falling. Show me the scientific evidence that unequivocally links man's emissions of CO2 to any of the malarkey that you post....!!!

True scotsmans fallacy: you were always a lightweight in that suit with the crackpipe!

Ajax wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 8:46am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 25th, 2017 at 8:41am: You think the Earth is cooling, Booby? Have any evidence for that? Dubynes cherry picked videos with lots of lies and exaggerations are not evidence. Apart from computer models, where is your evidence that man's emissions of CO2 are the cause of the current warming and all other doomsday prophecies........................????

The multi-year sea ice is disappearing in the Arctic!

Bobby. wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 7:52am:

Dear Jovial, Let's get some facts straight: do you agree that we are now in an interglacial period? Do you agree that glacial periods last for about 100,000 years & that interglacial periods last for only about 10,000 years?

Oh, looky: Bobby likes quantitative argument  ;D

Where the r**t did bobby get his numbers from?

(I know- the answer is the free market isn't it <pluck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>)

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 9:49am:

That should have read: 58 NZ glaciers WERE advancing, for a few years up to 2008.

Wow. Right in the middle of AGW, it is worse than we thought, hottest year evah. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

And the Antarctic, DRAH. I also mentioned spectrometer evidence Ajax avoided like a public servant avoids work (according to someone here.)

Amazing, can’t use temperature rises to prove warming  :D :D :D when the warming is happening faster and going further than ever before. MWP is just not in it.

TheFunPolice wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 11:40am:

Ajax wrote on Feb 25th, 2017 at 8:46am: Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 25th, 2017 at 8:41am: You think the Earth is cooling, Booby? Have any evidence for that? Dubynes cherry picked videos with lots of lies and exaggerations are not evidence. Apart from computer models, where is your evidence that man's emissions of CO2 are the cause of the current warming and all other doomsday prophecies........................???? The multi-year sea ice is disappearing in the Arctic!

The multi-tear fear year ice figures they derive from a model? :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 10:55am:

An article well worth reading: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weird-winter-weather-plot-thickens-as-arctic-swiftly-warms/ It talks a lot about the Jet Stream which has been responsible for the cold weather events Dubyne cherry picks to frighten credulous fools into buying his survival food.

From your reference -

"To study the effects of Arctic change on weather patterns, we have good measurements of atmospheric temperatures and winds going back to the late 1970s, when satellites started providing data, and pretty good measurements back to the late 1940s."

RSS satellite claims NH to 80ºN

http://www.remss.com/research/climate

UAH satellite claims NH to 85ºN

So hardly a good spread for the entire Arctic.

Pretty good measurements to 1940? Gee just miss the 1910 to 1930 warming. ;)

New study -

"Updated observational datasets without climatological infilling show that there was an increase in sea ice concentration in the Eastern Arctic between 1950 and 1975, contrary to earlier climatology in-filled observational datasets that show weak inter-annual variations during that time period. We here present climate model simulations showing that this observed sea ice concentration increase was primarily a consequence of cooling induced by increasing anthropogenic aerosols and natural forcing. Indeed, sulphur dioxide emissions, which lead to the formation of sulphate aerosols, peaked around 1980 causing a sharp increase in the burden of sulphate between the 1950s and 1970s; but since 1980, the burden has dropped. Our climate model simulations show that the cooling contribution of aerosols offset the warming effect of increasing greenhouse gases over the mid-twentieth century resulting in the expansion of the Arctic sea ice cover. These results challenge the perception that Arctic sea ice extent was unperturbed by human influence until the 1970s, suggesting instead that it exhibited earlier forced multi-decadal variations, with implications for our understanding of impacts and adaptation in human and natural Arctic systems."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL071941/abstract

So the brightening of the atmosphere, by getting rid of those pesky aerosols, could be the reason for the decrease in Arctic sea ice.

Now Booby is back maybe he can fill us in about this “global cooling” including a mechanism and global temperature readings showing this cooling.

This will be good  ;D ;D ;D

You mean you hadn't heard about aerosols causing cooling? ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 6:51pm:

Now Bobby is back maybe he can fill us in about this “global cooling” including a mechanism and global temperature readings showing this cooling. This will be good  ;D ;D ;D

Dear Jovial,
Let's get some facts straight:

do you agree that we are now in an interglacial period?

Do you agree that glacial periods last for about 100,000 years
& that interglacial periods last for only about 10,000 years?

What is the mechanism for cooling?

How much has the globe “cooled?”


Remember, it could well be that a solar minimum will HEAT the globe.

This is going nowhere.

Tell me why you say the globe is cooling. That is easy enough, surely?

You used to say the world would heat up rapidly after the mythical LIA would pass. Now you deny that (Greenhouse theory) too?

.

350 bloody videos and what has Booby learned? Nothing, it seems.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 7:21pm:

Now you deny that (Greenhouse theory) too

Can you explain convection cooling in a greenhouse, that typically is sealed?

Can you explain how the earth is a greenhouse when we have convection?

351 bloody videos and still he has no flipping idea.

This video says that no matter what people think we could still be heading for a mini ice age.

one massive volcanic eruption is enough to
plunge the whole world into a mini ice age:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZFXZ0bATyc



Little Ice Age, Big Chill (Climate Documentary)




Published on Feb 24, 2016

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum).[1] While it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries,[3][4][5] or alternatively, from about 1300[6] to about 1850,[7][8][9] although climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions.
The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming.[5] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report considered the timing and areas affected by the LIA suggested largely independent regional climate changes, rather than a globally synchronous increased glaciation. At most there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period.[10]
Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, an inherent variability in global climate, or decreases in the human population.

Krakatoa didn’t do it.

Face it Booby, global cooling is pure horseshit. World is warming.

We can reduce emissions.

We can adapt as many on the land are already doing

We can mitigate, build flood defences.

Or pretend the world is cooling when it isn’t because imaginary problems are easier to deal with than real ones.

A modern day bookburning:

http://grist.org/article/coders-to-the-rescue-for-nasas-earth-science-data/

Crap like this happened in England too, whole libraries thrown into rubbish dumps.

Seems right wing governments want nothing but the party line accepted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ2SyMBgu6g

TOP SCIENTIST BLOWS THE LID OFF GLOBAL WARMING PSYOP: DATA EXAGGERATED FOR NARRATIVE!

Published on Feb 7, 2017
Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetec...
Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records https://science.house.gov/news/press-...
Australia PM adviser says climate change is 'UN-led ruse to establish new world order' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world...

New World Agenda Links:
Youtube Channels:
New World Agenda (main channel): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3xH...
Supreme Lord Commander: https://www.youtube.com/channel/
Free Radio Revolution CLASSICS https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl-0...
Free Radio Revolution Uncensored: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIlo...
UCABsCi4KoMTp9VcwEG7_pyA
Vidme:
Vidme: https://vid.me/FreeRadioRevolu

Facebook:
Free Radio Revolution: https://www.facebook.com/Free-Radio-R...
Twitter: @freeradiorevolu
https://twitter.com/FreeRadioRevolu
Category
News & Politics

ahahahaha!

many blessings

this thread is exposed for the hoodwink it factually is ..

and illuminates the idiocy of the OP ..and so be it

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz4Y25BhiLc

Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data


The Mail on Sunday can reveal a landmark paper exaggerated global warming
It was rushed through and timed to influence the Paris agreement on climate change
America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules
The report claimed the pause in global warming never existed, but it was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data




http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/02/04/22/3CD7498B00000578-4192182-image-a-60_1486248052731.jpg
Data Science,Climate and satellites Consultant John J Bates, who blew the whistle to the Mail on Sunday

PUBLISHED: 09:57 +11:00, 5 February 2017

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.
His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.
His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/02/04/22/3CD7498F00000578-4192182-image-m-62_1486248085744.jpg
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Microsoft CEO Bill Gates, US President Barack Obama, French President Francois Hollande and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the world climate change conference

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/02/04/22/3CD7498500000578-4192182-image-a-63_1486248157838.jpg

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 26^th, 2017 at 9:47am:

ahahahaha!

http://www.travelstart.com.ng/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Scam.jpg

ahahahahaha Light, so behind the times.

BTW, according to Light, the world is flat and Antarctica is not a continent located around the South Pole but is stretched out all along the edge of the world and NOBODY is allowed to visit it.

Shows you the credibility of AGW deniers.

Booby is only just a little bit less loopy than Light.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 26^th, 2017 at 9:10am:

A modern day bookburning: http://grist.org/article/coders-to-the-rescue-for-nasas-earth-science-data/ Crap like this happened in England too, whole libraries thrown into rubbish dumps. Seems right wing governments want nothing but the party line accepted.

Thought I would bring this to the front again after all the crap posted to bury it.

On a lighter note, I present. . . .{drum roll}. . . .a VIDEO!

Crock of the week!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khikoh3sJg8&feature=sub

On a serious note, you see how climate “deniers and confusers” work. Why do they do it?

I suppose some have an irrational emotional opposition to AGW.

Some may publish to bignote themselves, I guess, attention seekers.

Some will be paid to do it. I suspect Dubyne and JoNova fall in that category. They wouldn’t hate the attention either, I suppose? Dubyne sells “survival food” but how much would he sell? I think he gets paid to produce his stupid videos.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 26^th, 2017 at 9:58am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 9:10am: A modern day bookburning: http://grist.org/article/coders-to-the-rescue-for-nasas-earth-science-data/ Crap like this happened in England too, whole libraries thrown into rubbish dumps. Seems right wing governments want nothing but the party line accepted. Thought I would bring this to the front again after all the crap posted to bury it.

Gee. A book burning that isn't happening, according to you. ;)

BTW- I am all for saving the "data", As long as they also keep their methodology. ;)

BTW- you still haven't explained how 62% no change or increase in kelp forests is one of the bad things of AGW.

I thought you were going to answer questions.

I mentioned this article before, now I will go into it in some detail.

Please bear in mind it was written in Feb 2015 especially when it talks about rainfall on the west coast of the US.

Link to the article again: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weird-winter-weather-plot-thickens-as-arctic-swiftly-warms/


Quote:

Weird Winter Weather Plot Thickens as Arctic Swiftly Warms

Nobody will argue that the weather has been a bit weird. Some cherry pick bits of weirdness to argue the world is cooling: these propagandists never ever quote global temps or science, cherry picking and exaggerating is what they do and most are quite happy to lie to push their view on weather. Almost like they are paid to do so, hmmm.


Quote:

Everyone loves to talk about the weather, and this winter Mother Nature has served up a feast to chew on. Few parts of the US have been spared her wrath. Severe drought and abnormally warm conditions continue in the west, with the first-ever rain-free January in San Francisco; bitter cold hangs tough over the upper Midwest and Northeast; and New England is being buried by a seemingly endless string of snowy nor’easters. Yes, droughts, cold and snowstorms have happened before, but the persistence of this pattern over North America is starting to raise eyebrows. Is climate change at work here?

This year, as commenters to the ridiculous Dubyne videos have noted the northern Midwest has been HOT. Chicago 70°F from memory. But you can see there in that “bitter cold” the opportunities for snake oil salesmen to crap on about “global cooling.” Easy to do when you don’t cover other parts of the world and their temperatures. Just cherry pick the cold bits.

California suffered nearly five years of drought—notice the reference to a rain free San Francisco above? That broke this year with wild rainfalls, 8" from a storm. I think tho that California will return to a drought when these wild storms stop. Seemed to have been a pattern of California slowly drying out (as is the Colorado River which I will post about soon.)


Quote:

Wavier jet stream One thing we do know is that the polar jet stream—a fast river of wind up where jets fly that circumnavigates the northern hemisphere—has been doing some odd things in recent years. Rather than circling in a relatively straight path, the jet stream has meandered more in north-south waves. In the west, it’s been bulging northward, arguably since December 2013—a pattern dubbed the “Ridiculously Resilient Ridge” by meteorologists. In the east, we’ve seen its southern-dipping counterpart, which I call the “Terribly Tenacious Trough.”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/globe.jpg


Quote:

These long-lived shifts from the polar jet stream’s typical pattern have been responsible for some wicked weather this winter, with cold Arctic winds blasting everywhere from the Windy City to the Big Apple for weeks at a time. We know that climate change is increasing the odds of extreme weather such as heatwaves, droughts and unusually heavy precipitation events, but is it making these sticky jet-stream patterns more likely, too? Maybe.

Maybe indeed? Do the wild rain storms “atmospheric rivers” etc over California indicate that the ridge has gone? We know that the ‘windy city’ of Chicago has enjoyed (well some do, some wanted cold and snow) 70°F winter this month.

Considering the weather Europe suffered last month is does seem the trough moved east as has the ridge.


Quote:

Slowing, drunken path The jet stream is a dastardly complex creature, and figuring out what makes it tick has challenged atmospheric scientists since it was discovered about 75 years ago. Even more elusive is figuring out how climate change will affect it. Jet streams exist because of differences in air temperature. In the case of the polar jet stream, which is responsible for most of the weather we experience around the middle-latitudes of the northern hemisphere, it’s the cold Arctic butting against warmer areas to the south that drives it. (A more in-depth explanation can be found here.)

If jet streams exist because of differences of temperature then it is not hard to figure out that as the Arctic warms the Jet Stream will weaken.

Then and now:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/2globes.jpg


Quote:

This is where climate change comes in: the Arctic is warming much faster than elsewhere. That Arctic/mid-latitude temperature difference, consequently, is getting smaller. And the smaller differential in temperatures is causing the west-to-east winds in the jet to weaken. Strong jets tend to blow straight west to east; weaker jets tend to wander more in a drunken north/south path, increasing the likelihood of wavy patterns like the one we’ve seen almost non-stop since last winter.

The Arctic, just to remind you, is warming faster due to a positive feedback loop: as ice melts in the NH spring and summer sunlight tends to hit dark ocean and be absorbed, warming the ocean. If ice extent was more like what it was in the 1970s say more sunlight would hit light colored ice and be reflected back out to space.

Positive feedback loops are the devil!

Cont’d

Did they link it to AGW? From your post it is not clear.


Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 26^th, 2017 at 6:15pm:

California suffered nearly five years of drought—notice the reference to a rain free San Francisco above? That broke this year with wild rainfalls, 8" from a storm. I think tho that California will return to a drought when these wild storms stop. Seemed to have been a pattern of California slowly drying out (as is the Colorado River which I will post about soon.)

You realise California has a long history of drought and flood. Last year they were talking about a 200 year drought. ;)

cont’d


Quote:

When the jet stream’s waves grow larger, they tend to move eastward more slowly, which means the weather they generate also moves more slowly, creating more persistent weather patterns. At least, that’s the theory. Proving it is not easy because other changes are happening in the climate system simultaneously. Some are natural fluctuations, such as El Niño, and others are related to increasing greenhouse gases. We do know, however, that the Arctic is changing in a wholesale way and at a pace that makes even Arctic scientists queasy. Take sea ice, for example. In only 30 years, its volume has declined by about 60%, which is causing ripple effects throughout the ocean, atmosphere, and ecosystem, both within the Arctic and beyond. I’ve been studying the Arctic atmosphere and sea ice my entire career and I never imagined I’d see the region change so much and so fast.

Quote:

To study the effects of Arctic change on weather patterns, we have good measurements of atmospheric temperatures and winds going back to the late 1970s, when satellites started providing data, and pretty good measurements back to the late 1940s. My colleagues and I have been using this information to measure the waviness of the jet stream and whether it is behaving differently since the Arctic started its rapid warm-up about 20 years ago. Because the upper atmosphere is such a cacophony of swirling winds, however, measuring changes in the jet stream’s waviness is tricky, as it’s not a metric that scientists have traditionally used.

Note the careful use of language. No bombastic “this is what is happening” we find in a Dubyne video. Difficulties are mentioned, the problems stated upfront.


Quote:

A number of recent studies have found what appears to be a solid connection between sea-ice loss in an area north of western Russia during the fall and a rash of abnormally cold winters in central Asia. The loss of sea ice favors a northward bulge in the jet stream, which strengthens surface high pressure to the east. That shift pumps cold Arctic air southward into central Asia. Other studies suggest that Arctic warming in summer leads to a split jet stream—or two separated rivers of wind—which tends to trap the waves. Those stationary waves cause weather conditions to remain “stuck” for long periods, increasing the likelihood of extreme heat waves, droughts and flooding events in Eurasia and North America.

A look at a map or Arctic temperatures certainly shows the Siberia part of the Arctic as being very cold.


Quote:

Our own new work, published last month in Environmental Research Letters, uses a variety of new metrics to show that the jet stream is becoming wavier and that rapid Arctic warming is playing a role. If these results are confirmed, then we’ll see our weather patterns become more persistent.

So weather, especially in the northern hemisphere will change due to the Jetstream becoming wavier, more meandering. With huge rain in California and a very cold spell in Europe last month it may be that the meandering of the Jet Stream is not all that sticky, the waviness may move fairly quickly.

More study needed!


What about the Southern Hemisphere? We have circumpolar winds and currents that have kept Antartica isolated from changes elsewhere. For how much longer?

I have already posted about ice shelves around Antarctica breaking away. Seems warmer currents are reaching the coast of Antarctica so the circumpolar currents there must have weakened. Last winter a blast of Antarctic weather hit the east coast of Australia bringing snow to places as far north as southern Queensland. Earlier this year very hot air moving from the east coast of Australia to over the Tasman Sea turned into a very low pressure system that travelled to NZ where it met a system from Antarctica and summer snow fell in NZ. Earlier this month snow fell in some of the Australian Alps.

It seems then that Antarctic weather is going to escape Antarctica more and more often.

All driven by AGW.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 26^th, 2017 at 6:54pm:

All driven by AGW.

Jumping the shark again. ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 26^th, 2017 at 6:54pm:

All driven by AGW.

Everyone has an opinion just like everyone has an arse hole.

The arctic has had ben doing this for quite some time, nothing new.

I'ld like to see you prove its because of AGW.

Coal fired generators are becoming stranded assets. Yallourn Power Station in Victoria is going to close soon. Here is another one about to close:


Quote:

The West’s coal giant is closing way ahead of schedule The smokestacks of the Navajo Generating Station rise 775 feet from the sere landscape of the Navajo Nation in northern Arizona, just three miles away from the serpentine, stagnant blue wound in sandstone known as Lake Powell. Red rock cliffs and the dark and heavy hump of Navajo Mountain loom in the background. Since construction began in 1969, the coal plant and its associated mine on Black Mesa have provided millions of dollars to the Navajo and Hopi tribes and hundreds of jobs to local communities, as well as electricity to keep the lights on and air conditioners humming in the metastasizing cities of Phoenix, Tucson, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles. Yet, they’ve also stood as symbols of the exploitation of Native Americans, of the destruction of the land, and of the sullying of the air, all to provide cheap power to the Southwest. But coal power is no longer the best energy bargain. And on Monday, the plant’s four private utility owners, led by the Salt River Project, voted to shut down the plant at the end of 2019, some 25 years ahead of schedule.

The article goes on to show the hardship this closure will cause to the Indian tribes on whose land the power station and mine are, the employees and contractors of the power station. So why close mine and power station?


Quote:

The air (and water and land) will be a lot cleaner without Navajo Generating Station, one of the biggest polluters in the West 20 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent — Amount of greenhouse gases emitted by the power plant (carbon dioxide) and the mine (methane) each year. 8.6 million metric tons CO2 — Amount of greenhouse gases emitted yearly by a natural gas plant generating the same amount of electricity as the Navajo Generating Station. This does not account for leaks during natural gas production, processing, transportation, and storage. 472, 4370, 259 — Pounds of mercury, selenium, and arsenic, respectively, that spew from the power plant’s smokestacks each year. These elements are toxic to wildlife and humans and have shown up in relatively high concentrations in fish in the Grand Canyon and the San Juan River upstream from Lake Powell, as well as in precipitation at Mesa Verde National Park. Natural gas combustion emits only negligible amounts of these elements. 1.3 million — Tons of coal combustion waste produced by the plant each year, about 75 percent of which is disposed of nearby, with the rest sold for use in other applications.

Clean coal ahahahahahahaha!


Quote:

Both the Kayenta Mine and the Navajo Generating Station use large amounts of water. The Bureau of Reclamation owns a large share of the plant, and uses most of its electricity to run the pumps for the Central Arizona Project, which delivers Colorado River water to Arizona cities. 1,200 acre feet — Amount of groundwater the mine draws from the Navajo Aquifer each year. (Prior to the 2005 closure of the Mohave Generating Station, another 3,000 acre feet was used to slurry the coal 273 miles from the mine to the plant, drying up important springs in the area.) 28,000 acre feet (9 billion gallons) — Amount of water drawn from Lake Powell each year for steam generation and cooling at the plant. This is all consumptive use, meaning none of this water is returned to the source. 3 million megawatt-hours — Amount of electricity the CAP uses to lift, transport, and deliver 1.6 million acre feet of Colorado River water to Phoenix and Tucson annually. (Enough to power about 240,000 Arizona homes for one year).

cont’d

Economics drove the decision, economics:


Quote:

Salt River Project officials have been very clear on this point. They note that it’s now cheaper for them to buy power for their 1 million customers from other sources than it is to generate power at Navajo, thanks mostly to low natural gas prices. A November 2016 study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory found that the Central Arizona Project pays about 15 percent more for electricity from the power plant — of which it is part owner — than it would if it bought power wholesale from the Mead trading hub located near Las Vegas. None of this will change even if President Donald Trump rolls back the Clean Power Plan or other regulations put in place by the Obama administration. In fact, if a drill-heavy energy policy is put into place, it will increase natural gas supplies, thus increasing the spread between natural gas and coal. Having said that, California’s move away from coal power lowers the value of the plant’s power, and the requirement that the plant install nitrous oxide-reducing equipment increases costs — so environmental protections do play a role, albeit a smaller one than economics.

The move away from coal power, turning coal fired generators into stranded assets is a sign of the times.


Quote:

Although it’s happening slowly, the electrical landscape is evolving. The days of vertically integrated utilities that own huge, centralized power stations and their own balkanized grids are giving way to a new era in which utilities purchase power generated by smaller plants that are connected to larger, regional grids. California’s independent grid operator has already joined up with NV Energy, PacifiCorp, and other Western utilities to form an energy imbalance market, which allows the utilities to share generators — be they wind, solar, natural gas, or coal — to “balance” their grids in real time, rather than having to rely only on their own generators. These utilities are hoping to expand this market and then take it to the next level of a regional, integrated grid in coming years. The closure of Navajo Generating Station adds new urgency to this effort.

http://grist.org/article/the-wests-coal-giant-is-closing-way-ahead-of-schedule/

The same thing is happening here, Rio Tinto is trying to get rid of the last of its coal mines here. Good that it is, coal is about the dirtiest fossil fuel there is, in terms is both normal pollution and GHG emissions.

As rooftop solar panels spread, including to commercial rooftops—the Adelaide Central Market has hundreds of them on their large roof space—the economics of large power stations will change.

You foolish man............!!!

Who owns all the utilities of the world...??

Who owns all the coal mines...............??

Who owns all the oil and gas..............??

Who owns the private banks..............??

Who owns the media..........................??

Who owns research centres................??

Who owns the stock markets..............??

etc, etc ,etc ,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc.................!!

I'll tell you a little secret.................... :)

The oligarchy.

Who's behind the AGW scare.............??

The oligarchy............... ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 26^th, 2017 at 9:01pm:

Economics drove the decision, economics:

Yep. You heard of Soros? Short sold the coal mine and then bought them. ;)

And because of the subsidies paid to renewables. When they generate or not.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 26^th, 2017 at 9:01pm:

Economics drove the decision, economics:

It was also an economist who postulated Anthropogenic Global Warming back in the 1970's.

And these melons on the oligarchy's payroll  that pass themselves od as scientists have been trying to prove it every since.

It was also an economist who said 2ºC was dangerous.

lee wrote on Feb 26^th, 2017 at 9:30pm:

It was also an economist who said 2ºC was dangerous.

Thanks Lee that's was I was thinking of... :)

A study by the US Geological Survey shows that the El Nino/La Nina cycle is getting more and more extreme.

Cover that tomorrow or later in the week.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 26^th, 2017 at 9:32pm:

A study by the US Geological Survey shows that the El Nino/La Nina cycle is getting more and more extreme. Cover that tomorrow or later in the week.

So what, its a cycle that has been around for ever.

If your suggesting that the increase in CO2 is the cause...!

Then what would it have been like when we had 7000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere

End of the world.....???


http://i45.tinypic.com/vf8b5l.jpg

http://s155.n46.n171.n68.static.myhostcenter.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf

So Jovial Monk where is the correlation between CO2 and temperature in accordance with the graph above in the previous post............... :)

You have times when CO2 is high and temperature steady.

And temperature rising while CO2 is falling.

Great graph Ajax.

It shows that CO2 % was usually much higher than it is now.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 26^th, 2017 at 9:32pm:

A study by the US Geological Survey shows that the El Nino/La Nina cycle is getting more and more extreme. Cover that tomorrow or later in the week.

Edit: you mean

"Coastal vulnerability across the Pacific dominated by El Niño/Southern Oscillation"

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n10/full/ngeo2539.html

Where they only analysed data from 1979 to 2012? You do know El Nino's have been around a lot longer than that? ;)


That will be interesting. Don't you trust BoM?

Bobby. wrote on Feb 26^th, 2017 at 9:41pm:

Great graph Ajax. It shows that CO2 % was usually much higher than it is now.

The note at the bottom of that graph says that CO2 and temperature have only been as low as they are today one other time in some 600 million years.

Ajax wrote on Feb 26^th, 2017 at 9:42pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 9:41pm: Great graph Ajax. It shows that CO2 % was usually much higher than it is now. The note at the bottom of that graph says that CO2 and temperature have only been as low as they are today one other time in some 600 million years.

Yes & that's not to say that CO2 is good.
I wish that Thorium reactors will take off -
safe, abundant, cheap, nuclear power.

Maybe it's only 5 years away?

Bobby. wrote on Feb 26^th, 2017 at 9:49pm:

Ajax wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 9:42pm: Bobby. wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 9:41pm: Great graph Ajax. It shows that CO2 % was usually much higher than it is now. The note at the bottom of that graph says that CO2 and temperature have only been as low as they are today one other time in some 600 million years. Yes & that's not to say that CO2 is good. I wish that Thorium reactors will take off - safe, abundant, cheap, nuclear power. Maybe it's only 5 years away?

Not a fan of nuclear for two reasons, if the reactor is breached and also the waste.

Apart from that it sounds good.

That USGS survey also has notables from UNSW, the establishment of the Ship of Fools.

It is post normal science with post normal CO2 that can do anything. ;)

Further to the USGA paper -

An important rider-

"We conclude that, if (my bold) projections for an increasing frequency of extreme El Niño and La Niña events over the twenty-first century are confirmed,"

Ajax wrote on Feb 26^th, 2017 at 9:53pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 9:49pm: Ajax wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 9:42pm: Bobby. wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 9:41pm: Great graph Ajax. It shows that CO2 % was usually much higher than it is now. The note at the bottom of that graph says that CO2 and temperature have only been as low as they are today one other time in some 600 million years. Yes & that's not to say that CO2 is good. I wish that Thorium reactors will take off - safe, abundant, cheap, nuclear power. Maybe it's only 5 years away? Not a fan of nuclear for two reasons, if the reactor is breached and also the waste. Apart from that it sounds good.

Thorium is walk away safe.
Thorium doesn't even dissolve in water so it can't pollute the ground.

If it happens Thorium will change everything!
We won't need to burn stinking coal.
China's cities won't be full of pea soup fog pollution.
The CO2 freaks will be happy.

The USGS study:


Quote:

The El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) explains much of the interannual variability in sea surface temperature, sea-level pressure and atmospheric forcing across the equatorial Pacific, affecting global climate patterns and economies. For example, global economic losses associated with the extreme El Niño of 1982–1983 have been estimated at over US$11.5 billion (in 2016 dollars), including significant losses along the coast. The extremes of ENSO oscillations, El Niño and La Niña, have been linked to elevated coastal hazards, particularly during boreal winter (December-February) for the Eastern North Pacific (for example, Hawaii, California, . . . and the Oregon and Washington and Southwestern Pacific (for example, New Zealand and Australia). El Niño events have also been associated with hazardous coastal conditions in Japan during the boreal fall, greater frequency of tropical cyclone development in the Eastern Pacific and rotational shifts of embayed beaches in Australia. With seasonally elevated water levels, higher wave energy and southerly wave directional shifts common during El Niño, the North American west coast has historically experienced severe coastal erosion during El Niño winters, as reported during the 1982–1983, 1997–1998 and 2009–2010 events.

All this extensively footnoted in the study. El Nino and La Nina bring drought and flooding to opposite sides of the Pacific, hence the huge economic cost especially of large El Nino events. Add to this the enhanced erosion threatening coastal communities. Then add rising sea levels as land ice continues and even accelerates melting.


Quote:

By various metrics, the 2015–2016 El Niño winter was one of the three strongest events in the historical record. For example, in the boreal winter of 2015–2016 the Oceanic Niño Index, a 3-month running mean of sea surface temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific, reached the highest value in its 66-year history

When the seas absorb more and more heat, as they are, stronger El Nino events are not unexpected.

http://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/ncomms/2017/170214/ncomms14365/images/m685/ncomms14365-f1.jpg


Quote:

By various metrics, the 2015–2016 El Niño winter was one of the three strongest events in the historical record17. For example, in the boreal winter of 2015–2016 the Oceanic Niño Index, a 3-month running mean of sea surface temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific18, reached the highest value in its 66-year history (Fig. 1a). Based on a reconstruction that dates back to 1871 for the multivariate ENSO index19, a comprehensive assessment of conditions in the tropical Pacific Ocean20—which is significantly correlated with wave energy flux across the Eastern North Pacific5—the 2015–2016 winter was only exceeded by the similarly powerful El Niño events of 1982–1983 and 1997–1998 (Fig. 1b)

The three strongest El Ninos have been from 1982/3 on.


Quote:

The study analyzes two decades of winter oceanographic forcing across the US West Coast, focusing on the response of 29 beaches along the California, Oregon and Washington coasts, fronting a population of ≈25 million.

Be nice if there was a corresponding study on Australasian beaches.


Quote:

The wave climate in the Eastern North Pacific varies seasonally, with larger waves in the fall and winter months driven by the development and passage of extra-tropical cyclones across the mid-latitudes . . . . High pressure dominates in the spring and summer months, with prevailing northwesterly winds and southern hemisphere storms typically resulting in lower wave energy conditions.

Pretty obvious, winter storms in mid latitude eastern Pacific generate bigger waves while storms on the other side of the Pacific result in much less wave energy on the eastern Pacific in the NH summer.


Quote:

As a key driver of coastal change, mean and elevated (that is, top 5%) wave energy flux (a function of wave height and period, see Methods), were ∼50% above normal averaged across all regions during the 2015–2016 El Niño winter. During the 19 years of analysis, mean wave energy flux was only exceeded by the 1997–1998 El Niño (61% above normal), but elevated wave energy flux in 2015–2016 was the highest on record.

Yup, the biggest waves do the most damage and those come (in US West coast) El Nino years. Quite understandable, really. So more and stronger El Ninos are going to do severe erosion and flood damage.


Quote:

An unusual aspect of the 2015–2016 oceanographic conditions was the lack of a regionally consistent wave direction anomaly typical of prior El Niño . . . . In . . .  2015–2016 . . . the Southern California region did experience a marked northerly shift in elevated wave energy flux direction of 18° and 24° relative to the 1997–1998 and 2009–2010 winters, respectively, while Oregon recorded a southerly shift of 10° relative to the mean

So ever stronger, higher more destructive waves coming from different directions. How do you erect coastal defences?

cont’d

Quote:

Seasonal water-level anomalies averaged 11 cm above the mean across the study area during the winter of 2015–2016, with the highest anomaly (+17 cm) measured on the Oregon coast (Fig. 3c). The anomalies were significantly less than in 1997–1998 across all regions, particularly in Northern California and in the Pacific Northwest (averaged +23 cm in 1997–1998).

So the water level in 2015/6 were lower than in the 1997/8 El Nino. Why?


Quote:

In California, the water-level anomalies approximated those recorded during the 2009–2010 El Niño and the winter of 2014–2015, where the latter non-El Niño-related water-level anomaly was driven by a high-amplitude upper level ridge that persisted for several years in the Gulf of Alaska,

That ridge was discussed in an earlier article posted above.


Quote:

Coastal response during the 2015–2016 El Niño Beach morphology responds to the seasonal modulation in forcing across the Eastern North Pacific, with beaches tending to build seaward (prograde) during the low wave energy summer months and retreat landward (erode) in the stormier winter months21,28,29. As coastal populations and infrastructure are most susceptible to storm hazards (for example, flooding, cliff failures and structural damage due to elevated water levels and wave attack) when beaches are depleted, we use the relative movement of a representative shoreline contour (a proxy for beach volume change15) to assess the magnitude of coastal response and vulnerability.

http://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/ncomms/2017/170214/ncomms14365/images/m685/ncomms14365-f4.jpg


Hmmmm increasingly strong El Ninos are having an effect! Not a good effect: beaches eroded, cliff failures, damage to property and infrastructure. Anyone remember the damage to the Great Ocean Road? And the waves might come from a direction that is not the usual direction waves come from, complicating the preparation of flood defences.


Quote:

Averaged across the six regions of the US West Coast, the winter shoreline retreat of 2015–2016 was the highest on record, with erosion 76% above the normal winter shoreline retreat, 27% higher than any other winter and easily eclipsing the El Niños of 2009–2010 (+12%) and 1997–1998 (−9%)

and


Quote:

every region except for Central California experienced the highest seasonal shoreline retreat ever measured, and beaches in Central and North-central California recorded the most

The difference in direction of the large El Nino waves:

Quote:

appears related to a latitudinal shift in the primary storm tracks and resulting wave generation location. Elevated wave energy flux during the winter of 2015–2016 exceeded the 1997–1998 event by 29% in Northern California and the Pacific Northwest, including a 44% increase off the coast of Washington. Conversely, higher mean (+37%) and elevated wave energy (+27%) was measured during 1997–1998 for Central and Southern California compared to the 2015–2016 winter. The distinct northerly wave direction anomaly and the smaller elevated wave energy flux anomaly in Southern California during 2015–2016 relative to 1997–1998 are likely related to storm tracks taking a more southerly route during the 1997–1998 El Niño

So storms were more northerly in 2015/6—weather systems are moving polewards due to AGW. However, the 2015/6 wave direction may be a one of.


Quote:

While projections of El Niño frequency and magnitude for the 21st century are variable, one recent study suggests a potential doubling of extreme El Niños, similar to the strength of the 2015–2016 event. Such a trend would result in more significant hazards risk to coastal communities, which would be compounded by anticipated sea-level rise.

Because of the huge waves pounding the coast beaches were eroded:

Quote:

2015–2016 El Niño winter may have disrupted the dynamic equilibrium of many US West Coast beaches for years to come, much like the highly anomalous wave activity and coastal response along the Atlantic coast of Europe during the winter of 2013–2014, the most energetic since at least 1948 (ref. 45)

California with its prolonged drought would have seen its beaches erode. The present huge rainstorms in NCalif should bring sediment to rebuild (prograde) beaches. What about Southern California, Oregon and Washington?

[quote]The potential for even more extreme coastal erosion during the 2015–2016 El Niño was also moderated by the earlier onset of peak annual high tides and the seasonal water-level anomaly associated with El Niño. The fall 2015 peaks in California, for example, were significantly earlier than

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 27^th, 2017 at 4:08am:

The three strongest El Ninos have been from 1982/3 on.

Supposition based on "reconstructions".


Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 27^th, 2017 at 4:08am:

All this extensively footnoted in the study. El Nino and La Nina bring drought and flooding to opposite sides of the Pacific, hence the huge economic cost especially of large El Nino events. Add to this the enhanced erosion threatening coastal communities.

You know that OLD song "It never Rains in Southern California"?

This has been going on far longer than the time machine


Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 27^th, 2017 at 5:04am:

Not a good effect: beaches eroded, cliff failures, damage to property and infrastructure.

And this has never happened before? Gold Coast beaches?
reconstructions.

Quote:

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years Paul N. Pearson1 & Martin R. Palmer2 Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Queens Road, Bristol BS8 1RJ, UK T. H. Huxley School, Imperial College, RSM Building, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BP, UK Correspondence to: Paul N. Pearson1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to P.N.P. (e-mail: Email: Paul.Pearson@Bristol.ac.uk). Abstract Knowledge of the evolution of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations throughout the Earth's history is important for a reconstruction of the links between climate and radiative forcing of the Earth's surface temperatures. Although atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the early Cenozoic era (about 60 Myr ago) are widely believed to have been higher than at present, there is disagreement regarding the exact carbon dioxide levels, the timing of the decline and the mechanisms that are most important for the control of CO2 concentrations over geological timescales. Here we use the boron-isotope ratios of ancient planktonic foraminifer shells to estimate the pH of surface-layer sea water throughout the past 60 million years, which can be used to reconstruct atmospheric CO2 concentrations. We estimate CO2 concentrations of more than 2,000 p.p.m. for the late Palaeocene and earliest Eocene periods (from about 60 to 52 Myr ago), and find an erratic decline between 55 and 40 Myr ago that may have been caused by reduced CO2 outgassing from ocean ridges, volcanoes and metamorphic belts and increased carbon burial. Since the early Miocene (about 24 Myr ago), atmospheric CO2 concentrations appear to have remained below 500 p.p.m. and were more stable than before, although transient intervals of CO2 reduction may have occurred during periods of rapid cooling approximately 15 and 3 Myr ago.

So CO2 concentration in the atmosphere appears to have been stable for 24 million years until we started burning fossil fuels. Clever us.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 27^th, 2017 at 10:46am:

Quote: Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years Paul N. Pearson1 & Martin R. Palmer2 Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Queens Road, Bristol BS8 1RJ, UK T. H. Huxley School, Imperial College, RSM Building, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BP, UK Correspondence to: Paul N. Pearson1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to P.N.P. (e-mail: Email: Paul.Pearson@Bristol.ac.uk). Abstract Knowledge of the evolution of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations throughout the Earth's history is important for a reconstruction of the links between climate and radiative forcing of the Earth's surface temperatures. Although atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the early Cenozoic era (about 60 Myr ago) are widely believed to have been higher than at present, there is disagreement regarding the exact carbon dioxide levels, the timing of the decline and the mechanisms that are most important for the control of CO2 concentrations over geological timescales. Here we use the boron-isotope ratios of ancient planktonic foraminifer shells to estimate the pH of surface-layer sea water throughout the past 60 million years, which can be used to reconstruct atmospheric CO2 concentrations. We estimate CO2 concentrations of more than 2,000 p.p.m. for the late Palaeocene and earliest Eocene periods (from about 60 to 52 Myr ago), and find an erratic decline between 55 and 40 Myr ago that may have been caused by reduced CO2 outgassing from ocean ridges, volcanoes and metamorphic belts and increased carbon burial. Since the early Miocene (about 24 Myr ago), atmospheric CO2 concentrations appear to have remained below 500 p.p.m. and were more stable than before, although transient intervals of CO2 reduction may have occurred during periods of rapid cooling approximately 15 and 3 Myr ago. So CO2 concentration in the atmosphere appears to have been stable for 24 million years until we started burning fossil fuels. Clever us.

Ah.

"appears to"

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 27^th, 2017 at 4:08am:

Quote: By various metrics, the 2015–2016 El Niño winter was one of the three strongest events in the historical record. For example, in the boreal winter of 2015–2016 the Oceanic Niño Index, a 3-month running mean of sea surface temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific, reached the highest value in its 66-year history

And still managed only 0.01ºC +/- 0.16ºC from 2015. That is of course if you believe we can estimate SST's to hundredths of a degree. ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 27^th, 2017 at 5:04am:

Quote: Seasonal water-level anomalies averaged 11 cm above the mean across the study area during the winter of 2015–2016, with the highest anomaly (+17 cm) measured on the Oregon coast (Fig. 3c). The anomalies were significantly less than in 1997–1998 across all regions, particularly in Northern California and in the Pacific Northwest (averaged +23 cm in 1997–1998). So the water level in 2015/6 were lower than in the 1997/8 El Nino. Why?

The buildup of Antarctic ice?

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 27^th, 2017 at 10:49am:

Ah. "appears to"

Good point. How would you see a spike in CO2 of 100 years in 60 million years? Of course it could be like sea ice. It was always stable until CO2. :D :D :D

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 27^th, 2017 at 10:49am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 27th, 2017 at 10:46am: Quote: Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years Paul N. Pearson1 & Martin R. Palmer2 Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Queens Road, Bristol BS8 1RJ, UK T. H. Huxley School, Imperial College, RSM Building, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BP, UK Correspondence to: Paul N. Pearson1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to P.N.P. (e-mail: Email: Paul.Pearson@Bristol.ac.uk). Abstract Knowledge of the evolution of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations throughout the Earth's history is important for a reconstruction of the links between climate and radiative forcing of the Earth's surface temperatures. Although atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the early Cenozoic era (about 60 Myr ago) are widely believed to have been higher than at present, there is disagreement regarding the exact carbon dioxide levels, the timing of the decline and the mechanisms that are most important for the control of CO2 concentrations over geological timescales. Here we use the boron-isotope ratios of ancient planktonic foraminifer shells to estimate the pH of surface-layer sea water throughout the past 60 million years, which can be used to reconstruct atmospheric CO2 concentrations. We estimate CO2 concentrations of more than 2,000 p.p.m. for the late Palaeocene and earliest Eocene periods (from about 60 to 52 Myr ago), and find an erratic decline between 55 and 40 Myr ago that may have been caused by reduced CO2 outgassing from ocean ridges, volcanoes and metamorphic belts and increased carbon burial. Since the early Miocene (about 24 Myr ago), atmospheric CO2 concentrations appear to have remained below 500 p.p.m. and were more stable than before, although transient intervals of CO2 reduction may have occurred during periods of rapid cooling approximately 15 and 3 Myr ago. So CO2 concentration in the atmosphere appears to have been stable for 24 million years until we started burning fossil fuels. Clever us. Ah. "appears to"

Not a denier, eh Greggy? Much!

Ajax wrote on Feb 26^th, 2017 at 9:37pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 9:32pm: A study by the US Geological Survey shows that the El Nino/La Nina cycle is getting more and more extreme. Cover that tomorrow or later in the week. So what, its a cycle that has been around for ever. If your suggesting that the increase in CO2 is the cause...! Then what would it have been like when we had 7000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere End of the world.....??? http://i45.tinypic.com/vf8b5l.jpg http://s155.n46.n171.n68.static.myhostcenter.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf

7000ppm -

& Jovial ignores it.


http://i45.tinypic.com/vf8b5l.jpg

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 27^th, 2017 at 2:22pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 27th, 2017 at 10:49am: Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 27th, 2017 at 10:46am: Quote: Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years Paul N. Pearson1 & Martin R. Palmer2 Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Queens Road, Bristol BS8 1RJ, UK T. H. Huxley School, Imperial College, RSM Building, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BP, UK Correspondence to: Paul N. Pearson1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to P.N.P. (e-mail: Email: Paul.Pearson@Bristol.ac.uk). Abstract Knowledge of the evolution of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations throughout the Earth's history is important for a reconstruction of the links between climate and radiative forcing of the Earth's surface temperatures. Although atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the early Cenozoic era (about 60 Myr ago) are widely believed to have been higher than at present, there is disagreement regarding the exact carbon dioxide levels, the timing of the decline and the mechanisms that are most important for the control of CO2 concentrations over geological timescales. Here we use the boron-isotope ratios of ancient planktonic foraminifer shells to estimate the pH of surface-layer sea water throughout the past 60 million years, which can be used to reconstruct atmospheric CO2 concentrations. We estimate CO2 concentrations of more than 2,000 p.p.m. for the late Palaeocene and earliest Eocene periods (from about 60 to 52 Myr ago), and find an erratic decline between 55 and 40 Myr ago that may have been caused by reduced CO2 outgassing from ocean ridges, volcanoes and metamorphic belts and increased carbon burial. Since the early Miocene (about 24 Myr ago), atmospheric CO2 concentrations appear to have remained below 500 p.p.m. and were more stable than before, although transient intervals of CO2 reduction may have occurred during periods of rapid cooling approximately 15 and 3 Myr ago. So CO2 concentration in the atmosphere appears to have been stable for 24 million years until we started burning fossil fuels. Clever us. Ah. "appears to" Not a denier, eh Greggy?

Correct.

I'm a sceptic.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 9:44am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 5:27am: Is happening. There's no proof though.

Prove that theory of yours greggerypeccary!

Adamant wrote on Feb 27^th, 2017 at 6:40pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 9:44am: Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 5:27am: Is happening. There's no proof though. Prove that theory of yours greggerypeccary!

I don't have a theory.

Try someone else.

TheFunPolice wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 12:58pm:

Gordon wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 9:50am: I believe in AGW but it's not going to cause end times like the  merchants of panic believe. it all depends on greenland

Wow, I never knew that Greenland was or is our salvation.

Does the ice pollute now?

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 9:44am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 5:27am: Is happening. There's no proof though.

When have you ever required "proof" of anything?
Exception is your daily intake of grog!

Adamant wrote on Feb 27^th, 2017 at 6:46pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 9:44am: Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 5:27am: Is happening. There's no proof though. When have you ever required "proof" of anything? Exception is your daily intake of grog!

What - Greggy hits the bottle?

Adamant wrote on Feb 27^th, 2017 at 6:46pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 9:44am: Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 5:27am: Is happening. There's no proof though. When have you ever required "proof" of anything?

One doesn't always require proof.

For example, the fact that you're a dim-witted sock puppet is a given

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 24^th, 2017 at 12:01pm:

lee wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 11:36am: Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 11:05am: Calculations showed—a bit of cooling but MEASUREMENT showed—a bit of warming! How? Which shows we really know very little. We obviously don't know all the parameters. How sad for AGW tragics who like to tell us the science is settled. That's the bit that annoys me. I'm an AGW skeptic,

LoL

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 27^th, 2017 at 6:49pm:

Adamant wrote on Feb 27th, 2017 at 6:46pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 9:44am: Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 5:27am: Is happening. There's no proof though. When have you ever required "proof" of anything? One doesn't always require proof. For example, the fact that you're a dim-witted sock puppet is a given

Case in point: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487705246/148#148

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 27^th, 2017 at 6:49pm:

Adamant wrote on Feb 27th, 2017 at 6:46pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 9:44am: Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 5:27am: Is happening. There's no proof though. When have you ever required "proof" of anything? One doesn't always require proof. For example, the fact that I am a dim-witted sock puppet is a given.

quod erat demonstrandum

Adamant wrote on Feb 27^th, 2017 at 6:57pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 27th, 2017 at 6:49pm: Adamant wrote on Feb 27th, 2017 at 6:46pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 9:44am: Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 5:27am: Is happening. There's no proof though. When have you ever required "proof" of anything? One doesn't always require proof. For example, the fact that I [Mods note: Lisa's sock puppet is changing the words in my posts] am a dim-witted sock puppet is a given. quod erat demonstrandum

Enjoy your holiday.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 27^th, 2017 at 6:58pm:

Adamant wrote on Feb 27th, 2017 at 6:57pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 27th, 2017 at 6:49pm: Adamant wrote on Feb 27th, 2017 at 6:46pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 9:44am: Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 5:27am: Is happening. There's no proof though. When have you ever required "proof" of anything? One doesn't always require proof. For example, the fact that I am a dim-witted sock puppet is a given. quod erat demonstrandum Enjoy your holiday.

Not this time moron!

While spectrometer data both satellite and terrestial prove beyond doubt that GHGs are absorbing heat radiated from land and see there is another way you can prove that the globe is warming. Use statistics!

To test a theory statistically we state our hypothesis and formulate a null hypothesis. For AGW we have:

H1: the globe is warming
H0: global temperatures are the same

You could use ChiSquare. Find the temperature at the start . Then the null hypothesis states each year has the same temperature, so expected is 1 per year or 10 per decade, however you clump your data, of the years/decades at the starting temperature. You then find the number of observed periods that were actually at that temperature. ChiSquare works on squares of (Expected-Observed).

Or use tests of difference between means, say dividing the period you want to study into two halves, P1 and P2.

The hypothesis then is that mean temp(P2) > mean temp(P1)
Null hypothesis then is mean temp(P1) = mean temp(P2)

Away you go!

ChiSquare is a fave stat of mine. It is a non–parametric test. This means it cares not whether the population is distributed according to the normal distribution (the bell shaped curve) or some other distribution. It is also good for testing experimental results, do the measured results equal the predicted/expected figures.

My bet: not a single bloody denier will try to do any statistical testing of their hypothesis. They either lack the brain power or have an emotional investment in AGW denial or WANT the earth to be cleansed {of evil}( take your pick of what evil but think Sodom and Gomorrah.)

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 28^th, 2017 at 4:54pm:

To test a theory statistically we state our hypothesis and formulate a null hypothesis. For AGW we have: H1: the globe is warming H0: global temperatures are the same

Again the false dichotomy. The earth is warming it must be AGW. :D :D :D

So when we had the LIA the earth was cooling therefore we had AGC. (not Automatic Gain Control Shirley.)

Or even the Global Cooling scare of the 60' and 70's. And not Australian Guarantee Corporation


Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 28^th, 2017 at 4:54pm:

ChiSquare works on squares of (Expected-Observed).

So you see what you expect to see? Oh what fun. ;)

Never mind about the world's climate being chaotic and not able to be modelled. :D :D :D

Lees knows as little about stats as he does about climate and climate change.

Lees is also blind, didn’t see the “observed” in my post. I DID state my alternate hypothesis was “The globe is warming” <== didn’t mention any cause. We are testing a hypothesis here.

We are also doing a statistical test on temperature, not building a model.

ANOVA (analysis of variance) would also be interesting.

I did think Lees would be the first to chicken out. Big mouth but no knowledge at all about anything much.

Who is next?

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 28^th, 2017 at 6:05pm:

I DID state my alternate hypothesis was “The globe is warming” <== didn’t mention any cause.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 28^th, 2017 at 4:54pm:

To test a theory statistically we state our hypothesis and formulate a null hypothesis. For AGW we have:

Don't even proof read your own crap. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Piss or get off the pot Lees!

My hypothesis were AGW agnostic.

https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/5_9_16_andrea_tempspiraledhawkins.gif

This gif shows clearly that the Chi Square test would, with a high degree of confidence, reject the null hypothesis. Since the temperatures have clearly increased it then leads us to conclude the alternative hypothesis, that the earth is warming, is true.

A study of the composition of the atmosphere shows that a lot of CO2 has been added by us burning fossil fuels. Volcanoes supply a tiny amount of CO2 in comparison.

Using a spectrometer then shows us that CO2, H2O, CH4 etc are blocking heat from escaping to space—the last open panel in the greenhouse is slowly being pushed shut.

So Anthropogenic Global Warming does seem to be operating—we are sure it is but we don’t pretend to know all and there may be another cause we have missed.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 28^th, 2017 at 7:04pm:

My hypothesis were AGW agnostic.

Then why did you mention it?

You really know NOTHING, do you?

The theory to be tested is AGW. If the theory is true the globe is warming. To test this statistically we need to formulate the alternative and null hypotheses:

1. H1—globe is warming

2. H0—global temps  are constant

If temps are not constant the null hypothesis fails and the alternative hypothesis is tentatively accepted.

lee wrote on Feb 28^th, 2017 at 5:54pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 28th, 2017 at 4:54pm: To test a theory statistically we state our hypothesis and formulate a null hypothesis. For AGW we have: H1: the globe is warming H0: global temperatures are the same Again the false dichotomy. The earth is warming it must be AGW. :D :D :D So when we had the LIA the earth was cooling therefore we had AGC. (not Automatic Gain Control Shirley.) Or even the Global Cooling scare of the 60' and 70's. And not Australian Guarantee Corporation Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 28th, 2017 at 4:54pm: ChiSquare works on squares of (Expected-Observed). So you see what you expect to see? Oh what fun. ;) Never mind about the world's climate being chaotic and not able to be modelled. :D :D :D

You don't even know what chaotic means! (You wouldn't hypnotise too many in a crowd for money broseph!)

Lees doesn’t know much, DRAH, that is for sure.

Why he denies AGW I have no idea.

ChiSquared compares observed with expected (or predicted) results, it tests the accuracy of predictions of experimental results. It is also, as I said, non parametric leading more credibility to results.

lee wrote on Feb 28^th, 2017 at 5:54pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 28th, 2017 at 4:54pm: To test a theory statistically we state our hypothesis and formulate a null hypothesis. For AGW we have: H1: the globe is warming H0: global temperatures are the same Again the false dichotomy. The earth is warming it must be AGW. :D :D :D So when we had the LIA the earth was cooling therefore we had AGC. (not Automatic Gain Control Shirley.) Or even the Global Cooling scare of the 60' and 70's. And not Australian Guarantee Corporation Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 28th, 2017 at 4:54pm: ChiSquare works on squares of (Expected-Observed). So you see what you expect to see? Oh what fun. ;) Never mind about the world's climate being chaotic and not able to be modelled. :D :D :D

Lee is alleging his whole technological world is based on but a mere series of false dichotomies!

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 28^th, 2017 at 9:06pm:

Lees doesn’t know much, DRAH, that is for sure. Why he denies AGW I have no idea.

He doesn't!

It's just PR for his planet accountant sugar daddys  ;D

TheFunPolice wrote on Feb 28^th, 2017 at 9:08pm:

lee wrote on Feb 28th, 2017 at 5:54pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 28th, 2017 at 4:54pm: To test a theory statistically we state our hypothesis and formulate a null hypothesis. For AGW we have: H1: the globe is warming H0: global temperatures are the same Again the false dichotomy. The earth is warming it must be AGW. :D :D :D So when we had the LIA the earth was cooling therefore we had AGC. (not Automatic Gain Control Shirley.) Or even the Global Cooling scare of the 60' and 70's. And not Australian Guarantee Corporation Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 28th, 2017 at 4:54pm: ChiSquare works on squares of (Expected-Observed). So you see what you expect to see? Oh what fun. ;) Never mind about the world's climate being chaotic and not able to be modelled. :D :D :D Lee is alleging his whole technological world is based on but a mere series of false dichotomies!

His whole critique of the summary of method I outlined is weird, I was clear enough, I thought, in the outline of steps. Desperation maybe.

We are probably going to hit 1.5°C warming.

Doesn’t sound much, maybe.

Peak temperature could be rather than 1.5°C warmer.

There will be more evaporation from warmer seas, so more cloud cover and that could mean rather warmer night time temperatures—and that could interfere with plant growth.

The problem with AGW is its rapidity, plants and animals do not have enough time to adapt: evolution works slowly and a bit haphazardly.

I intend to publish some info of this over the next few days.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 28^th, 2017 at 7:04pm:

My hypothesis were AGW agnostic.

Then why did you mention it?

From AR5

“Arctic temperature anomalies in the 1930s were apparently as large as those in the 1990s and 2000s. There is still considerable discussion of the ultimate causes of the warm anomalies in the 1920s and 1930s.” (IPCC AR5)

“A recent multi-proxy 2000-year Arctic temperature reconstruction shows that temperatures during the first centuries were comparable or even higher than during the 20th century.”

maybe use your Chi square on those.

Or watch this.

https://videos.files.wordpress.com/JUDO1cWK/globaltempchange-spiral_dvd.mp4


based on hannhijarvi-2013
Reference: Hannhijarvi et al, 2013 from https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/spe-climate-2016.pdf

I have shown the globe is warming and also what drives the warming. So now we need to discuss what the AGW is doing and what dangers it poses.

One I have mentioned over and over here and elsewhere: if Arctic and Greenland melting accelerates what will happen to the Gulf Stream? If the Gulf Stream weakens significantly what will that do to climate in the NE of north America, England and western Europe? Will the GHGs in the atmosphere reduce the severity of the climate there after the Gulf Stream stops?

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 1^st, 2017 at 8:20am:

I have shown the globe is warming and also what drives the warming.

You've presented a hypothesis.

Temperatures are rising and GHGs absorbing long wave light energy (heat) are the mechanism. Both have been demonstrated.

You are a denier, Greg, not a skeptic.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 1^st, 2017 at 9:46am:

Temperatures are rising and GHGs absorbing long wave light energy (heat) are the mechanism.

That's one theory, yes.

What They Haven't Told You about Climate Change


[media width=625]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkdbSxyXftc[/media]

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 1^st, 2017 at 9:48am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 1st, 2017 at 9:46am: Temperatures are rising and GHGs absorbing long wave light energy (heat) are the mechanism. That's one theory, yes.

Not just a theory, Greg. Open your eyes and you will see better.

Polar sea ice—both poles—at a minimum extent. Greenland—melting even in the NHemisphere winter.

Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?




[media width=625]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c[/media]

Just for Greg a repeat of:

https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/5_9_16_andrea_tempspiraledhawkins.gif

Obviously any statistical test over the whole preindustrial-to-now time range will fail any null hypothesis about temperatures being static.

The globe is warming and GHGs are the mechanism. Both have been demonstrated here. Our burning of fossil fuels has increased the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere, that was demonstrated too.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 1^st, 2017 at 9:50am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 1st, 2017 at 9:48am: Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 1st, 2017 at 9:46am: Temperatures are rising and GHGs absorbing long wave light energy (heat) are the mechanism. That's one theory, yes. Not just a theory, Greg.

Actually, that's exactly what AGW is - a theory.

It is a theory that predicts what is happening and has a driver for it demonstrated very clearly. Does not mean AGW is not happening: it is demonstrated to be happening.

We are about to hit 1.5°C temperature rise and likely will hit 2°C.

Paradoxically, by Arctic and Greenland meltwater stopping the Gulf Stream, that may bring cooler temperatures to the NE of North America, the UK and West Europe. Stopping the ocean conveyor may mean other parts of the world get hotter than the 2°C predicted rise.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 1^st, 2017 at 10:12am:

It is a theory that predicts what is happening and has a driver for it demonstrated very clearly. Does not mean AGW is not happening: it is demonstrated to be happening.

No, it isn't.

It's assumed to be happening.

Greg is on ignore in the AGW/LIA etc threads. Don’t have time for that rubbish.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 1^st, 2017 at 10:20am:

Greg is on ignore in the AGW/LIA etc threads. Don’t have time for that rubbish.

You don't have time for the truth - why is that?

Everything I've said is true, yet you stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to acknowledge it.

This is the problem with the AGW cult - its members are very, very closed-minded.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 1^st, 2017 at 8:20am:

I have shown the globe is warming and also what drives the warming. So now we need to discuss what the AGW is doing and what dangers it poses.

You haven't shown what DRIVES warming.

You have shown what MAY cause warming ALL OTHER THINGS BRING EQUAL.

Now seeing as all other things are NOT equal, you need proof. You know "extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof"

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 1^st, 2017 at 8:20am:

One I have mentioned over and over here and elsewhere: if Arctic and Greenland melting accelerates what will happen to the Gulf Stream? I

Did you ignore the quotes from IPCC AR5?
lee wrote on Feb 28^th, 2017 at 10:39pm:

“Arctic temperature anomalies in the 1930s were apparently as large as those in the 1990s and 2000s. There is still considerable discussion of the ultimate causes of the warm anomalies in the 1920s and 1930s.” (IPCC AR5) “A recent multi-proxy 2000-year Arctic temperature reconstruction shows that temperatures during the first centuries were comparable or even higher than during the 20th century.”

Why is it you only accept the IPCC when it supports your position? Are you a DENIER?

What caused that early approximate AD1 warming? CO2?

What happened to the theory that Arctic Ice Melt is a new kid on the block? Wasn't Arctic Ice always supposed to be at approximately 1979 levels?

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 1^st, 2017 at 9:57am:

Obviously any statistical test over the whole preindustrial-to-now time range will fail any null hypothesis about temperatures being static.

Isn't Common Era, you know that thing about the previously known the AD, part of the "preindustrial-to-now" time range?

How close are we to 1.5°C global temperature rise?


Quote:

Under the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement, countries agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions to keep global temperature rise “well below” 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) above preindustrial levels and limit it to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) above that mark in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. But the agreement left undefined exactly what period is considered “preindustrial.”

Elsewhere there is a papersuggesting the date for “preindustrial” can be pushed back to:

Quote:

using 1720–1800 as a preindustrial period, because it is before greenhouse gas–spewing industrial activities kicked into gear but still relatively recent. It was also after the unusually cold period called the Little Ice Age. . .

Using this new start for pre-industrial date:

Quote:

Ed Hawkins, a climate scientist at the University of Reading in England, and his coauthors back-calculated the temperature record using measurements of factors that affect climate, such as solar activity and volcanic eruptions, as well as more local temperature records that extend further back in time.

Just a note about “solar activity” it does seem that solar minima (sunspot numbers low) might actually increase global temps: more infrared less UV radiation from the silent sun. Just how low the minima must be is another aspect to investigate.

Volcanic eruptions, if large enough, spew aerosols into the upper upper atmosphere where they reflect incoming sunlight, cooling the earth. You see volcanoes and ENSO (El Nino/La Nina) causing fluctuations around the graphs of increasing global temperatures.


Quote:

They determined that the period from 1986–2005 was likely 0.55–0.8 degrees C (1–1.4 degrees F) above preindustrial levels. That’s in line with other estimates made using the late 19th century as a baseline, such as NASA, which estimates warming from the late 19th century to 1986–2005 at about 0.66 degrees C.

So there is agreement on the amount of warming regardless of the exact starting date (the degrees of warming above are consistent with each other, not identical with the rise since the earlier starting point of preindustrial activity being slightly greater than the temperature calculated from a later starting point where industrial activity had already started and increased temperature somewhat.


Quote:

. . .“but if you’re a policymaker and you’re very serious about 1.5 degrees C” the difference between 1 degrees C and 1.2 degrees C of temperature rise is much more important than it is for a limit of 2 degrees C.

Less elbow room to contain temperature rises. More urgency.

I have already shown the spiral of increasing temperature, here is a more conventional graph:
https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/cc-hockeystickcurve_720_498_s_c1_c_c.jpg

http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0007.1

Yes. We know about Mann and his tree-ring proxies. And how tree-rings are more to do with precipitation than temperature, ;)

Your using a graph from Grist named the "hockeystick curve? :D :D :D :D

What Marcott said -

"Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 1^st, 2017 at 11:12am:

Quote: Under the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement, countries agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions to keep global temperature rise “well below” 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) above preindustrial levels and limit it to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) above that mark in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

"Some critics have been skeptical about the Paris Agreement, and expressed doubts that governments have either the intention or the ability to live up to their promises — I share their doubts. NASA climate scientist Professor James Hansen, one of the world’s foremost authorities on climate change, said of the agreement, “It’s a fraud really, a fake... It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bianca-jagger/will-the-paris-climate-ag_b_9793130.html

I present, for the education of Lees, statistical hypothesis testing:

https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/statprogram/node/138

Quote:

The Winter of Blazing Discontent Continues in the Arctic

This article is dated 6 Feb 2017


Quote:

Weird. Strange. Extreme. Unprecedented. These are some of the words that describe what’s been happening in the Arctic over the past year as surge after surge of warm air have stalled, and at times reversed, sea ice pack growth. And the unfortunate string of superlatives is set to continue this week. Arctic sea ice is already sitting at a record low for this time of year and a powerful North Atlantic storm is expected to open the flood gates and send more warmth pouring into the region from the lower latitudes. By Thursday, it could reach up to 50°F above normal. In absolute temperature, that’s near the freezing point and could further spur a decline in sea ice.

http://assets.climatecentral.org/images/uploads/news/2_6_17_Brian_WarmAirForecast.gif


Quote:

Sea ice growth reversed in November. Temperatures reached the melting point at the North Pole in December. Preliminary data from January indicates the Arctic was up to 35°F above normal in some locations, including a mid-January mild wave. That brings us to early February, which is setting up for another bout of mild weather in the Arctic.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4Afl70VcAAfGeR.jpg


Quote:

It’s just the latest signal that the Arctic is in the middle of a profound change. Sea ice extent has dropped precipitously as has the amount of old ice, which is less prone to breakup. Beyond sea ice, Greenland’s ice sheet is also melting away and pushing sea levels higher, large fires are much more common and intense in boreal forests and other ecosystem changes are causing the earth to hyperventilate. Together, these all indicate that the Arctic is in crisis. It’s the most dramatic example of how carbon pollution is reshaping the planet and scientists are racing to understand what comes next.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/winter-extreme-heat-arctic-21141

Just goes to show the extent of the problem. We cannot pretend it is business as normal anymore when it comes to climate!

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 1^st, 2017 at 11:57am:

I present, for the education of Lees, statistical hypothesis testing: https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/statprogram/node/138

Or something more your level -

"The p-value is a number between 0 and 1 and interpreted in the following way:

    A small p-value (typically ≤ 0.05) indicates strong evidence against the null hypothesis, so you reject the null hypothesis.

    A large p-value (> 0.05) indicates weak evidence against the null hypothesis, so you fail to reject the null hypothesis.

    p-values very close to the cutoff (0.05) are considered to be marginal (could go either way). Always report the p-value so your readers can draw their own conclusions."

http://www.dummies.com/education/math/statistics/what-a-p-value-tells-you-about-statistical-data/

Or

"In experiments where we are obliged to resort to statistics it is therefore proper procedure to define a level of significance at which a correlation will be deemed to have been proven, though the choice is often actually made after the event. It is important to realise that, however small the value of P, there is always a finite chance that the result is a pure accident. A typical level at which the threshold of P is set would be 0.01, which means there is a one percent chance that the result was accidental. The significance of such a result would then be indicate by the statement P<0.01.

Unfortunately it has become customary in some branches of science, particularly epidemiology, to operate with much lower levels of significance. A level frequently quoted is P<0.05. This means that there is a one in twenty chance that the whole thing was accidental (In one notorious case the threshold was even raised to 0.1 in order to obtain the “required” result)."

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/significance.htm

So as I said 0.01 is good, 0.1 is crap. Karl has a self-admitted p of 0.1. Karl is crap.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 1^st, 2017 at 12:27pm:

Quote: The Winter of Blazing Discontent Continues in the Arctic This article is dated 6 Feb 2017

Wow after a two year El Nino who woudda thunk ocean currents could carry warm water. :D :D :D :D :D :D

The Arctic continues to show the acceleration of global warming:


Quote:

According to NSIDC data, the Global sea ice area record for lowest minimum has just been broken, as shown on this Wipneus graph (world famous now because of what happened after September last year; see the dark red line on the right side of the graph which should be fairly easily to spot):

http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01b7c8c7f9f4970b-pi


Quote:

For those who still think that man-made global warming poses no risk whatsoever, that it is a hoax, I'm just going to repeat what I wrote last year: This measure doesn't tell us all that much about the health of either Arctic or Antarctic regions, if only because the seasons move in opposite directions (nevertheless, the Global sea ice trend is down). It's just an interesting statistical factoid. However, climate risk deniers often use the Global sea ice metric as an argument that nothing is wrong and AGW is a hoax. In other words, the recent growth in Antarctic sea ice offsets the loss of Arctic sea ice (it doesn't), even though the poles are literally worlds apart and are pretty much incomparable (except for the sea ice bit). Using this logic, it would seem that this new record minimum means there is something wrong with sea ice and AGW isn't a hoax. I wonder how they will spin this one. If they report it to their loyal readers, that is.

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2017/01/global-sea-ice-records-broken-again.html

Suggest you look at the article and ponder the meaning of the graph.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2017 at 6:42am:

Suggest you look at the article and ponder the meaning of the graph.

You just can't accept there was climate change before 1978; can you? ;)

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in
some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report
to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate, at Bergen , Norway

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change
in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.

Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north
as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. 

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones,
the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic,
while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north,
are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and
make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

* * * * * * * * *







I must apologize.

I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported
by the AP and published in The Washington Post - 93 years ago.


This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions.

There was a cool day in Feb 2017 in Adelaide so no AGW.

Typical denier rubbish.

Read some science:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100707124649/http://www.globalcoral.org/LONG%20TERM%20ARCTIC%20ICE%20TRENDS%20AND%20GLOBAL%20WARMING.1.pdf

Nice article On CO2 levels, temperatures and glaciation in geologic time.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-basic.htm

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2017 at 2:56pm:

There was a cool day in Feb 2017 in Adelaide so no AGW. Typical denier rubbish. Read some science: https://web.archive.org/web/20100707124649/http://www.globalcoral.org/LONG%20TER...

So according to you, observations (from 1922) don't count as science? :D :D :D :D :D

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2017 at 3:01pm:

Nice article On CO2 levels, temperatures and glaciation in geologic time. https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-basic.htm

From your reference -

"In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation"

And yet they "found" a short drop in CO2 in a 450 million year proxy? using a graph that doesn't have any attribution, apart from themselves. But John Cook is a Climate Communicator not a Climate Scientist.
:D :D :D :D :D

John Cook sticks his head up the butt of DeSmogBlog and finds a cure or something. :D :D :D :D :D


Don't you regularly hang sh!t on people who quote blogs? Now let's see Skeptical Science - blog, DeSmogBLOG - self-explanatory. ;)

Quote:

Over the last 30 years of direct satellite observation of the Earth’s climate, many natural influences including orbital variations, solar and volcanic activity, and oceanic conditions like El Nino (ENSO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) have either had no effect or promoted cooling conditions. Despite these natural oppositions, global temperatures have steadily risen throughout that time. While natural processes continue to introduce short term variability, the unremitting rise of CO2 from industrial activities has become the dominant factor in determining our planet’s climate now and in the years to come.

.

https://skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-only-driver-of-climate.htm

Valkie wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2017 at 12:26pm:

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate, at Bergen , Norway Yadda yadda etc etc * * * * * * * * * I must apologize. I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post - 93 years ago. This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions.

This occurred in one small area of the Arctic, Spitzbergen. Not the whole Arctic.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100707124649/http://www.globalcoral.org/LONG%20TERM%20ARCTIC%20ICE%20TRENDS%20AND%20GLOBAL%20WARMING.1.pdf

As I said, typical brain dead denier rubbish.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2017 at 4:15pm:

Quote: Over the last 30 years of direct satellite observation of the Earth’s climate, many natural influences including orbital variations, solar and volcanic activity, and oceanic conditions like El Nino (ENSO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) have either had no effect or promoted cooling conditions. Despite these natural oppositions, global temperatures have steadily risen throughout that time. While natural processes continue to introduce short term variability, the unremitting rise of CO2 from industrial activities has become the dominant factor in determining our planet’s climate now and in the years to come. . https://skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-only-driver-of-climate.htm

Oooh, back to the 30 years of satellite is conclusive proof of AGW. :D :D :D :D