Tired of nonsense like a LIA when global temperatures are INcreasing?

Get the real info from the BuMet State of the Climate report here.

That is a thread on my board, safe for anyone to read. A few 4letter words is all.

Anyone can comment in the comment thread I put up, no need to register.

Next you'll be promoting -

"Sex Appeal - Please Give Generously" ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Nope real science is all. Notice you don’t have the guts to comment.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 18^th, 2017 at 9:41pm:

Nope real science is all. Notice you don’t have the guts to comment.

I answered on the other thread. You ducked it.

What is the Specific Heat of CO2?

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 18^th, 2017 at 4:00pm:

Anyone can comment in the comment thread I put up, no need to register.

No they can't comment - you liar -

the thread is locked.

People say you are nice etc, Booby, yet here you are calling me a liar for no reason.

At the top of the first post is a link to a thread where you can comment without even registering.

See you there, Booby.

How is the specific heat of CO2 related to its greenhouse effect, Lees?

I posted on Jovial's site & it came back & said

comment has to be approved.

What a weak site.
No wonder no one goes there.  ;D

Well, there were reasons I made guest posts subject to moderation. I have removed it now and have replied to your post.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 8:13am:

Well, there were reasons I made guest posts subject to moderation. I have removed it now and have replied to your post.

You go to the proper forum & discuss it - it's called polanimal

http://ozpolitic.com/polanimal/viewtopic.php?f=8&p=204779#p204779

They have already stopped discussing the silly videos you post in PA, haven’t they?

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 8:21am:

They have already stopped discussing the silly videos you post in PA, haven’t they?

Jovial,
I'm not discussing this here.
The last time I did - we both got banned.

You are ignored.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 8:30am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 19th, 2017 at 8:21am: They have already stopped discussing the silly videos you post in PA, haven’t they? Jovial, I'm not discussing this here. The last time I did - we both got banned. You are ignored.

I think that shows I was right and they are ignoring the silly, unresearched videos you post on PA as here. Nobody watches them, just you.

Bobby's a celebrity. His 'ice-age'  thread is world renowned.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 18^th, 2017 at 4:00pm:

Tired of nonsense like a LIA when global temperatures are INcreasing?

yeah, I get tired of the dishonest arguments and hypocrisy of the denialists.
The problem is that it has become a political football .
The science shows that increasing CO2 will increase the temperature. That is a scientific fact

We know Booby doesn’t understand the silly, unresearched videos he posts here and PA and they are ignored on PA and ignored on here  ;D  ;D ;D

But I am agog, on tenterhooks to hear how the specific heat of CO2 has anything to do with its greenhouse properties. I am prepared to be amazed, amazed I tells ya!

I think it has to do with a Type II error but won’t frighten Lees with more stats, he nearly had a heart attack the first time I did that   ::) :)

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 12:02pm:

I think it has to do with a Type II error but won’t frighten Lees with more stats, he nearly had a heart attack the first time I did that   ::) :)

It's one of lees tactics of obfuscation that he expects us to do his research for him.
If he was a genuine and honest debater he would present the point he is actually trying to make.

I think Lees is scared poopless that AGW is real and is desperate to shut down discussion of it.

CO2 HAS NEVER CONTROLLED TEMPERATURE ON EARTH


http://i65.tinypic.com/vyld92.jpg http://i64.tinypic.com/2eb7uir.jpg

Warming by the end of this century

IPCC computer models  projected warming……… +2.78° C / Century

Observations the last 25 years………………………….. +1.01° C / Century

http://i66.tinypic.com/hrwj9c.png

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v8habYTfHU

Thanks Ajax,
that deserves to go on my thread at polanimal.

http://ozpolitic.com/polanimal/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=14468&p=204871#p204871

Another video to be ignored there?

Ajax, no matter how many times you drag up and post those charts the world is warming and the sea levels are rising.

Re the Ordovician/Silurian etc: how long ago was that, Ajax? What life was about, what continents and what was the state of the sun?

The world IS warming.

There is one species I can think of that has survived unchanged since precambrian times. We do have some here. Apart from that, a trilobite does not look much like a crab, a squid or octopus does not look much like a bellamite (aka Belemnoids ) or ammonite and they aren’t too far apart in time. No fish today looks like Ostracoderms.

Two supercontinents formed and broke apart in all that time.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 7:49am:

How is the specific heat of CO2 related to its greenhouse effect, Lees?

The specific heat of CO2 has less than 1. That means it warms faster than the surrounding air and also cools faster than the surrounding air.

the table is here-

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/carbon-dioxide-d_974.html

You notice it is not a constant, but varies with temperature. The cooler it gets the lower the specific heat.

Remember what happens with temperature at elevation?

No warming blanket of CO2 for you.

What does the specific heat of CO2 have to do with its greenhouse effect, or the absorption and re-emitting of certain frequencies of infrared?

As the earth heats the mixture of gases that is the atmosphere will also heat, so will the seas.

Talking about the seas, they are warming rather faster than was thought:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1489906523/0#0

Oh dear, poor Lees!

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 3:35pm:

the world is warming and the sea levels are rising.

And you didn't expect this to happen in an interglacial?


Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 3:35pm:

There is one species I can think of that has survived unchanged since precambrian times.

Corals?

You don’t know much do you Lees?

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 5:10pm:

What does the specific heat of CO2 have to do with its greenhouse effect, or the absorption and re-emitting of certain frequencies of infrared?

Please tell us the time delay between absorption and re-emission of the IR.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 5:13pm:

You don’t know much do you Lees?

Yes. But I can be re-educated.

lee wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 5:15pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 19th, 2017 at 5:10pm: What does the specific heat of CO2 have to do with its greenhouse effect, or the absorption and re-emitting of certain frequencies of infrared? Please tell us the time delay between absorption and re-emission of the IR.

That is not important.

Can you work out why this absorption/emission of IR is important, i.e. how it acts to warm the atmosphere and so the land and sea? I am sure you can work it out.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 5:10pm:

Talking about the seas, they are warming rather faster than was thought: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1489906523/0#0

Let's see -

"First, we corrected past data for known biases in measurements"

From your reference.

You mean like Karl et al when they increased the buoy data to compensate for warm engine room temperatures. They used a "cooling bias" on the buoy data.

"As buoy measurements have replaced ship measurements, this had hidden some of the real-world warming.

After correcting for this “cold bias,” researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded in the journal Science that the oceans have actually warmed 0.12 degrees "

"Nowadays, buoys cover much of the ocean and that data is beginning to supplant ship data. But the buoys report slightly cooler temperatures because they measure water directly from the ocean instead of after a trip through a warm engine room."

http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/01/04/global-warming-hiatus-disproved-again/

" Second, we related the temperature measurements to results calculated from advanced climate computer models"

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The Argos buoys have been around for a while and they are showing the BuMet that the seas around Australia have warmed.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 5:28pm:

Can you work out why this absorption/emission of IR is important, i.e. how it acts to warm the atmosphere and so the land and sea? I am sure you can work it out.

With or without the PHYSICS of Specific Heat of CO2? I am assuming you want to go with only half an equation. :D :D :D

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 5:31pm:

The Argos buoys have been around for a while and they are showing the BuMet that the seas around Australia have warmed.

Is that before or after the adjustments for "cooling bias"?

Of course we don't have very good measurements before the Argo buoys. So how do we know anything?

Specific heat is irrelevant to the IR question.

Type II error, Lees.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 5:33pm:

Specific heat is irrelevant to the IR question. Type II error, Lees.

Of course it is you have a blog that shows it. :D :D :D :D

I am guessing that you don’t know what a Type II error is. You can look it up.

Now, a molecule of a GHG has absorbed a photon of IR. Later, it re-emits it.

What is significant about this? Hint: geometry.

You mean a type 11 error where the null hypothesis is proved false and you fail to reject it? First you have to prove the null hypothesis, in this case natural variation, is false.

Until then there is no type 11 error. ;)

It is Type II error, not 11.

Referring to the irrelevant crap about specific heat of CO2.

You have not developed an argument about that specific heat nonsense.

What is the theory that says specific heat matters a damn to AGW?

Got a source to back it up? Anything? Or just desperation?

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 10:13pm:

It is Type II error, not 11. Referring to the irrelevant crap about specific heat of CO2. You have not developed an argument about that specific heat nonsense.

You have not proved a null hypothesis.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 10:22pm:

What is the theory that says specific heat matters a damn to AGW? Got a source to back it up? Anything? Or just desperation?

I thought you believed in the physics. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

You are putting up specific heat as a counter to AGW.

Up to you to propose the theory.

Specific heat relates to absorption of IR exactly how?

I am guessing it is desperation.

The globe is warming, clearly. It is also warming more quickly than it has for millions of years. The Arctic, Greenland, Antarctic sea ice are all melting, glaciers, apart from a very few cases, are retreating.

So, what does specific heat have to do with anything? Just a straw to clutch as you drown in proof of AGW?

So, specific heat. . . ?

"This assessment demonstrates that the effect of an increased warming caused by an increase of  absorptivity of infrared radiation (IR) by water vapor due to overlapping spectral bands with carbon dioxide does not happen in nature.

On the overlapping absorption spectral bands of carbon dioxide and water vapor, the carbon dioxide propitiates a decrease of the total emissivity/absorptivity of the mixture in the atmosphere, not an increase,as AGW proponents argue.

Applying the physics laws of atmospheric heat transfer, the Carbon Dioxide behaves as a coolant of the Earth’s surface and the Earth’s atmosphere by its effect of diminishing the total absorptivity and total emissivity of the mixture of atmospheric gases."

http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

A peer-reviewed paper.

Spectrometry both terrestial and satellite gives the lie to that tosh.

Read this crap from that paper:

Quote:

Since the popularization of the information about a hypothetical anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in 1988, AGW proponents have been arguing that the carbon dioxide causes an increase in the total absorptivity of the atmosphere1, 2

The authors wanted to show AGW did not exist and looked for ways to show that. Peer reviewed (doubt it) or not that is bad science.

The theory has more than arguments, it has data. Temperature readings, spectrometric data, sea level readings etc.


Desperate Lee.

Oh dear oh dear.

The paper references a book Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory which shows the paper is not a search for truth.

Anyway, found the book on Amazon. Oh dear oh dear. Oh my.

Some comments from readers:

Quote:

I like reading verifiable reports, unlike reading news articles / press releases from the criminals who pushed Global Warming on the rest is the planet.

Very rational, very scientific.

It gets better.


Quote:

Finally, the truth is told backed up with actual facts. Global warming is pure fiction invented for liberals to gain power and control over the masses.

Do those “actual facts” include the melting of polar sea ice, the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and the retreat of nearly all glaciers, hmmm? Do the facts include wild/bush fire seasons getting longer and longer and the fires bigger and more destructive?

I have left the best till last, oh boy!

Quote:

The fact taught in the book that real greenhouses stay warm not because of any transmissive properties of the glass, but simply because of the blocking of the cooling breezes is a key fact that (a) even grade school children will understand when taught and (b) should completely neutralize the "AGW" propagandists.

Greenhouses are warm because they block “cooling breezes.” What tosh! What 100% pure garbage! How can anyone, even a denier, come up with baloney like that? Such poor science! Pseudoscience!

A “cooling breeze” is a cooling breeze to us because it evaporates sweat from our skin. Plants don’t sweat so to them a breeze is a breeze is a breeze. I do have a little walk–in greenhouse 1.8m long. It is always warmer inside the greenhouse than outside. Every greenhouse is!

Poor, poor desperate Lees.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 20^th, 2017 at 7:18am:

Do those “actual facts” include the melting of polar sea ice, the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and the retreat of nearly all glaciers, hmmm? Do the facts include wild/bush fire seasons getting longer and longer and the fires bigger and more destructive?

Are they proof of AGW or merely warming. Or restricted burning seasons due to "environmental" concerns. ;)
Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 20^th, 2017 at 7:18am:

I do have a little walk–in greenhouse 1.8m long. It is always warmer inside the greenhouse than outside. Every greenhouse is!

And does it have convective breezes? Or is there no breeze?
Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 20^th, 2017 at 7:18am:

A “cooling breeze” is a cooling breeze to us because it evaporates sweat from our skin.

And a "warming breeze" doesn't evaporate the sweat from our skin? :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 10:48pm:

Spectrometry both terrestial and satellite gives the lie to that tosh.

Please quote the scientific article that shows Spectrometry proves CO2 causes AGW.

You might trust this one:

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carbon-dioxide-is-already-absorbing-almost-all-it-can/

Plenty of REAL science papers if you care to look.,

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 20^th, 2017 at 7:57pm:

You might trust this one: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carbon-dioxide-is-already-absorbing-almost-all-it-can/ Plenty of REAL science papers if you care to look.,

Yeah. just look at all that warming the extra CO2 is causing? From the joannenova thread you picked.

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/graphs/log-co2/log-graph-lindzen-choi-web.gif

It looks to be an inverse relationship to temperature. (Not saying it is, just looks that way) ;)

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/side_image/public/thumbnails/image/2016temperature.png

Image courtesy NASA.

CO2 causes AGW. :D :D :D :D :D

Nice post Lee,

keep up the good work.

JoNova is such a world authority on AGW  ::)

So Lee now accepts CO2 causes global warming.

What I noticed when looking through the list of hits is that deniers (and not just JoNova) have now accepted CO2 causes warming and have retreated to saying that more CO2 won’t cause more warming. Yeah, just like in winter putting another blanket on your bed doesn’t keep you warmer  ::) ::) ::)

Let us have a look at a real paper (Booby, you might as well stop reading because it will be above your limited comprehension. Will be above Lees’ too but he will make a silly one liner to pretend to understand and refute it.

https://skepticalscience.com//pics/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev.png

Note the 100K year cycle of major ice ages? No cooling for quite a while yet!


Quote:

Humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere by about 40% over the past 150 years.

Now let us look at the spectrometry:
http://cdn.greenoptions.com/b/bc/bcb92953_Greenhouse_Spectrum.gif

Quote:

Figure 2: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

(Booby, you see how Yogi was wrong about NO? GREAT discussion about your videos at PA by the way, just great!)

Lees could not answer how the absorption and re-emission of IR by CO2 (etc) heated the earth. I even gave him a clue! The IR that a molecule of GHG absorbs is headed outwards. When the IR is re-emitted it can go in any random direction so at least half will be emitted back down and that is how GHGs warm the globe. My 4yo great niece understands this.

Now let us look at the IR spectrum from space:
https://skepticalscience.com/images/harries_radiation.gif

Quote:

Figure 3: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

Quote:

The increased energy reaching the Earth's surface from the increased greenhouse effect causes it to warm. So how do we quantify the amount of warming that it causes? Radiative Transfer Models Radiative transfer models use fundamental physical equations and observations to translate this increased downward radiation into a radiative forcing, which effectively tells us how much increased energy is reaching the Earth's surface. Studies have shown that these radiative transfer models match up with the observed increase in energy reaching the Earth's surface with very good accuracy (Puckrin 2004). Scientists can then derive a formula for calculating the radiative forcing based on the change in the amount of each greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (Myhre 1998). Each greenhouse gas has a different radiative forcing formula, but the most important is that of CO2: dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co) Where 'dF' is the radiative forcing in Watts per square meter, 'C' is the concentration of atmospheric CO2, and 'Co' is the reference CO2concentration. Normally the value of Co is chosen at the pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppmv. Now that we know how to calculate the radiative forcing associated with an increase in CO2, how do we determine the associated temperature change?

BTW, ln() is the natural logarithm. You can look it up.


Quote:

Climate sensitivity As the name suggests, climate sensitivity is an estimate of how sensitive the climate is to an increase in a radiative forcing. The climate sensitivity value tells us how much the planet will warm or cool in response to a given radiative forcing change. As you might guess, the temperature change is proportional to the change in the amount of energy reaching the Earth's surface (the radiative forcing), and the climate sensitivity is the coefficient of proportionality: dT = λ*dF Where 'dT' is the change in the Earth's average surface temperature, 'λ' is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in Kelvin or degrees Celsius per Watts per square meter (°C/[W/m2]), and 'dF' is the radiative forcing. So now to calculate the change in temperature, we just need to know the climate sensitivity. Studies have given a possible range of values of 2-4.5°C warming for a doubling of CO2 (IPCC 2007). Using these values it's a simple task to put the climate sensitivity into the units we need, using the formulas above: λ = dT/dF = dT/(5.35 * ln[2])= [2 to 4.5°C]/3.7 = 0.54 to 1.2°C/(W/m2) Using this range of possible climate sensitivity values, we can plug λ into the formulas above and calculate the expected temperature change. The atmospheric CO2 concentration as of 2010 is about 390 ppmv. This gives us the value for 'C', and for 'Co' we'll use the pre-industrial value of 280 ppmv. dT = λ*dF = λ * 5.35 * ln(390/280) = 1.8 * λ Plugging in our possible climate sensitivity values, this gives us an expected surface temperature change of about 1–2.2°C of global warming, with a most likely value of 1.4°C. However, this tells us the equilibrium temperature. In reality it takes a long time to heat up the oceans due to their thermal inertia. For this reason there is currently a planetary energy imbalance, and the surface has only warmed about 0.8°C. In other words, even if we were to immediately stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere, the planet would warm another ~0.6°C until it reached this new equilibrium state

cont’d

Quote:

(confirmed by Hansen 2005). This is referred to as the 'warming in the pipeline'. Of course this is just the temperature change we expect to observe from the CO2 radiative forcing. Humans cause numerous other radiative forcings, both positive (e.g. other greenhouse gases) and negative (e.g. sulfate aerosols which block sunlight). Fortunately, the negative and positive forcings are roughly equal and cancel each other out, and the natural forcings over the past half century have also been approximately zero (Meehl 2004), so the radiative forcing from CO2 alone gives us a good estimate as to how much we expect to see the Earth's surface temperature change.

So aerosols cause cooling that balances the warming from the minor GHGs. If we were to get massive “burps” of methane—a VERY powerful GHG, just look at the spectrometry graphs—as the tundra melts then methane forcing will also force warming. Not a nice prospect to look forward to!

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-spm-2-l.png

Quote:

Figure 4: Global average radiative forcing in 2005 (best estimates and 5 to 95% uncertainty ranges) with respect to 1750 (IPCC AR4).

Just for those skeptics:

Quote:

We can also calculate the most conservative possible temperature change in response to the CO2 increase. Some climate scientists who are touted as 'skeptics' have suggested the actual climate sensitivity could be closer to 1°C for a doubling of CO2, or 0.27°C/(W/m2). Although numerous studies have ruled out climate sensitivity values this low, it's worth calculating how much of a temperature change this unrealistically low value would generate. Using the same formulas as above, dT = 1.8 * λ = 1.8 * 0.27 = 0.5°C. Therefore, even under this ultra-conservative unrealistic low climate sensitivity scenario, the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years would account for over half of the observed 0.8°C increase in surface temperature.

Quote:

Conservation of Energy Huber and Knutti (2011) published a paper in Nature Geoscience, Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance.  They take an approach in this study which utilizes the principle of conservation of energy for the global energy budget using the measurements discussed above, and summarize their methodology: "We use a massive ensemble of the Bern2.5D climate model of intermediate complexity, driven by bottom-up estimates of historic radiative forcing F, and constrained by a set of observations of the surface warming T since 1850 and heat uptake Q since the 1950s....Between 1850 and 2010, the climate system accumulated a total net forcing energy of 140 x 1022 J with a 5-95% uncertainty range of 95-197 x 1022 J, corresponding to an average net radiative forcing of roughly 0.54 (0.36-0.76)Wm-2." Essentially, Huber and Knutti take the estimated global heat content increase since 1850, calculate how much of the increase is due to various estimated radiative forcings, and partition the increase between increasing ocean heat content and outgoing longwave radiation.  The authors note that more than 85% of the global heat uptake (Q) has gone into the oceans, including increasing the heat content of the deeper oceans, although their model only accounts for the upper 700 meters.

Quote:

Figure 3 is a similar graphic to that presented in Meehl et al. (2004), comparing the average global surface warming simulated by the model using natural forcings only (blue), anthropogenic forcings only (red), and the combination of the two (gray).

Fig3:
https://skepticalscience.com/pics/KnuttiAttributionGraph.png[img][/img]

Quote:

Figure 3: Time series of anthropogenic and natural forcings contributions to total simulated and observed global temperature change. The coloured shadings denote the 5-95% uncertainty range.

5–95% confidence. Hmmmm must be a two tailed test, eh Lees?  ;)


Quote:

As expected, Huber and Knutti find that greenhouse gases contributed to substantial warming since 1850, and aerosols had a significant cooling effect: [quote]"Greenhouse gases contributed 1.31°C (0.85-1.76°C) to the increase, that is 159% (106-212%) of the total warming. The cooling effect of the direct and indirect aerosol forcing is about -0.85°C (-1.48 to -0.30°C). The warming induced by tropospheric ozone and solar variability are of similar size (roughly 0.2°C). The contributions of stratospheric water vapour and ozone, volcanic eruptions, and organic and black carbon are small."

[/quote]

The paper being discussed is:
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

cont’d

AGW is worse than we think:

Quote:

Since 1950, the authors find that greenhouse gases contributed 166% (120-215%) of the observed surface warming (0.85°C of 0.51°C estimated surface warming).  The percentage is greater than 100% because aerosols offset approximately 44% (0.45°C) of that warming. "It is thus extremely likely (>95% probability) that the greenhouse gas induced warming since the mid-twentieth century was larger than the observed rise in global average temperatures, and extremely likely that anthropogenic forcings were by far the dominant cause of warming. The natural forcing contribution since 1950 is near zero."

Other studies have shown that too.


ahahahaha
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4YSwajvFAY

lee wrote on Mar 20^th, 2017 at 7:07pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 20th, 2017 at 7:18am: Do those “actual facts” include the melting of polar sea ice, the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and the retreat of nearly all glaciers, hmmm? Do the facts include wild/bush fire seasons getting longer and longer and the fires bigger and more destructive? Are they proof of AGW or merely warming. Or restricted burning seasons due to "environmental" concerns. ;) Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 20th, 2017 at 7:18am: I do have a little walk–in greenhouse 1.8m long. It is always warmer inside the greenhouse than outside. Every greenhouse is! And does it have convective breezes? Or is there no breeze? Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 20th, 2017 at 7:18am: A “cooling breeze” is a cooling breeze to us because it evaporates sweat from our skin. And a "warming breeze" doesn't evaporate the sweat from our skin? :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

They are proof of AGW available to anyone. Just some don’t want to look. From the BuMet report:

Quote:

Around 80 per cent of the additional energy accumulated by the climate system is accounted for by the warming of the upper 2000 m of the ocean. At least 75 per cent of the ocean warming occurred in the southern hemisphere, predominantly between latitudes 30° S and 50° S.

So most of the extra warming goes into the sea. No wonder sea ice extent is decreasing.

I mentioned the “cooling breezes” because that is what the silly book mentioned. A warming breeze would do what, you reckon Lees?

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 21^st, 2017 at 7:08am:

So Lee now accepts CO2 causes global warming.

nope. it may case global warming ALL other things being equal. ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 21^st, 2017 at 8:15am:

Quote: Figure 2: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

No mention of it increasing or causing AGW, merely that it shows all other GHG's apart from water vapour. ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 21^st, 2017 at 8:15am:

Lees could not answer how the absorption and re-emission of IR by CO2 (etc) heated the earth. I even gave him a clue! The IR that a molecule of GHG absorbs is headed outwards. When the IR is re-emitted it can go in any random direction so at least half will be emitted back down and that is how GHGs warm the globe. My 4yo great niece understands this.

Please show the study that says at least 50% will go back down, if it is random. ;)

All that is answered in the paper I quoted.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 21^st, 2017 at 8:15am:

So now to calculate the change in temperature, we just need to know the climate sensitivity. Studies have given a possible range of values of 2-4.5°C warming for a doubling of CO2 (IPCC 2007). Using these values it's a simple task to put the climate sensitivity into the units we need, using the formulas above:

"For the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the ECS estimate was revised, reducing the lower limit of the likely range to 1.5°C, with no best estimate given."

https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/slide11.png

And remember we're talking about doubling from 278ppm to 566ppm.

Your figures are all over the shop.

"Fortunately, the negative and positive forcings are roughly equal and cancel each other out,"

And of course they provide empirical evidence? /sarc.


Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 21^st, 2017 at 8:26am:

and the natural forcings over the past half century have also been approximately zero (Meehl 2004

So the CSIRO lied about greening of the deserts. For shame. ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 21^st, 2017 at 8:26am:

If we were to get massive “burps” of methane—a VERY powerful GHG, just look at the spectrometry graphs—as the tundra melts then methane forcing will also force warming.

What about the termites, the largest methane producers on the planet. Where did they account for them?

BTW - with your lovely greenhouse that warms, how much does the CO2 increase to give that warming. ;)
Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 21^st, 2017 at 10:36am:

Quote: Around 80 per cent of the additional energy accumulated by the climate system is accounted for by the warming of the upper 2000 m of the ocean.

But don't they adjust the buoys because they have a "cool bias"? :D :D :D :D :D
Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 21^st, 2017 at 10:36am:

So most of the extra warming goes into the sea. No wonder sea ice extent is decreasing.

But according to Trenberth it is going into the deep ocean, and will one day come back to bite us on the bum. Who knew the sea ice went that deep? ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 21^st, 2017 at 8:26am:

Quote: Figure 3: Time series of anthropogenic and natural forcings contributions to total simulated and observed global temperature change. The coloured shadings denote the 5-95% uncertainty range. 5–95% confidence. Hmmmm must be a two tailed test, eh Lees?  Wink

Are you sure 5-95% uncertainty range equates to 5-95% confidence? If so would you rely on a test being true if you only had 5% confidence?

Oh noes. JM quotes a cartoonist about AGW. :D :D :D :D :D

Poor Lees.

Better read more into Statistics for Dummies (was it the word Dummies attracted you Lees?) about two tailed tests.

You still haven't answered how much extra CO2 was pumped into your greenhouse to get the rise in temperature.

What about the study that proves a random re-emmision of CO2 WILL have "at least half" directed downward?


Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 21^st, 2017 at 10:36am:

Quote: Around 80 per cent of the additional energy accumulated by the climate system is accounted for by the warming of the upper 2000 m of the ocean. At least 75 per cent of the ocean warming occurred in the southern hemisphere, predominantly between latitudes 30° S and 50° S.

So most of the global warming is occurring in the Southern Hemisphere?

https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/06-s-hem-ssta.png

https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/05-n-hem-ssta.png

Really?

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 21^st, 2017 at 4:19pm:

Poor Lees. Better read more into Statistics for Dummies (was it the word Dummies attracted you Lees?) about two tailed tests.

It was the only one I was marginally sure you might understand.

Can’t you work out why absorption/re-emission of IR means at least half of IR is radiated back down to the surface. Really?

The molecule of CO2 is floating free in the atmosphere. Nothing to constrain it in a particular orientation.

Can you work it out NOW?

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 21^st, 2017 at 4:42pm:

Can’t you work out why absorption/re-emission of IR means at least half of IR is radiated back down to the surface. Really? The molecule of CO2 is floating free in the atmosphere. Nothing to constrain it in a particular orientation. Can you work it out NOW?

Yep. You are working on Assumptions. If it were random would that mean re-emission occurs upwards, downwards and sideways (both all sides)? ;)

FINALLY Lees has a moment of inspiration!

Not really, it was mentioned in the paper I discussed.

Absorption/re-emission happens in micro or miliseconds BTW.

How much CO2 did you pump into your greenhouse to achieve warming? ;)

Come on, fess up 1100pm?

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 20^th, 2017 at 9:58pm:

JoNova is such a world authority on AGW  ::)

You're the one quoted it with approval. ;)


Or perhaps you have a different graph of CO2 v Temp you would like to supply?

I said it was one you would believe. That is NO guarantee of quality! You accepted it and with it AGW due to absorption/re-emission of IR by CO2.

JoNovan, like some other deniers I saw, has retreated to admitting AGW exists and the mechanism that brings it about. She is now saying more CO2 won’t increase the warming. She will be disappointed.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 21^st, 2017 at 6:53pm:

I said it was one you would believe. That is NO guarantee of quality! You accepted it and with it AGW due to absorption/re-emission of IR by CO2. JoNovan, like some other deniers I saw, has retreated to admitting AGW exists and the mechanism that brings it about. She is now saying more CO2 won’t increase the warming. She will be disappointed.

So you don't have a graph of the effects of CO2 and temperature. Thanks.

It looks like the 3ºC to 7ºC meme is broken.

How much CO2 did you pump into your greenhouse to get the warming?

You accepted AGW caused by radiative forcing.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 21^st, 2017 at 8:56pm:

You accepted AGW caused by radiative forcing.

really? Where?

When you accepted the JoNova rubbish.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 21^st, 2017 at 10:47pm:

When you accepted the JoNova rubbish.

Nope. but I did ask you for a graph of CO2 v Temp you found acceptable. I guess you can't find one.

BTW - how did you determine it was CO2 in your greenhouse causing the heating? Sensors both inside and outside?

A chart of CO2 v temperature has been posted before. Generally as the CO2 content increased so did the temperature. This got met with the glib “correlation does not imply causation.” Yet it is interesting because deniers have retreated to “more CO2 will not cause more absorption/re-emission and so does not cause more warming” yet temperature does go up as CO2 increases!

More important because more causative—the IR spectrum shows direct causation.

We KNOW a lot of the absorbed/emitted IR goes down because it is missing from the IR spectrum measured in satellites.

Just commonsense Lees. A molecule of CO2 vibrating somewhere in the atmosphere absorbs a photon and re-emits it nano or microseconds later. What is the orientation of the molecule? Random.

Get some commonsense Lees.

lee wrote on Mar 21^st, 2017 at 11:35pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 21st, 2017 at 10:47pm: When you accepted the JoNova rubbish. <snip> BTW - how did you determine it was CO2 in your greenhouse causing the heating? Sensors both inside and outside?

You are getting silly! My greenhouse warmed because light entering, being converted to IR and the IR trapped by the walls of the greenhouse.

So desperate, eh Lees?

CO2 v temperature;

https://skepticalscience.com/images/co2_temp_1964_2008.gif

That looks like a lovely curve fitted graph.  ;)

Now instead of showing us that; show us the scientific explanation of how CO2 affects Temperature.

Another perspective -

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

Now you do know that CO2 effect is logarithmic; don't you? And that is what both the graphs show.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2017 at 7:04am:

My greenhouse warmed because light entering, being converted to IR and the IR trapped by the walls of the greenhouse.

Wow. Can you describe the mechanism? The only thing I can find about converting visible light to IR is a suggestion to paint something black. ;)

Not optimal for a greenhouse.

But what you seem to be saying is more IR causes more heat.

Although there seems to be this -

"We show that Ce3+ can be an efficient sensitizer for Yb3+ in the host lattice of yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG). With blue-light excitation to induce the 4𝑓→5𝑑 transition of Ce3+, characteristic near-IR emission of Yb3+ due to transition of 𝐹5⁄22→𝐹7⁄22 peaking at 1030 nm is generated as a result of energy transfer from Ce3+ to Yb3+. The result of spectral evolution with temperature indicates that the efficiency of energy transfer is enhanced owing to thermal effect. This evidence implies that the phonon-assisted process participates in the downconversion of YAG: Ce3+, Yb3+."

https://www.osapublishing.org/ol/abstract.cfm?uri=ol-34-22-3565

Conversion to NEAR infrared.

Very hightech. Also plenty of papers converting IR to visible light - also hightech.

You didn't say you had a hightech greenhouse. ;)

When light hits a surface it is reflected as IR, it loses energy in the process of hitting the surface, exciting an atom in the surface.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2017 at 10:54am:

When light hits a surface it is reflected as IR, it loses energy in the process of hitting the surface, exciting an atom in the surface.

Citation needed.

It is generally agreed that visible light can be refracted where some may be changed to IR.

If the light is reflected it will not enter the greenhouse.

Denizen lee, are you genetically related to denizen Bobbi? or ...

a sock?

lee wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2017 at 2:40pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 22nd, 2017 at 10:54am: When light hits a surface it is reflected as IR, it loses energy in the process of hitting the surface, exciting an atom in the surface. Citation needed. It is generally agreed that visible light can be refracted where some may be changed to IR. If the light is reflected it will not enter the greenhouse.

Some light is reflected when hitting the glass but most passes through.

Energy is lost in both fractions. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Unforgiven wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2017 at 2:44pm:

Denizen lee, are you genetically related to denizen Bobbi? or ... a sock?

Lees is desperately trying to pretend to himself that AGW is not happening. He declared himself open to being educated but you can’t be educated when, like Lees, you have your fingers in your ears going “Lalalalalala can’t hear you!”

Even JoNova has had to admit CO2 does act as a greenhouse gas, she is down to pretending more CO2 in the atmosphere will not increase the warming. Ridiculous but there you go.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2017 at 3:00pm:

lee wrote on Mar 22nd, 2017 at 2:40pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 22nd, 2017 at 10:54am: When light hits a surface it is reflected as IR, it loses energy in the process of hitting the surface, exciting an atom in the surface. Citation needed. It is generally agreed that visible light can be refracted where some may be changed to IR. If the light is reflected it will not enter the greenhouse. Some light is reflected when hitting the glass but most passes through. Energy is lost in both fractions. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Very good. Now describe the  refractive index of your glass that will give you some level of IR. The angle at which the sun strikes the glass, etc.

Energy may be transformed eg light to heat. It is not necessarily IR.

I don’t need to. When you shave your face each morning I presume you use a mirror?

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2017 at 3:25pm:

I don’t need to. When you shave your face each morning I presume you use a mirror?

Nope Don't shave.

And nothing to do with IR. IR is not in the visible spectrum.

A mirror reflects from the surface but most rays travel through the glass, hit the backing and are reflected out. You are sounding desperate. Go join Booby in his delusions of a LIA. Comes complete with videos and comforting beliefs in conspiracies.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2017 at 6:19pm:

A mirror reflects from the surface but most rays travel through the glass, hit the backing and are reflected out.

Yep. You got that right. Now put your hand on the glass; is it warmer than the rest of the bathroom? That's where you may feel IR.   Although I doubt it.;)

I feel it in my greenhouse.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2017 at 6:32pm:

I feel it in my greenhouse.

You feel heat in your greenhouse therefore it must be IR. :D :D :D :D :D :D

IR is heat. The heat is trapped by the glass (well, plastic) and the inside is also, bwahahahaha, protected from “cooling breezes.”


:D :D :D :D :D

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2017 at 6:47pm:

IR is heat. The heat is trapped by the glass (well, plastic) and the inside is also, bwahahahaha, protected from “cooling breezes.” :D :D :D :D :D

And visible light? What part does that play in heating a greenhouse?

It is IR that is the heat part of the spectrum. Heats a greenhouse, heat the Earth.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2017 at 7:00pm:

It is IR that is the heat part of the spectrum. Heats a greenhouse, heat the Earth.

Wrong.

All parts of the spectrum provide heat.

IR the most by a huge margin.

Why do you talk so much rubbish?

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2017 at 7:11pm:

IR the most by a huge margin. Why do you talk so much rubbish?

"Thus, sunlight's composition at ground level, per square meter, with the sun at the zenith, is about 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation."

https://ag.tennessee.edu/solar/Pages/What%20Is%20Solar%20Energy/Sunlight.aspx



So 52.7% Infrared, 44.5% Visible light.  Not a "huge" margin. ;)

We are talking about reflected light, like in a greenhouse.

try to keep up Lees  ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2017 at 8:36pm:

We are talking about reflected light, like in a greenhouse. try to keep up Lee

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2017 at 6:47pm:

IR is heat. The heat is trapped by the glass (well, plastic) and the inside is also, bwahahahaha, protected from “cooling breezes.”

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2017 at 7:00pm:

It is IR that is the heat part of the spectrum. Heats a greenhouse, heat the Earth.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2017 at 7:11pm:

IR the most by a huge margin.

So you talk about IR giving the most heating by a "huge" margin.

Then you go back to it being reflected light, when we know it is refracted light that will devolve to the solar spectrum.

Reflected light has heat from IR, visible and UV light the same as direct sun.

Most light passes through glass or plastic, depending on your greenhouse.  Where does the reflected light (energy) go?

Heat that hits a surface loses energy and so increases in wavelength. That is how greenhouses and GHGs work.

More for Lees to pretend to read and understand:


Quote:

It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together … The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period … The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C.

Oh dear, poor desperate Lees! Natural variation adds practically nothing to heating! Ohhhh noes!

Natural variation:

• the El Nino/La Nina cycle

• volcanoes spewing aerosols into the upper atmosphere. The aerosols reflect incoming sunlight thus cooling the earth.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2017 at 9:04pm:

Heat that hits a surface loses energy and so increases in wavelength. That is how greenhouses and GHGs work.

You are varying your argument. Now you are talking heat hitting an object.

Now if it is a greenhouse the light will pass through the glass. Depending on the optical characteristics of the glass it will generally be all light, not just IR. Light will of course change wavelength through a prism, but that is one of the optical characteristics.

Now if you can provide a peer reviewed paper or study guide that shows different , please feel free.

You have demonstrated you know nothing of Greenhouses, nothing of physics.

And yet you want to tell people all about the physics of AGW. :D :D :D

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 9:33am:

More for Lees to pretend to read and understand:

Oh, 95% confidence limits? What size are the error bars in those estimations?




Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 9:33am:

Natural variation adds practically nothing to heating! Ohhhh noes!

Only about half according to your source, based on the models. ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 9:33am:

Quote: It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together … The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period … The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C.

Please provide the papers that have successfully separated natural and unnatural forcings and quantified internal variability.

IPCC AR5 Chapter9 Table 9.5 shows the assumed forcings in the models. They are all over the shop. Some don't even have figures available, just a number buried somewhere in the models as a forcing.

So many assumptions, so little data. ;)

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

Spectrometry shows that CO2, CH4 and the other GHGs DO absorb IR coming from the surface of the earth.

All your desperate babbling does not change that. Nor does it change the fact of sea level rising, glaciers retreating and both poles anf Greenland melting.

Looking undignified and childish Lees.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 3:55pm:

Spectrometry shows that CO2, CH4 and the other GHGs DO absorb IR coming from the surface of the earth. All your desperate babbling does not change that. Nor does it change the fact of sea level rising, glaciers retreating and both poles anf Greenland melting. Looking undignified and childish Lees.

You still haven't provide the peer review paper that says spectrometry proves AGW.

I'm sorry if you look undignified and childish. But that is in your hands.

How undignified and childish to change your posts as in "AGW is so resilient". And to be so obtuse as to think you wouldn't get caught out? ;)

I posted it earlier! Look ^^^^^!

So desperate, looking so childish, oh poor poor Lees.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 4:08pm:

I posted it earlier! Look ^^^^^! So desperate, looking so childish, oh poor poor Lees.

You posted what earlier? You are getting more and more erratic.

I had already posted a paper covering spectrometry.

You know that, you are just flailing wildly to deflect.

Natural variation does not explain the warming.

So—what is causing the warming Lees?

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 5:01pm:

I had already posted a paper covering spectrometry.

Oh you mean a blog post. hardly peer-reviewed science. ;)

Poor Lees is babbling incoherently.

More than a blog post, poor old boy.

I see you use SKS for CO2 concentrations going back 1,000 years which is essentially flat. That's ok, it uses ice core data. However ice core data has known problems with CO2 in firn and also under pressure ( at the bottom of the ice).

Wagner et all 2004, published in looked at CO2 in plant stomata and found variances of about 30ppm in that time frame. Something that is not evident in the ice cores.

The paper may be found here -

http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Holocene_CO2_stomata_Wagner_etal_2004.pdf

Is it conclusive? - No. Does it throw doubt on the ice core data? - indubitably yes.

AGW is real.

Many threads of evidence all point to that.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 7:43pm:

AGW is real. Many threads of evidence all point to that.

Yeah. So where is the paper that says that AGW is now the null hypothesis? ;)

You really don’t understand this stuff, do you Lees?

If I want to prove AGW statistically I need to formulate the alternative and null hypotheses. As one who knows AGW is happening, like you and me, the alternative hypothesis has to be: temperatures are increasing. That is what we are testing, after all.

The null hypothesis has to be: temperatures are steady.

This is just the logic needed, there is no “official” alternative and null hypotheses.

The null hypotheses can be tested—we do have the weather records going well back.

If you don’t understand this then buy the Stats for Dummies book and have a read.

So we formulate our alternative and null hypotheses. We look at the data and we find, of course that temperatures have not remained constant, they have increased significantly. So we reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis.

We can also look at GHGs in the atmosphere: they are increasing. We know from spectrometry that the GHGs absorb, overall, infrared radiation coming from the surface and again we show that global temperatures are increasing.

Global temperature increase animation:
http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/climate-lab-book/files/2016/05/spiral_optimized.gif

Makes it pretty clear that global temperatures are increasing and are increasing more and more rapidly.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 5:12am:

The null hypothesis has to be: temperatures are steady.

Nope. it has to be natural variation.
love the graph very funny.

Here is an alternative view -

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

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

2000 years versus 166 years,

No, if we want to rest AGW statistically we have only one alternative hypothesis:

H1: Temperatures are increasing

We formulate a null hypothesis we can test and accept or reject, for AGW it has to be:

H0: temperatures are steady.

Any graph of temperature over time, any graph of temperature v CO2 shows a strong increase with fluctuations around mean temperature. Natural variation has nothing going for it except over very short time periods. We can rule out natural variation particularly since we know the mechanism causing AGW.

We know we are putting all the extra GHGs in the atmosphere, both by burning fossil fuels and by cutting down/ruining carbon sinks.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 12:50pm:

No, if we want to rest AGW statistically we have only one alternative hypothesis: H1: Temperatures are increasing We formulate a null hypothesis we can test and accept or reject, for AGW it has to be: H0: temperatures are steady. Any graph of temperature over time, any graph of temperature v CO2 shows a strong increase with fluctuations around mean temperature. Natural variation has nothing going for it except over very short time periods. We can rule out natural variation particularly since we know the mechanism causing AGW.

What a doofus. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Whoever claimed the earth's temperature was static? What an idiot. That would mean climate doesn't change. ;)

That crap would have worked, maybe, 50 years ago. Now terrestrial and satellite spectrometry shows the greenhouse effect in action.

Since WE put the extra GHGs into the atmosphere the heating is not natural.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 12:55pm:

That crap would have worked, maybe, 50 years ago. Now terrestrial and satellite spectrometry shows the greenhouse effect in action. Since WE put the extra GHGs into the atmosphere the heating is not natural.

96% of CO2 is natural.

Do you have spectrometry readings from the early 20th century warming? What caused it? What caused any of the climate changes in the past?

William F. Buckley Jr.’s comment is apropos: “I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.”

96% is natural says Lees.

Really?

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 3:59pm:

96% is natural says Lees. Really?

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 additions comprise (11,880 / 370,484) or 3.207% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).

Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases comprise (12,217 / 370,484) or 3.298% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

EPA October 2000 data.

Edit: although I did see on SKS someone say that 7% is manmade.

Of course if you have other data you can provide it.

That is just quantities, does not include things like the carbon cycle.

Can rephrase that and say we increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by 40%.

What if we increase it by another 20%?

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 6:05pm:

That is just quantities, does not include things like the carbon cycle. Can rephrase that and say we increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by 40%. What if we increase it by another 20%?

40% - 400*1.4 = 560. You just managed to double the GHG's since the industrial revolution, apparently. 2º of warming since then. Yahoo. ;)


Now remember the logarithmic effect of CO2 on temperature.

Edit: what about the carbon cycle?

lee wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 6:13pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24th, 2017 at 6:05pm: That is just quantities, does not include things like the carbon cycle. Can rephrase that and say we increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by 40%. What if we increase it by another 20%? 40% - 400*1.4 = 560. You just managed to double the GHG's since the industrial revolution, apparently. 2º of warming since then. Yahoo. ;) Now remember the logarithmic effect of CO2 on temperature. Edit: what about the carbon cycle?

Don't ask Jovial - he doesn't know.

Listen who is talking, the poster of silly videos that he cannot discuss or defend.

I do not believe the CO2/temperature is logarithmic

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 6:45pm:

Listen who is talking, the poster of silly videos that he cannot discuss or defend. I do not believe the CO2/temperature is logarithmic

So you are a denier then. ;)

What natural forcings can explain the warming, Lees?

You ever going to answer that?

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 7:12pm:

What natural forcings can explain the warming, Lees? You ever going to answer that?

Natural forcings just are. They are not the unnatural forcings on which AGW relies.

You know IPCC AR5 Chapter 9 table 9.5. They can't even decide if clouds are a positive or negative feedback. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

What forcings, Lees?

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 7:23pm:

What forcings, Lees?

I told you -


lee wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 7:23pm:

IPCC AR5 Chapter 9 table 9.5

You should really look them up and see what they claim. And of course the differences between models. ;)

So, you have no idea what those forcings are. You just use them so you can tell yourself AGW does not exist.

Well, the forcings can’t be the sun, that has been quiescent for several decades and AGW is still powering along.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 7:36pm:

So, you have no idea what those forcings are. You just use them so you can tell yourself AGW does not exist. Well, the forcings can’t be the sun, that has been quiescent for several decades and AGW is still powering along.

Yeah. try turning the sun off for a couple of days and see what happens, ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

So, this talk of natural variation is just hot air.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 8:01pm:

So, this talk of natural variation is just hot air.

Only AGW is all hot air.

Now about the logarithmic effect of CO2-

"For carbon dioxide, as has already been mentioned, parts of the spectrum are already so opaque that additional molecules of carbon dioxide are even less effective, the forcing is found to be logarithmic in concentration."

IPCC _far_wg_1_full_report.pdf

Natural forcings?

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 8:29pm:

Natural forcings?

Yes good aren't they.

"Natural Forcings of the Climate System

Natural forcings are of two types.
     

External Forcings: These are essentially linked to changes in the orbital parameters of the earth that control the intensity and location of incident solar radiation, and fluctuations in solar energy."

"Internal Forcings: These comprise all those changes that occur within the earth system itself, in particular volcanic activity, fluctuations in ocean circulations and large-scale changes in the marine and terrestrial biosphere or in the cryosphere. "

http://know.climateofconcern.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=article&id=125

Basics of climate science. Just for you.

Like El Nino, La Nina, AMO, NAO, PDO. You know the natural things.

Orbital perturbations? bwahahahahahaha!

Sun has been quiescent for decades yet AGW goes on.

You got nothing.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 9:09pm:

Orbital perturbations? bwahahahahahaha! Sun has been quiescent for decades yet AGW goes on. You got nothing.

You only want to to look at one metric? What a fool.

You got nothing, Lees!

AGW pretty much explains and accounts for the warming. We know AGW exists, we know the mechanism. All this warming when the sun is quiescent, oh dear, orbital perturbations account for it do they?

Well, you are good for a laugh but that is about it.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 9:53pm:

You got nothing, Lees! AGW pretty much explains and accounts for the warming. We know AGW exists, we know the mechanism. All this warming when the sun is quiescent, oh dear, orbital perturbations account for it do they? Well, you are good for a laugh but that is about it.

So the only things, according to you, that could possibly give rise to GW are the Sun and CO2?

Now everyone knows land use change gives rise to AGW. But that has never been an issue. It is your preoccupation with CO2 and its logarithmic effects.

You are really hopeless. Maybe you can tell us more about how a greenhouse works. ;)

As I said, you are a bit of a joke and that is about all.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 25^th, 2017 at 12:36pm:

As I said, you are a bit of a joke and that is about all.

Solid rebuttal.

lee wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 5:46pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24th, 2017 at 3:59pm: 96% is natural says Lees. Really? Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 additions comprise (11,880 / 370,484) or 3.207% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor). Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases comprise (12,217 / 370,484) or 3.298% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor). http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html EPA October 2000 data. Edit: although I did see on SKS someone say that 7% is manmade. Of course if you have other data you can provide it.

Anthropogenic additions of CO2 to the atmosphere lifted the concentration from 280 in 1880 to 405ppm today, an increase of 125, quite a few percent.

lee wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 8:54pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24th, 2017 at 8:29pm: Natural forcings? Yes good aren't they. "Natural Forcings of the Climate System Natural forcings are of two types.       External Forcings: These are essentially linked to changes in the orbital parameters of the earth that control the intensity and location of incident solar radiation, and fluctuations in solar energy." "Internal Forcings: These comprise all those changes that occur within the earth system itself, in particular volcanic activity, fluctuations in ocean circulations and large-scale changes in the marine and terrestrial biosphere or in the cryosphere. " http://know.climateofconcern.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=article&id=125 Basics of climate science. Just for you. Like El Nino, La Nina, AMO, NAO, PDO. You know the natural things.

Ahahahah I mentioned those and Lees spewed. Now he puts them up as the cause.

One small problem: the globe has been warming since the mid 1850s, something like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation would change things only short term, like a decade.

Radiative forcings as we continue to increase the GHG content of the Atmosphere exponentially continue to drive the warming over the 167 years since the mid 1850s. No chart of temperature v time shows any hint of a reversal of warming, it show temperatures increasing exponentially.

While this has been happening radiative forcing by the sun has decreased very slightly. Oops.

http://www.eduplace.com/kids/hmsc/6/d/cricket/ckt_6d.shtml


What Really Causes the Ice Ages?
by Jeanne Miller

The last million years on Earth have been one long ice age, interrupted regularly by interglacials, or brief periods of warmth. The warm spells have usually lasted between 10,000 and 20,000 years. We're in one now that began about 12,000 years ago. So any millennium now the temperature will drop, glaciers will grow, and ice sheets thousands of kilometers thick will advance on the continents, devouring a large fraction of the land on the planet.

For most of the last million years these cycles of glaciation have occurred worldwide every 100,000 years—80,000 to 90,000 years of ice followed by 10,000 to 20,000 years of warmth. Why are they so regular?

In the mid-1800s, when the existence of ice ages was discovered, there was no way to know the cause or frequency of these climate changes. James Croll, a self-taught Scottish scientist, suggested that variations in the Earth's orbit around the Sun produced the effect. In the 1920s, Milutin Milankovitch, a Serbian engineer, developed Croll's hypothesis further.

There is 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere now Booby, providing strong radiative forcings warming the globe.

The warmth from the sun has actually decreased since the 1970s but STILL the earth warms up!

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 1:56am:

Anthropogenic additions of CO2 to the atmosphere lifted the concentration from 280 in 1880 to 405ppm today, an increase of 125, quite a few percent.

Really? Plants played no part? Naturally occurring fires played no part?

Ever heard of peat fires lasting centuries? You are a joke.

There is a carbon cycle yes, but the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic.

YOU are the joke, so afraid of AGW you always try to derail serious discussion with denier crap.

Life will go on, Lees, but it will be different.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 2:53pm:

There is a carbon cycle yes, but the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic.

Another assumption without evidence. Increased plant life has not increased atmospheric CO2.

Do you remember the OCO-2 satellite, which proved that CO2 was not a well mixed gas? It also showed, as you pointed out, seasonal variation. :D :D :D :D :D :D

CO2 is a well mixed gas. Why raise points shown to be false ages ago? To derail and sidetrack serious discussion because you are afraid of AGW?

We know the extra CO2 is anthropogenic by isotope ratios. We know the CFCs are anthropogenic and they are actually decreasing due to restrictions on their use.

AGW is going on and strengthening, going on and strengthening tho the sun has been quiescent since the 1970s, causing solar radiation to be a small negative forcing.

We know the greenhouse gases block a lot of IR from escaping to earth. We know this from spectrometer evidence from land and from satellites.

The radiative forcing from CO2 is by far the biggest cause of the warming we are seeing.

If an Ice Age were genuinely to happen, due to changes in our orbit (Milankovitch cycles) how much difference would it make? CO2 concentrations are rising exponentially, increasing the radiative forcing. Just how much of an Ice Age would it be?

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 11:13pm:

CO2 is a well mixed gas. Why raise points shown to be false ages ago? To derail and sidetrack serious discussion because you are afraid of AGW?

CO2 is NOT a well mixed gas. It is not well mixed latitudinally as OCO-2 shows. It is also not well mixed altitudinally in the atmosphere.

So where is CO3 well mixed?

CO2 is a well mixed gas.

Lees is losing it!