Quote:

The primary source of energy in the Earth’s climate system is incoming solar radiation, termed total solar irradiance, or TSI. At equilibrium, because of the requirement of energy conservation, the Earth’s radiative budget must balance such that TSI is equal to outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere (a state known as radiative equilibrium). Since the radiation emitted by a body is a function of surface temperature, the Earth’s ‘effective temperature’ (TE) is the temperature at which radiative equilibrium is achieved assuming the Earth acts like a blackbody, and can be calculated (in K)

That is simple enough: at equilibrium, i.e. neither heating or cooling we need to radiate as much energy as we get from the sun at the top of the atmosphere.

In terms of geologic time, as the sun develops and grows warmer something must happen for the earth to not heat up. Not that the world is always at equilibrium, of course.

http://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/ncomms/2017/170404/ncomms14845/images/ncomms14845-m1.gif


Quote:

where Fs is the TSI (currently ∼1,368 Wm−2), σ is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant (5.67 × 10−8 W m−2 K−4), A=0.29 (ref. 1) is the Earth’s average planetary albedo (the fraction of incoming radiation scattered or reflected back out of the atmosphere by clouds, particulates in the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface), and the factor of 4 accounts for the spherical and rotating nature of the Earth. The 31 K difference between TE and the observed surface temperature of the Earth (+14.0 °C or 287.1 K is the 1961–1990 mean2) is almost entirely due to the action of the greenhouse effect

Quote:

The majority (∼75%) of the greenhouse effect is due to the warming effects of water vapour and clouds, with the non-condensing greenhouse gasses (predominantly CO2 and CH4) accounting for the remaining 25% (ref. 3). However, at the temperatures and pressures typical of the Earth’s surface, water vapour and clouds act as feedbacks rather than drivers of the greenhouse effect, with CO2 and CH4, and the other non-condensing GHGs (for example, N2O) determining the overall strength of the greenhouse effect. Given this understanding, and that summarized in equation (1), the climatic evolution of the Earth over geological time is largely a function of the concentration of the non-condensing greenhouse gases, planetary albedo (A) and the TSI (Fs; for example, ref. 4).

As CO2 + CH4 warm the world more water is evaporated increasing the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.


Quote:

As a result, there has been an increase in TSI of ∼400 Wm−2 since the formation of the Earth.

We can explain now one of Ajax’ favorite tokens to ward off evil aka chart: in early Cambrian/Ordovician time the sun was much weaker than now. So, forgetting that chart we continue with the article.


Quote:

Following ref. 4, and assuming an effective emissivity, ɛ, of the Earth of 0.6 (that is, 40% of longwave radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere), equation (1) can be used to define the following equation that describes S for today’s climate (where the surface temperature=287.1 K) in the absence of any climate feedbacks (for example, water vapour, sea-ice etc.), also known as the Planck response (hence the subscript ‘P’)

Following ref. 4, and assuming an effective emissivity, ɛ, of the Earth of 0.6 (that is, 40% of longwave radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere), equation (1) can be used to define the following equation that describes S for today’s climate (where the surface temperature=287.1 K) in the absence of any climate feedbacks (for example, water vapour, sea-ice etc.), also known as the Planck response (hence the subscript ‘P’)[/quote]

http://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/ncomms/2017/170404/ncomms14845/images/ncomms14845-m6.gif

The triangles represent change in a variable, spoken as “delta” (Greek letter.)


Quote:

SP depends on the overall strength of the greenhouse effect and the surface temperature of the Earth, and so this value is not necessarily applicable throughout Earth’s history; nonetheless, this treatment provides a first-order constraint that the long-term secular increase in TSI of 400 Wm−2 would be associated with a secular warming of at least ∼20 K over the last 4.5 billion years, if albedo and emissivity remained constant. Since the combined effect of the greenhouse gas and other climate feedbacks (for example, water vapour, lapse rate, sea-ice etc.) is positive8, this is a minimum estimate of S and when all climate feedbacks are considered, Sa (where ‘a’ denotes actuo after ref. 7) is likely in the range of 0.8– 1.6 K W−1 m2 (for example, refs 7, 9, 10, 11). The actual evolution of Earth’s temperature through geological time is a subject of considerable debate (for example, ref. 12), yet there is a longstanding view that, despite the increase in solar output, Earth’s surface temperature was, for much of geological time, warmer, not colder, than today (for example, refs 13, 14). This apparent inconsistency is known as the ‘Faint Young Sun’ paradox and to reconcile the observation of a relatively stable climate in the face of increasing solar output through time requires a parallel change in some other factors that influence Earth’s radiative budget. First and foremost among these

cont’d

Earth's Energy Budget watch from the 53 minute mark

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeCqcKYj9Oc&t=2496s

Quote:

First and foremost among these factors is thought to be a concomitant reduction in the strength of the greenhouse effect, and in atmospheric CO2 concentration in particular (for example, refs 15, 16). The radiative forcing from changing CO2 can be estimated using the following formulation17:

http://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/ncomms/2017/170404/ncomms14845/images/ncomms14845-m7.gif


Quote:

where ΔFCO2 is the radiative forcing from CO2 change (in Wm−2), C represents the concentration of CO2 at the time of interest and C0 is the pre-industrial concentration of CO2=278 p.p.m. For the decrease in atmospheric CO2 to balance the increase in solar output over time, the following equation is required to be true (or at least approximately so):

http://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/ncomms/2017/170404/ncomms14845/images/ncomms14845-m8.gif


Quote:

In this formulation we are ignoring the other non-condensing greenhouse gases (for example, CH4, N2O). This is partly out of practical necessity since there are currently no proxies for these gases, but is justifiable to a first order because variations in CO2 accounted for ∼80% of the greenhouse gas forcing on glacial–interglacial timescales4 and CO2 was likely the dominant greenhouse gas for the past 500 Myrs

Quote:

Testing whether the apparent stability of surface temperature is a consequence of the relative stability of climate forcing, therefore, requires high-density, high-quality data on past atmospheric CO2 levels. Consequently, in this study we compile the available CO2 data for the last 420 Myrs where, although the magnitude in the change of solar output is reduced relative to changes on longer timescales, data availability is sufficient to provide a detailed picture of the evolution of atmospheric CO2. The relative stability of climate over this interval is constrained by three lines of evidence: (i) the continued presence of complex life, given the thermal limits of metazoans (<40–50 °C; ref. 21) and despite a number of mass extinctions22; (ii) the continuous presence of liquid water and the occurrence of climate-sensitive sedimentary deposits (for example, coal versus glacial deposits) that indicate warm and cold periods but no evidence of an overall long-term secular trend (Fig. 1)23; and (iii) moderate tropical sea surface temperatures (25–40 °C) as recorded by oxygen and clumped isotope analysis of fossil marine carbonates24,25,26,27. Our new compilation shows that this climate stability was the result of a long-term decline in atmospheric CO2 that, in terms of radiative forcing, approximately cancelled out the increase in solar output. This long-term view of climate forcing provides a valuable geological context for potential levels of CO2 in our warming future.

http://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/ncomms/2017/170404/ncomms14845/images/m685/ncomms14845-f1.jpg

Quote:

Figure 1: Temporal evolution of climate and atmospheric CO2. Figure 1 Latitudinal extent of continental ice deposits23 (blue bars) and multi-proxy atmospheric CO2 (in p.p.m.) compiled from the literature (data found in Supplementary Data 1; symbols). CO2 from leaf stomata shown in blue circles, pedogenic carbonate δ13C as pink crosses, boron isotopes in foraminifera as green triangles, liverwort δ13C as dark blue filled circles and δ13C of alkenones as dark blue crosses. The most likely LOESS fit through the data, taking into account X- and Y- uncertainty is shown as the blue line (data found in Supplementary Data 2). 68 and 95% confidence intervals are shown as dark and light grey bands. Red line is a linear best fit (curved due to log-scale for y axis) and 95% confidence interval for least squares regression through the CO2 data (m=3.4±0.17 1 s.e.m., R2=0.26, P<0.0005). Black line is least squares fit through the LOESS best fit (blue line) resampled to original data density (m=3.5±0.12 1 s.e.m., R2=0.44, P<0.0005). Dashed line is pre-industrial CO2 (278 p.p.m.). Icehouse time intervals are indicated by a black band and greenhouse intervals by a white band.

Quote:

Our new compilation is shown in Fig. 1 and, compared to older compilations, there is better agreement between the different methods of CO2 reconstruction28. In this case, this is largely due to the refinement of the pedogenic carbonate proxy following ref. 29 (see Methods). However, despite our efforts to improve the compilation, there are still relatively large uncertainties at times and disagreements remain between techniques for some time intervals (Fig. 1). It is also apparent that the early parts of the record rely on fewer observations and are characterized by a reduced diversity in proxy type (Supplementary Fig. 1). In order to gain a better appreciation of the multi-million-year evolution of CO2, and in light of these uncertainties and limitations we have followed a probabilistic approach where Monte Carlo resampling is used to generate 1,000 artificial time series of CO2 with each data point randomly perturbed within its age (X) and CO2 (Y) uncertainty. Each realization was then interpolated to a regular 0.5 Myr spacing and a LOESS fit was performed with the degree of smoothing optimized by generalized cross-validation30.

cont'd

Quote:

At each time step the distribution of LOESS fits was evaluated and the maximum probability, hence the most likely value for long-term CO2, and the associated 68 and 95 percentile ranges were determined (Fig. 1 and Supplementary Data 2). Our new compilation and probabilistic treatment reveals that for the last ∼420 Myrs, CO2, on the whole, has been elevated compared to pre-industrial values (278 p.p.m.). The highest CO2 values of ∼2,000 p.p.m. were reached during the Devonian (∼400 Myrs ago) and Triassic (220–200 Myrs ago), with individual estimates ranging up to a maximum of ∼3,700±1,600 p.p.m. at 215 Myrs. In contrast, values close to pre-industrial are found during much of the Carboniferous (∼300 Myrs ago) and late Cretaceous (∼80 Myrs ago). A linear fit to either the entire CO2 compilation, or a resampling of our LOESS fit to reflect the original data density, reveals that long-term average CO2 has declined over the last 420 Myrs by ∼3.4 p.p.m. per Myrs (Fig. 1). Radiative forcing through the last 420 million years Radiative forcing from CO2 change can be calculated using equation (6). This can then be combined with the radiative forcing from the increase in solar output defined by equation (3) (Fig. 2a); the temporal evolution of the simple sum of these terms (ΔFCO2,sol) is shown in Fig. 2b. As has been noted elsewhere with prior Phanerozoic CO2 compilations (for example, refs 31, 32), there is a good first-order agreement between CO2 levels and the occurrence of greenhouse/icehouse states (Fig. 1): CO2 is high during greenhouse climate states and low during icehouse climates. Our data support previous work suggesting that, when ΔFCO2,sol is considered, icehouse states generally occur when climate forcing drops below approximately +1–2 Wm−2 (refs 31, 32). This treatment also reveals that for the last 420 Myrs, despite a gradual 4% increase in solar luminosity (equivalent to +9 Wm−2 of radiative forcing), there has been very little long-term change in ΔFCO2,sol (despite shorter-term fluctuations of up to 10 Wm−2), with a linear fit to all the data suggesting only a slight decrease of 0.004 Wm−2 per Myrs (±0.001 1 s.e.m.; P=0.0003; red line on Fig. 2b); a linear fit to our LOESS fit resampled with the original data density yields a slightly higher negative slope (−0.008±0.001 1 s.e.m.; P<0.0001; black line Fig. 2b). This indicates that the long-term decrease in CO2 over the last 420 Myrs has largely compensated for the increase in solar output over the interval. In terms of shorter-term radiative imbalances, 95% of the ΔFCO2,sol values are within ±7 Wm−2 and 68% within +5/−3 Wm−2 (Fig. 3). Thus, even on multi-million-year timescales (and sometimes shorter) the external radiative forcing (not considering the action of additional feedbacks internal to the climate system such as the ice-albedo feedback) has not varied beyond ±2.0% of the total incoming radiation (∼340 Wm−2).

So a stronger sun is compensated for by lower CO2 concentrations, keeping the global temp relatively stable.


http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14845/figures/2

Quote:

(a) CO2 data (blue circles) and LOESS best fit (blue line; Supplementary Data 2) with ΔF for CO2 calculated as in equation (6). The change in solar forcing (ΔFsol) calculated using equations (2 and 3). (b) ΔFCO2,sol for data (blue circles) and LOESS best fit (blue line). Red line is a linear best fit and 95% confidence interval for least squares regression through the ΔFCO2,sol data (blue circles; m=−0.004±0.001 1 s.e.m., R2=0.01, P=0.0003). Black line is least squares fit through the LOESS best fit resampled to original data density (blue line; m=0.008±0.001 1 s.e.m., R2=0.06, P<0.0001). Icehouse time intervals are indicated by a black band and greenhouse intervals by a white band.

http://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/ncomms/2017/170404/ncomms14845/images/m685/ncomms14845-f3.jpg

Quote:

(a) Atmospheric CO2 with proxy data in blue (Supplementary Data 1) and LOESS best fit (Supplementary Data 2) in red. Vertical lines show maximum atmospheric CO2 from relevant representative concentration pathways (RCP) (colours)39 and from a 12,000 Pg C scenario (from ref. 41; Wink12K, black dashed line). (c) Proxy-based ΔFCO2,sol in blue and LOESS best fit in red along with relevant RCP scenarios (colours)39 and 12,000 Pg C scenario (black dashed line)41.

Quote:

Regardless of the ultimate cause for the observed relative stability in ΔFCO2,sol over the last 420 million years, business-as-usual emission scenarios (for example, representative concentration pathway RCP8.5)39 for fossil fuel emissions suggest that atmospheric CO2 could peak in 2,250 AD at ∼2,000 p.p.m. CO2 values as high as this were last seen in the Triassic around 220–200 Myrs ago (Figs 3 and 4). However, because of the steady increase in solar output over time, in terms of radiative forcing by the end of this century RCP8.5 is similar to the early Eocene, and by 2,250 AD exceeds what is recorded in the geological record for at least 99.9% of the last 420 Myrs (Figs 3 and 4).

So, the way we are burning fossil fuels will see CO2 levels last seen ~210million years ago. This will upset the climate equilibrium because the sun is much stronger now than back then.

This is the essential point.

I will leave the article here.

Ajax wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 7:42am:

Earth's Energy Budget watch from the 53 minute mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeCqcKYj9Oc&t=2496s

This man is sane. The other numpty not so.

Article too hard to read, eh?

Can you summarise what that climate denier is saying?

Here is a presentation by idiot and AGW denier Salby:


Quote:

He begins by reminding that climate is a subject of “limited understanding” and that it one of “limited observation” He tells the audience that carbon in the atmosphere cannot be regulated and is NOT a pollutant. On why CO2 science got to where it is today, he cites Mark Twain: “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.” In his introduction he explains how CO2 will be a pollutant to our ecosystem only when the day arrives that water vapour becomes a pollutant – i.e. never in our geological lifetime. He says that energy sources that circumvent CO2 emissions are neither greener nor cleaner – just different.

https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/10/murry-salbys-latest-presentation/

Pure male bovine excrement!

Satellite spectrometry shows the gaps in the IR spectrum from earth at each of the GHGs like CO2 and Methane, nitrous oxide, CFCs etc.

Bullshyte.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 8:54am:

Here is a presentation by idiot and AGW denier Salby: Quote: He begins by reminding that climate is a subject of “limited understanding” and that it one of “limited observation” He tells the audience that carbon in the atmosphere cannot be regulated and is NOT a pollutant. On why CO2 science got to where it is today, he cites Mark Twain: “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.” In his introduction he explains how CO2 will be a pollutant to our ecosystem only when the day arrives that water vapour becomes a pollutant – i.e. never in our geological lifetime. He says that energy sources that circumvent CO2 emissions are neither greener nor cleaner – just different. https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/10/murry-salbys-latest-presentation/ Pure male bovine excrement! Satellite spectrometry shows the gaps in the IR spectrum from earth at each of the GHGs like CO2 and Methane, nitrous oxide, CFCs etc. Bullshyte.

Hateful little thing aren't you. Typical. If you are so upset with life have you considered drinking poison rather than spewing it ceaselessly online?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 8:54am:

Here is a presentation by idiot and AGW denier Salby: Quote: He begins by reminding that climate is a subject of “limited understanding” and that it one of “limited observation” He tells the audience that carbon in the atmosphere cannot be regulated and is NOT a pollutant. On why CO2 science got to where it is today, he cites Mark Twain: “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.” In his introduction he explains how CO2 will be a pollutant to our ecosystem only when the day arrives that water vapour becomes a pollutant – i.e. never in our geological lifetime. He says that energy sources that circumvent CO2 emissions are neither greener nor cleaner – just different. https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/10/murry-salbys-latest-presentation/ Pure male bovine excrement! Satellite spectrometry shows the gaps in the IR spectrum from earth at each of the GHGs like CO2 and Methane, nitrous oxide, CFCs etc. Bullshyte.

I read the article and nowhere does the writer refute Murry Salby's work......!!!!!

Judith actually recommends it as a good to listen to......?!


Quote:

The talk is well worth listening to.

Talk about making something out of nothing.

Lets not go to Satellite spectrometry again which has continually proved you wrong..... ;D

Is there no end to your deceiving ways JV.......... >:(


TODAY..................................MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO

http://i66.tinypic.com/jg3at5.jpg http://i45.tinypic.com/vf8b5l.jpg



http://i67.tinypic.com/15gyyy1.jpg http://i65.tinypic.com/abjlub.jpg
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiP6Yvrm7zSAhWHqJQKHUlODmUQFggrMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fairs.jpl.nasa.gov%2Fdocuments%2Fscience_team_meeting_archive%2F2010_11%2Fslides%2FOlsen.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHE9KnXalStmZXhPc28j9_LCyxnzg&bvm=bv.148747831,d.dGo

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

http://i65.tinypic.com/34dsajt.jpg

NASA Scientists Invalidate the Global Warming Hypothesis

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

Global Warming; 31,487 Scientists say NO to Alarm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiPIvH49X-E

Rider wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 8:38am:

Ajax wrote on Apr 7th, 2017 at 7:42am: Earth's Energy Budget watch from the 53 minute mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeCqcKYj9Oc&t=2496s This man is sane. The other numpty not so.

Their science (alarmists, warmists) is a pseudo one they cannot defend it on any level.

So the only option is for personal attacks to discredit the person who questions or has a hard time following their faith.

I don’t care what denier crap you come up with, Ajax, the case for AGW through emission of GHGs from burning of fossil fuels is pretty watertight.

And I don’t “hate life” the very idea is ridiculous!

AGW won’t bother me much in the time I have left, but it will bother young people I love and that is something I would like to do something about.

Deniers know AGW is happening—just look around, the melting or Arctic ice, the retreat of glaciers etc—but are afraid of the consequences so turn to denialism.

I am not that cowardly!

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 9:22am:

I don’t care what denier crap you come up with, Ajax, the case for AGW through emission of GHGs from burning of fossil fuels is pretty watertight.

Only to the faithful algorians is the faith watertight.

The Prophet Al Gore

http://i67.tinypic.com/29aww2h.jpg

I have never quoted Al Gore or “97% of climate scientists back AGW theory” or any of that crap. I write about the science.

AGW theroy is science and has scientific evidence to back it up. Just read the article I posted along with my comments on it.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 9:22am:

I don’t care what denier crap you come up with, Ajax, the case for AGW through emission of GHGs from burning of fossil fuels is pretty watertight. And I don’t “hate life” the very idea is ridiculous! AGW won’t bother me much in the time I have left, but it will bother young people I love and that is something I would like to do something about. Deniers know AGW is happening—just look around, the melting or Arctic ice, the retreat of glaciers etc—but are afraid of the consequences so turn to denialism. I am not that cowardly!

If you want to help the next generation then fight globalisation and free trade.

laws of the oligarchy implemented by governments around the world for their (oligarchies) benefit.

These laws will leave the next generation hungry and homeless.

Now that's a cause that is very REAL and worth fighting for.

Yes, Ajax, neoconservatism is another battle well worth fighting.

But we can walk and chew gum at the same time and we must reduce GHG emissions so do what you can, like install solar panels + battery in your house and lobby for more measures to reduce GHG emissions and applaud moves like the SA solar generator being built. Nuclear, more controversial, is also good.

Men of goodwill have to inform themselves about all these issues. Growing inequality is bad for those being deprived to feed the rich and is bad for the econonomy, reducing spending power. Same with AGW.

I have never spoken out against renewable energy, if it can become a cheap source of energy for rich and poor alike just like fossil fuel energy then I have no argument against it.

Some things that I'm against are nuclear power because of the waste and if the reactor is breached.

Battery storage on the walls of your house emitting electro magnetic radiation.

And I do have solar panels on my house...... :P

Well, good for you re the solar panels!

Modern nuclear is much safer than the older tech as in Fufushima and Chernobyl.

We do have to move away from burning fossil fuels for energy tho.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 7:30am:

Quote: The primary source of energy in the Earth’s climate system is incoming solar radiation, termed total solar irradiance, or TSI. At equilibrium, because of the requirement of energy conservation, the Earth’s radiative budget must balance such that TSI is equal to outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere (a state known as radiative equilibrium). Since the radiation emitted by a body is a function of surface temperature, the Earth’s ‘effective temperature’ (TE) is the temperature at which radiative equilibrium is achieved assuming the Earth acts like a blackbody, and can be calculated (in K)

Yes. And the energy imbalance is 0.6W +/*17w / m². So realistically you have no idea of energy imbalance.


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 7:30am:

where Fs is the TSI (currently ∼1,368 Wm−2), σ is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant (5.67 × 10−8 W m−2 K−4), A=0.29 (ref. 1) is the Earth’s average planetary albedo (the fraction of incoming radiation scattered or reflected back out of the atmosphere by clouds, particulates in the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface),

When is the earth at average planetary albedo? Is it now? If not, that is a spurious argument.


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 7:30am:

However, at the temperatures and pressures typical of the Earth’s surface, water vapour and clouds act as feedbacks rather than drivers of the greenhouse effect,

Why don't they use actual figures for these feedbacks? They can't even decide if clouds are a positive or negative feedback.


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 7:30am:

Quote: As a result, there has been an increase in TSI of ∼400 Wm−2 since the formation of the Earth.

I'd like to see the proof of that. Such  exactititude. no error bars.


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 7:30am:

in early Cambrian/Ordovician time the sun was much weaker than now.

How was this calculated?


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 7:30am:

Quote: Following ref. 4, and assuming an effective emissivity, ɛ, of the Earth of 0.6 (that is, 40% of longwave radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere), equation (1) can be used to define the following equation that describes S for today’s climate (where the surface temperature=287.1 K) in the absence of any climate feedbacks (for example, water vapour, sea-ice etc.), also known as the Planck response (hence the subscript ‘P’)

Oh, we are making assumptions.


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 7:30am:

. Since the combined effect of the greenhouse gas and other climate feedbacks (for example, water vapour, lapse rate, sea-ice etc.) is positive

Like clouds?


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 7:30am:

yet there is a longstanding view that, despite the increase in solar output, Earth’s surface temperature was, for much of geological time, warmer, not colder, than today

And no runaway global warming.

Oh, look CO2 effect on
Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 7:53am:

For the decrease in atmospheric CO2 to balance the increase in solar output over time, the following equation is required to be true (or at least approximately so): ...

So is it true?

Oh good, you had a skim and found some bits you think you can refute with your usual junk. Does your cute HS science diagram apply to Ordovician time, Devonian etc?

I think the paper stands as is. It covers a lot of geological time and has a lot of footnotes where you could find stuff like error bars and all that. It necessarily has to assume some things or leave it to footnotes.

You could learn a lot from it if you were so inclined.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 8:24am:

At each time step the distribution of LOESS fits was evaluated and the maximum probability, hence the most likely value for long-term CO2, and the associated 68 and 95 percentile ranges were determined (Fig. 1 and Supplementary Data 2).

Yep. The data is so fine it can see short term variations in CO2.


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 8:24am:

CO2 is high during greenhouse climate states and low during icehouse climates.

Is it a cause or effect of the change?
Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 8:24am:

business-as-usual emission scenarios (for example, representative concentration pathway RCP8.5)

LOL. Business-as-usual-scenario is not RCP 8.5. It is worst case scenario.


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 8:24am:

I will leave the article here.

It my be better to take the schlock down. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 12:04pm:

Oh good, you had a skim and found some bits you think you can refute with your usual junk. Does your cute HS science diagram apply to Ordovician time, Devonian etc? I think the paper stands as is. It covers a lot of geological time and has a lot of footnotes where you could find stuff like error bars and all that. It necessarily has to assume some things or leave it to footnotes. You could learn a lot from it if you were so inclined.

There are so many assumptions in there as to make the paper almost worthless.

Get back to me when you reckon that the earth is at its "average planetary albedo". ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 12:03pm:

Oh, look CO2 effect on Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 7th, 2017 at 7:53am: For the decrease in atmospheric CO2 to balance the increase in solar output over time, the following equation is required to be true (or at least approximately so): ... So is it true?

Are we Venus?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 2:25pm:

Are we Venus?

Seeing as the atmospheric pressure is 90 times ours, no.

We are not Venus so the equation is substantially true.

Try and understand the paper as a whole.

If you have quibbles, read the 80 footnoted papers cited.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 4:27pm:

We are not Venus so the equation is substantially true. Try and understand the paper as a whole. If you have quibbles, read the 80 footnoted papers cited.

So remind me about gases under pressure. ;)

If, in Ordovician times, sky high CO2 levels, the Sun was the same brightness as now, we would look a lot like Venus.

I thought you might have got that much out of that paper. Too busy looking for irrelevant nitpicks. Now look at the end, at the predicted CO2 levels next century and join the dots.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 7:10pm:

If, in Ordovician times, sky high CO2 levels, the Sun was the same brightness as now, we would look a lot like Venus.

Only if atmospheric pressure was the same. ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 7:10pm:

Now look at the end, at the predicted CO2 levels next century and join the dots.

Oh, you are into predictions now? Taro cards? Look at the predicted temperatures and the ever widening error bars. :D :D :D :D

The old MM is displaying that the paw soal can copy from lying Globally Warmed Greenie Propaganda rubbish sites.

How to be totally unconvincing by the MM.

Why don’t you piss off you lousy copy and paste Lib shill? You add NOTHING to the discussion.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 20^th, 2017 at 2:54pm:

Why don’t you piss off you lousy copy and paste Lib shill? You add NOTHING to the discussion.

And what do you add? Misreading newspaper reports. ;D ;D ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 9:52am:

Well, good for you re the solar panels! Modern nuclear is much safer than the older tech as in Fufushima and Chernobyl. We do have to move away from burning fossil fuels for energy tho.

The big populations need nuclear: no question! They want to bury the waste in Australia: no question!

Ah, life- it's all fascists hiding behind each other!

lee wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 6:45pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 7th, 2017 at 4:27pm: We are not Venus so the equation is substantially true. Try and understand the paper as a whole. If you have quibbles, read the 80 footnoted papers cited. So remind me about gases under pressure. ;)

Do your own homework, barfly!

We do have good places to store waste tho: deserts and old mines like Mt Painter and the Broken Hill mines, only one being worked today IIRC from my trip there about 10 years ago.

lee wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 3:12pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 7th, 2017 at 2:25pm: Are we Venus? Seeing as the atmospheric pressure is 90 times ours, no.

So, then...  ::)
So, then...  ::)

So, then...  ::)
So, then...  ::)
So, then...  ::)



So, then...  ::)
So, then...  ::)
So, then...  ::)
So, then...  ::)
So, then...  ::)
So, then...  ::)





So, then...  ::)
So, then...  ::)
So, then...  ::)
So, then...  ::)
So, then...  ::)
So, then...  ::)
So, then...  ::)
So, then...  ::)
So, then...  ::)
So, then...  ::)
So, then...  ::)
So, then...  ::)
So, then...  ::)
So, then...  ::)
So, then...  ::)
So, then...  ::)
So, then...  ::)
So, then...  ::)

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2017 at 1:21pm:

We do have good places to store waste tho: deserts and old mines like Mt Painter and the Broken Hill mines, only one being worked today IIRC from my trip there about 10 years ago.

Let's just lie down and take it  :o

No way, let us CHARGE HEAPS AND HEAPS AND HEAPS for properly storing waste. We could charge so much we can close the ATO!

A long term view of CO2 and climate over geologic time.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 8:41am:

Article too hard to read, eh? Can you summarise what that climate denier is saying?

just watch the video you goober.

Read the article I posted long bits of, explains the relationship of TSI v CO2 over geological time. Granted, a lot to read and digest for you, roach, but it would clear things up.

Yeah Yeah Yeah I read your crap.
I watched the video.

You on the other hand never look at both sides of any argument.

The Sun BTW was estimated at 97% of todays radiance back in Ordovician times...  CO2 was at 500-600% what it is today.  Yet you believe CO2 is the climate driver. :D

People post facts for you and you ignore everything they say because it doesn't fit your distorted demented idea of how things work and your clueless opinions about renewables and nuclear power and waste disposal etc beggar belief.

One more time.

http://futuredirections.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Figure_4_Dependence_on_Groundwater.png

http://155.187.2.69/soe/2001/publications/theme-reports/water/images/iwfg007.gif

https://antinuclear.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/great-artesian-basin.jpg

Grendel wrote on Aug 8^th, 2017 at 9:42am:

Yeah Yeah Yeah I read your crap. I watched the video. You on the other hand never look at both sides of any argument. The Sun BTW was estimated at 97% of todays radiance back in Ordovician times...  CO2 was at 500-600% what it is today.  Yet you believe CO2 is the climate driver. :D

Grendel has no logic!

**....couldn't sell a tv at harvey norman  ;D ;D ;D!

Yeah.

We could have been Venus—the extra atmosphere in Venus includes the carbonate from rocks like limestone, marble etc. Fortunately, a balance was struck, life emerged and removed carbon from the atmosphere. As the sun brightened the balance was dynamic.

Until Homo sapiens, wise man  ::) , started burning fossil fuels.

Yay: science reigns another day  :D

Still ignoring the facts eh Monk.
What a waste of space YOU are.

As for your sidekick, Dropkick... it doesn't even maintain track of what it says.  Let alone posting anything that has any real meaning.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2017 at 11:23am:

As the sun brightened the balance was dynamic.

Still on about that acutely human need for balance? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Your theory of natural variation, Lees?

Oh puhlease how many times must you be told the planet is dynamic and that the natural climate system has both negative and positive feedbacks?

Grendel wrote on Aug 8^th, 2017 at 4:12pm:

Oh puhlease how many times must you be told the planet is dynamic and that the natural climate system has both negative and positive feedbacks?

Grendel has no clue: he's saying dynamic systems can't be influenced in such a way as to exhibit phase change!

- very poor argumentation from Grendel  ;D

lee wrote on Aug 8^th, 2017 at 2:57pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8th, 2017 at 11:23am: As the sun brightened the balance was dynamic. Still on about that acutely human need for balance? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You exhibit no logic:  ;D

You're all false argument  ;)

Grendel wrote on Aug 8^th, 2017 at 2:38pm:

Still ignoring the facts eh Monk. What a waste of space YOU are. As for your sidekick, Dropkick... it doesn't even maintain track of what it says.  Let alone posting anything that has any real meaning.

Grendel can find no place to put his claw:  ;) ;) ;)

Quote:

Historic climate data is being destroyed The Bureau have a budget of a million dollars a day, but seemingly can’t afford an extra memory stick to save historic scientific data. In the mid 1990s thermometers changed right across Australia — new electronic sensors were installed nearly everywhere. Known as automatic weather sensors (AWS) these are quite different to the old “liquid in glass” type. The electronic ones can pick up very short bursts of heat –  so they can measure extremes of temperatures that the old mercury or liquid thermometers would not pick up, unless the spike of heat lasted for a few minutes. It is difficult (impossible) to believe that across the whole temperature range that these two different instruments would always behave in the exact same way. There could easily be an artificial warming trend generated by this change (see the step change in the graphs). The only way to compare the old and new types of thermometer is to run side by side comparisons in the field and at many sites. Which is exactly what the bureau were doing, but the data has never been put in an archive, or has been destroyed. It’s not easily available (or possibly “at all”). We have this in writing after an FOI application by Dr Bill Johnston (see below).

https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/guest/aust/bom-audit/johnston-bill/2017/wagga-apds-c01149-labels-2-web.jpg


Quote:

The BOM stated that “in accordance with records management practices”, the field books for early 2013 at Canberra Airport were  “disposed of” twelve months after the observations were taken. By mid 2014 the situation was even worse (if that were possible). The more recent Canberra Airport records didn’t even have field books to be destroyed. There were no records to be disposed of.

Quote:

He commented this week on the scant evidence that was available and the potential for a undocumented warming effect: Comparisons between screens were done at one site using PRT (Platinum Resistance Thermometer) only and reported as a “preliminary report”, which is available; but after Automatic Weather Stations (AWS) became primary instruments, as I’ve reported before, the Bureau had an internal policy that parallel liquid-in-glass thermometer data were not databased. Furthermore, they had another policy that paper-data was destroyed after 2-years. So there is nothing that easy available….    The only way to compare AWS  and Liquid in Glass, is to hunt for sites where there is overlap between two stations; where the AWS is given a new number. This is possible BUT the problem is that the change-over is invariably confounded with either a site move or the change to a small screen. So, we suspect that the introduction and reliance on AWS has led to artificially higher maxima (and thus record temperatures) than in the past, but we have no way of knowing for sure and how much. How can the CSIRO hope to produce reliable climate modelling with any number of climate scientists when the BOM cannot produce reliable temperature data?  Garbage in, garbage out.

http://joannenova.com.au/2017/08/another-bom-scandal-australian-climate-data-is-being-destroyed-as-routine-practice/

Yes. from JoNova. But the implications are important. What amazing disregard for data collection and retention.

JoNova is not a scientist. She is a denier and promotes denialism with lots of lies.

Sorry, not worth considering. Come back when you have some real evidence.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2017 at 6:13pm:

JoNova is not a scientist. She is a denier and promotes denialism with lots of lies. Sorry, not worth considering. Come back when you have some real evidence.

Ah, A REAL scientist. Only considers his views.

"REFERENCES

[1] Letter from Anthony Rea, Assistant Director Observing System Strategy, Bureau of Meteorology, 23 December 2014. Reference: 30/5838.

[2] The Bureau of Meteorology Budget was $365.3 million in 2015-16."

http://joannenova.com.au/2017/08/another-bom-scandal-australian-climate-data-is-being-destroyed-as-routine-practice/

Even references the letter from from an Assistant Director at BoM.

So once again you are a proven denier. Anything you can do to stifle dissent. What a p!ss-poor little individual you are.

And you call yourself a SCIENTIST?

It doesn't matter how many times you tell him the reports and articles and papers referenced on the JoNova site are mostly from real experts and scientists...  same with other sites he call "denialist" now that is ironic coming from him. :D

He just closes his eyes, puts his hands over his ears, sings "lalala I cant hear you" at the top of his voice, whilst stomping around in ever decreasing circles.

I do not read JoNova for anything but giggles.

Now, if you have a real report. . .

Why YOU ARE A DENIALIST ALARMIST, nothing real happening in your head.
You just waste everyone's time.

How are those fenceline clouds going BTW?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2017 at 7:31pm:

I do not read JoNova for anything but giggles.

And the comics for in-depth climate. I get it. ;)

Grendel wrote on Aug 8^th, 2017 at 7:30pm:

It doesn't matter how many times you tell him the reports and articles and papers referenced on the JoNova site are mostly from real experts and scientists...  same with other sites he call "denialist" now that is ironic coming from him. :D He just closes his eyes, puts his hands over his ears, sings "lalala I cant hear you" at the top of his voice, whilst stomping around in ever decreasing circles.