Funny old “Ice Age:”


Quote:

The Greenland Ice Sheet is the second largest ice sheet on Earth and has been losing mass for decades, a trend scientists have linked to a warming climate. However, the mass change experienced by individual coastal glaciers, which flow out from the ice sheet into the ocean, is highly variable. This makes predicting the impact on future sea-level rise difficult. “We were looking for a way to explain why this variability exists, and we found a way to do it that has never been applied before on this scale,” Felikson said. Of the 16 glaciers researchers investigated in West Greenland, the study found four that are the most susceptible to thinning: Rink Isbrae, Umiamako Isbrae, Jakobshavn Isbrae and Sermeq Silardleq. Umiamako Isbrae, Sermeq Silardleq and Jakobshavn Isbrae are already losing mass, with Jakobshavn being responsible for more than 81 percent of West Greenland’s total mass loss over the past 30 years.

Poor Booby thinks Greenland is gaining ice.


Quote:

The analysis works by calculating how far inland thinning that starts at the terminus of each glacier is likely to extend. Glaciers with thinning that reaches far inland are the most susceptible to ice mass loss. Just how prone a glacier is to thinning depends on its thickness and surface slope, features that are influenced by the landscape under the glacier. In general, thinning spreads more easily across thick and flat glaciers and is hindered by thin and steep portions of glaciers. The research revealed that most glaciers are susceptible to thinning between 10 and 30 miles inland. For Jakobshavn, however, the risk of thinning reaches over 150 miles inland—almost one-third of the way across the Greenland Ice Sheet. “Jakobshavn is particularly vulnerable to thinning because it flows through a very deep trough that extends deep into the ice sheet interior, making the ice thick and the surface flat,” Felikson said.

Quote:

Among other sources of data, Felikson and his team used a bedrock topography map created with data from NASA’s Ocean Melting Greenland project to determine the thickness of the ice and a digital elevation model from the Greenland Ice Mapping Project, which uses measurements from the Japanese-provided Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) instrument on NASA’s Terra satellite, to separate glacier catchments.

Ocean Melting Greenland, OMG  :)


Quote:

Ginny Catania, an associate professor in the University of Texas Jackson School of Geosciences and research associate at UTIG, said the group has plans to apply the shape analysis technique to other glaciers. “Our plan is to extend the analysis so that we can identify glaciers in Antarctica and around the rest of Greenland that are most likely to be susceptible to change in the future,” she said.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2576/glacier-shape-influences-susceptibility-to-melting/

So the scientists can tell us what is happening, in more and more detail. Up to politicians to use the data. They are just duck shoving it away so far and so is the electorate, electing populists like Trumpy and Turdful. Won’t be able to do that forever tho. Starting now will save big money compared to leaving it until almost too late.

To see how AGW will affect temperature and precipitation where you live you can download the NASA dataset. Look here:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-releases-detailed-global-climate-change-projections

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 20^th, 2017 at 6:52am:

We were looking for a way to explain why this variability exists, and we found a way to do it that has never been applied before on this scale,” Felikson said.

A new statistical tool?


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 20^th, 2017 at 6:52am:

Of the 16 glaciers researchers investigated in West Greenland, the study found four that are the most susceptible to thinning: Rink Isbrae, Umiamako Isbrae, Jakobshavn Isbrae and Sermeq Silardleq. Umiamako Isbrae, Sermeq Silardleq and Jakobshavn Isbrae are already losing mass, with Jakobshavn being responsible for more than 81 percent of West Greenland’s total mass loss over the past 30 years. Poor Booby thinks Greenland is gaining ice.

So it seems three may be losing ice mass. What about the rest? Do you really believe polar ice is static?

[quote author=Jovial_Abbott link=1492635122/0#0 date=1492635122]Ocean Melting Greenland, OMG  /quote]

And no link to AGW. ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 20^th, 2017 at 7:11am:

To see how AGW will affect temperature and precipitation where you live you can download the NASA dataset. Look here: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-releases-detailed-global-climate-change-projections

"NASA has released data showing how temperature and rainfall patterns worldwide may change through the year 2100 because of growing concentrations of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere."


You do know, being a scientist, the difference between data and projections? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

BTW- Did you see the difference -

JM - " AGW will affect temperature and precipitation"

NASA -  "temperature and rainfall patterns worldwide may change"

You are several orders of magnitude ahead of NASA. Where do you get your data? ;)

lee wrote on Apr 20^th, 2017 at 11:00am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 7:11am: To see how AGW will affect temperature and precipitation where you live you can download the NASA dataset. Look here: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-releases-detailed-global-climate-change-projections "NASA has released data showing how temperature and rainfall patterns worldwide may change through the year 2100 because of growing concentrations of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere." You do know, being a scientist, the difference between data and projections? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D BTW- Did you see the difference - JM - " AGW will affect temperature and precipitation" NASA -  "temperature and rainfall patterns worldwide may change" You are several orders of magnitude ahead of NASA. Where do you get your data? ;)

As a troll for the foreign vested interest that comes from planet accountant you don't even know the difference  ;D

Thank you for confirming your idiocy.

JUst ignore Liar Lees, DRAH.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 20^th, 2017 at 3:17pm:

JUst ignore Liar Lees, DRAH.

I protect my children!

Quote:

According to Nasa, in 2016 the Earth’s surface temperature shattered the previous record for hottest year by 0.12°C. That record was set in 2015, which broke the previous record by 0.13°C. That record had been set in 2014, beating out 2010, which in turn had broken the previous record set in 2005. . . . Even including World War II, in the first 100 years of the Nasa data, the high temperature record was broken seven times. It’s been broken seven times in just the past 20 years.

Chicago and most of the midwest of the US and Canada enjoyed 70°F weather in the last NH winter. 70°F! Usually—freezing weather! No matter your beliefs, diehard denier or sensible, 70°C weather in the middle of winter in those regions is a matter for “What the. . .”

I got those temperature details from comments to the ludicrous videos Booby keeps posting and nobody watches. The official record confirms this.

As another post I made shows: warm winter plus warm wet spring means lots of mozzies—and the diseases they bring!


Quote:

This rapid rate of record-breaking heat (once every three years) is consistent with climate scientists’ expectations. A 2011 paper by Stefan Rahmstorf and Dim Coumou found that as global warming continues, we should expect to set new records about once every four years. [quote]Indeed, if we only use the data of the past 30 y, these show an almost linear trend of 0.017°C/y, yielding an expected 2.5 new record hot temperatures in the last decade [1 per 4 years].

Rahmstorf told me that so far, the rate of record-setting temperatures is in line with a consistent human-caused global warming trend:


Quote:

There is no statistical evidence for recent acceleration, just as there never was statistical evidence for a “slowdown” in global warming before the recent series of records. It’s all still within the noise (which could well be hiding an acceleration, but we cannot tell yet from these data).

[/quote]

Scientists are cautious in their public utterances. No BS unlike in the videos Booby posts that are chockful of BS and pseudoscience.


Quote:

Global temperature wasn’t the only record-setter in 2016. Global warming causes climate change, and North America saw its highest number of storms and floods in over four decades. Globally, we saw over 1.5 times more extreme weather catastrophes in 2016 than the average over the past 30 years. Global sea ice cover plunged to a record low as well. California endured a fifth consecutive year of its worst drought in over a millennium. A drought also savaged the maize harvest in Southern Africa, causing a famine. The list of climate consequences goes on.

That is to be expected. A longer bushfire season and more and more severe bushfires/wildfires is just one consequence. Add in rising sea levels (rising more and more rapidly as Antarctica gains less and less net mass) and you can see AGW is causing more and more destruction.

Nor is all of 2016 due to El Nino:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2iFyBjWQAAWHbk.jpg

(Pssst, hey Booby, where is that Ice Age???)

Another Booby, Scott Pruitt:

Quote:

testifying before the Senate on the day the record temperatures were announced in a bid to become EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt claimed that we don’t know how much humans are contributing to global warming. . . . This is simply wrong. We wouldn’t be setting a new temperature record every three years if not for global warming, and there’s no question that the warming is predominantly human-caused. The latest IPCC report stated with 95% confidence that humans are the main cause of global warming since 1950, and most likely responsible for 100% of that temperature rise. Every study quantifying the various contributions to global warming has found humans are the dominant cause. Our fingerprints are all over climate change – the changes are precisely in line with what we’d expect to see as a result of an increased greenhouse effect from human carbon pollution. . . . Climate denial is evolving. All of Trump’s nominees rejected his claims that climate change is a hoax, but all cast doubt on the degree to which humans are contributing, and to the threats it poses. It’s a softer, cuddlier form of climate denial that doesn’t reject all scientific research – just the vast majority – and yields the same end result of obstructing climate solutions.

Lees take note  :D

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jan/23/were-now-breaking-global-temperature-records-once-every-three-years

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2017 at 9:45am:

According to Nasa, in 2016 the Earth’s surface temperature shattered the previous record for hottest year by 0.12°C.

With no uncertainty at all? How bizarre. You are a scientist aren't you? And you don't even question that? :D :D :D :D


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2017 at 9:45am:

Even including World War II, in the first 100 years of the Nasa data, the high temperature record was broken seven times. It’s been broken seven times in just the past 20 years.

Yes. Again with no uncertainty. But don't forget 1997. ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2017 at 9:45am:

Chicago and most of the midwest of the US and Canada enjoyed 70°F weather in the last NH winter. 70°F! Usually—freezing weather! No matter your beliefs, diehard denier or sensible, 70°C weather in the middle of winter in those regions is a matter for “What the. . .” I got those temperature details from comments to the ludicrous videos Booby keeps posting and nobody watches. The official record confirms this. As another post I made shows: warm winter plus warm wet spring means lots of mozzies—and the diseases they bring!

You forgot and it has never happened before, ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2017 at 9:45am:

Quote: Indeed, if we only use the data of the past 30 y, these show an almost linear trend of 0.017°C/y,

Don't forget is supposed to get worser.


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2017 at 9:45am:

Rahmstorf told me that so far, the rate of record-setting temperatures is in line with a consistent human-caused global warming trend:

Did he also tell you it is all CO2? ;)
Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2017 at 9:45am:

Quote: There is no statistical evidence for recent acceleration, just as there never was statistical evidence for a “slowdown” in global warming before the recent series of records. It’s all still within the noise (which could well be hiding an acceleration, but we cannot tell yet from these data).

But he can still see trends even though they are "within the noise " ;D ;D ;D ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2017 at 9:45am:

That is to be expected. A longer bushfire season and more and more severe bushfires/wildfires is just one consequence.

Compared to early 20th century warming or just lazy statistics?


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2017 at 9:45am:

Add in rising sea levels (rising more and more rapidly as Antarctica gains less and less net mass) and you can see AGW is causing more and more destruction.

And all supposition.
Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2017 at 9:45am:

testifying before the Senate on the day the record temperatures were announced in a bid to become EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt claimed that we don’t know how much humans are contributing to global warming. . . . This is simply wrong. We wouldn’t be setting a new temperature record every three years if not for global warming, and there’s no question that the warming is predominantly human-caused. The latest IPCC report stated with 95% confidence that humans are the main cause of global warming since 1950, and most likely responsible for 100% of that temperature rise.

Actually, it is true. If you think that wrong please cite the paper where they have calculated CO2 produced naturally, and the changes each year,


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2017 at 9:45am:

Every study quantifying the various contributions to global warming has found humans are the dominant cause

From SKS I see.

The SKS link to Tel  et al 200 tells us nothing as the link is broken.

Meehl et al 2004 - "Ensemble simulations are run with a global coupled climate model employing five forcing agents that influence the time evolution of globally averaged surface air temperature during the twentieth century. Two are natural (volcanoes and solar) and the others are anthropogenic [e.g., greenhouse gases (GHGs), ozone (stratospheric and tropospheric), and direct effect of sulfate aerosols]"

So only two are natural. No clouds, No plants. hardly convincing. And the ever present models, ;) Was it Heidi or Helga. Maybe Bruce.

I am too lazy to look at the rest.


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2017 at 9:45am:

Lees take note

I did better, I went to your SKS site.

I will let you review the other papers.  ;)

Hey JM, Why haven't you defended Meehl et al? ALL GHG's are Anthropogenic aren't they? ;)

http://i65.tinypic.com/2dbt35k.jpg

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#36b869162892

That is crap, Ajax.

The Arctic is warming and the sea ice there is shrinking. This NH winter it was even shrinking in winter!

The globe is warming and it is because of the greenhouse gases we emit.

At least you haven’t totally fruitloop unlike Sir Booby de Louse but PLEASE give up on this denialism!

This is from the NASA website:


Quote:

Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Arctic sea ice reaches its minimum each September. September Arctic sea ice is now declining at a rate of 13.3 percent per decade, relative to the 1981 to 2010 average. This graph shows the average monthly Arctic sea ice extent in September since 1979, derived from satellite observations.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/

You will need to go to the above page to see the graphs etc.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 10:04am:

That is crap, Ajax. The Arctic is warming and the sea ice there is shrinking. This NH winter it was even shrinking in winter! The globe is warming and it is because of the greenhouse gases we emit. At least you haven’t totally fruitloop unlike Sir Booby de Louse but PLEASE give up on this denialism!

As the article says JV it seems the warmists have made the 1979 ice cover "THE" standard one after 30 years of global cooling.

As NASA shows it did retreat in the last decade by about 10%, but who's to say this isn't normal.....???


http://i67.tinypic.com/2j1tmdl.jpg

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#36b869162892

September 1957 - arctic decreases by 40%
http://i41.tinypic.com/2w6yrlg.jpg

May 1947 - arctic melting
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/22429983?searchTerm=climate%20change&searchLimits=

November 1922 - arctic melting
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

Even that graph shows the ice extent is shrinking!

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 10:08am:

Even that graph shows the ice extent is shrinking!

I said that they have shown that in the last decade it has shrunk by 10% but who's to say this isn't normal.

September 1957 - arctic decreases by 40%
http://i64.tinypic.com/33asylz.jpg http://i63.tinypic.com/hskznq.jpg

May 1947 - arctic melting
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/22429983?searchTerm=climate%20change&searchLimits=

November 1922 - arctic melting
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

It is melting. Good, at least you agree.

It has melted further than in the past and shows no sign of slowing.

Temperatures are increasing and they are increasing due to greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide and methane.

1°C of heating but the heating has gone on past the 1°C.

Sea level rises, due to the warming of the oceans and the massive ice loss from Greenland will accelerate once Antarctica starts losing ice too: it is gaining mass ATM but at slower and slower rates.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 10:26am:

It is melting. Good, at least you agree. It has melted further than in the past and shows no sign of slowing. Temperatures are increasing and they are increasing due to greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide and methane. 1°C of heating but the heating has gone on past the 1°C. Sea level rises, due to the warming of the oceans and the massive ice loss from Greenland will accelerate once Antarctica starts losing ice too: it is gaining mass ATM but at slower and slower rates.

For a gas like CO2 or methane (CH4) to have any significant effect on the atmosphere it must total at least 1% of the atmospheric volume.

CO2 is at the moment        0.04%.......400ppm

CH4 is at the moment 0.000183%.......1.834ppm

Water Vapour...................4%............40,000ppm

Water vapour accounts for 95% of the greenhouse house effect here on Earth.

BTW 1% = 10,000ppm     (ppm = parts per million)

Ajax wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 10:41am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 24th, 2017 at 10:26am: It is melting. Good, at least you agree. It has melted further than in the past and shows no sign of slowing. Temperatures are increasing and they are increasing due to greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide and methane. 1°C of heating but the heating has gone on past the 1°C. Sea level rises, due to the warming of the oceans and the massive ice loss from Greenland will accelerate once Antarctica starts losing ice too: it is gaining mass ATM but at slower and slower rates. For a gas like CO2 or methane (CH4) to have any significant effect on the atmosphere it must total at least 1% of the atmospheric volume. CO2 is at the moment        0.04%.......400ppm CH4 is at the moment 0.000183%.......1.834ppm Water Vapour...................4%............40,000ppm Water vapour accounts for 95% of the greenhouse house effect here on Earth. BTW 1% = 10,000ppm     (ppm = parts per million)

* source?????

THANKS BUDDY  ::)

Water Vapour IS THE FEEDBACK MECHANISM  ::) ::): we don't drill for water to pump it into the atmosphere  :o

TheFunPolice wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 11:40am:

* source????? THANKS BUDDY  ::)

....................... :D

http://i68.tinypic.com/15x6f0w.jpg http://i68.tinypic.com/qssivs.jpg http://i64.tinypic.com/op0b9y.jpg

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

Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/PMichaels_Jun98.pdf

TheFunPolice wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 11:41am:

Water Vapour IS THE FEEDBACK MECHANISM  ::) ::): we don't drill for water to pump it into the atmosphere  :o

Water vapour accounts for 95% of the greenhouse gas effect we have here on Earth.

It's that invisible stuff that makes a 25°C day seem like a 40°C when there's lots of it in the air........... ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 10:04am:

The Arctic is warming and the sea ice there is shrinking. This NH winter it was even shrinking in winter!

https://sunriseswansong.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/old-sea-ice-graph-screen_shot_2017_03_28_at_1_28_42_pm.png

You shouldn't just rely on the satellite data. ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 10:04am:

The globe is warming and it is because of the greenhouse gases we emit.

Nice supposition. According to Meehl et al 2004 GHG's are anthropogenic. No natural emissions at all.

That would mean termites (CH4) are human, water vapour is human, plants are human. ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 10:04am:

Quote: Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Arctic sea ice reaches its minimum each September. September Arctic sea ice is now declining at a rate of 13.3 percent per decade, relative to the 1981 to 2010 average. This graph shows the average monthly Arctic sea ice extent in September since 1979, derived from satellite observations.

So only relative to 1981 -2010. And only satellite observations. ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 10:26am:

It has melted further than in the past and shows no sign of slowing.

Only if you limit to the satellite era.


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 10:26am:

Temperatures are increasing and they are increasing due to greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide and methane.

You still haven't posted the peer-review paper that proves your assertion.


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 10:26am:

ea level rises, due to the warming of the oceans and the massive ice loss from Greenland

Pleas show the paper that shows Greenland NET ice loss.


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 10:26am:

will accelerate once Antarctica starts losing ice too: it is gaining mass ATM but at slower and slower rates.

Good to see you acknowledge that the Antarctic is not losing ice. The rest about it eventually losing ice is mere conjecture. Did you approach Madam Zara for the prediction?

Ajax wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 11:47am:

TheFunPolice wrote on Apr 24th, 2017 at 11:41am: Water Vapour IS THE FEEDBACK MECHANISM  ::) ::): we don't drill for water to pump it into the atmosphere  :o Water vapour accounts for 95% of the greenhouse gas effect we have here on Earth. It's that invisible stuff that makes a 25°C day seem like a 40°C when there's lots of it in the air........... ;)

The warming from the CO2 sees more water vapor in the atmosphere, increasing the GHG effect. Water eventually condenses which is why it is classed as a AGW reinforcing not a primary GHG.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 3:58pm:

The warming from the CO2 sees more water vapor in the atmosphere, increasing the GHG effect.

Proof?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 3:58pm:

Ajax wrote on Apr 24th, 2017 at 11:47am: TheFunPolice wrote on Apr 24th, 2017 at 11:41am: Water Vapour IS THE FEEDBACK MECHANISM  ::) ::): we don't drill for water to pump it into the atmosphere  :o Water vapour accounts for 95% of the greenhouse gas effect we have here on Earth. It's that invisible stuff that makes a 25°C day seem like a 40°C when there's lots of it in the air........... ;) The warming from the CO2 sees more water vapor in the atmosphere, increasing the GHG effect. Water eventually condenses which is why it is classed as a AGW reinforcing not a primary GHG.

To a certain point "YES" I agree with you...... ;)

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1493003769

Yes but no but the CO2 is increasing exponentially.

JM, From one of your favourite sources -

"Some questions remain. When temperatures get too high, there’s no continued increase in intense rain events. In fact, heavy precipitation events decrease at the highest temperatures. There are some clear reasons for this but for brevity, regardless of where measurements are made on Earth, there appears to be an increase of precipitation with temperature up until a peak and thereafter, more warming coincides with decreased precipitation. "

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/mar/22/global-warming-is-increasing-rainfall-rates

Bloody cluey stuff this water vapour. It only lie Goldilocks temperatures to precipitate out. ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 4:09pm:

Yes but no but the CO2 is increasing exponentially.

And the temperature? What effect does increasing CO2 have on temperature? ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 4:09pm:

Yes but no but the CO2 is increasing exponentially.

Temperature drives the increase of natural CO2 from its natural resources into our atmosphere, CO2 doesn't drive its own rate of increase.

So your assumption is wrong as has been observed over the years.

Burning fossil fuels increases the CO2 in the atmosphere.

The warming is melting the tundra and huge frozen deposits of methane are melting and methane is escaping into the atmosphere. Methane is also escaping where greedy idiots are fracking.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 4:34pm:

The warming is melting the tundra

Really? To what depth?


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 4:34pm:

and huge frozen deposits of methane are melting and methane is escaping into the atmosphere. Methane is also escaping where greedy idiots are fracking.

You forgot the termites. ;)

"Methane emissions, which have decreased by 16.0percent since 1990, resulted primarily from enteric fermentation associated with domestic livestock, natural gas systems, and
decomposition of wastes in landfills."

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-02/documents/2017_complete_report.pdf

And that is DESPITE fracking. The US is where the bulk of fracking occurs. ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 4:34pm:

Burning fossil fuels increases the CO2 in the atmosphere. The warming is melting the tundra and huge frozen deposits of methane are melting and methane is escaping into the atmosphere. Methane is also escaping where greedy idiots are fracking.

Notice the sharp rise in fossil fuel CO2 emissions after 2000.

After 2000 fossil fuel emissions were 3 times the amount of fossil fuel emissions in the prior decade to 2000, that is 3 times as much fossil fuel emission went into our atmosphere after 2000 than the decade before 2000.

But the average yearly increase after 2000 just like the decade prior to 2000, average increase in CO2 remains more or less steady at 2.1ppm per year.

Fossil fuel CO2 emissions at 2.3% of the total CO2 natural emissions are insignificant and get lost in the noise.

That's why the average yearly increase of CO2 has remained steady at 2.1ppm per year even though fossil fuel emissions have shot through the roof.

Again your argument is shot down.

Yes fossil fuels emissions contribute but the contribution is small at 2.3% of the total amount of natural CO2 that is emitted.

http://i64.tinypic.com/2wdroed.jpg

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

Hm of the extra CO2 is dissolved in the oceans?

NOAA:

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_mlo.png

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2017-04/fossil_fuels_1.png


Quote:

Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels have significantly increased since 1900. Since 1970, CO2 emissions have increased by about 90%, with emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes contributing about 78% of the total greenhouse gas emissions increase from 1970 to 2011. Agriculture, deforestation, and other land-use changes have been the second-largest contributors.[1] Emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases have also increased significantly since 1900. To learn more about past and projected global emissions of non-CO2 gases, please see the EPA report, Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990-2020.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

Ajax, the globe is still warming despite the sun being quiescent since 1980. Solar maximum was in the 1950s.

Glaciers are retreating, polar sea ice extent is shrinking and Greenland is losing huge amounts of ice. The very simplest thing to do is accept the theory of AGW. That theory is confirmed by terrestrial and satellite spectroscopy. GHGs do absorb infrared photons (rays if you like) causing the globe to warm.

September 1957 - arctic decreases by 40%

http://i64.tinypic.com/33asylz.jpg

May 1947 - arctic melting

http://i66.tinypic.com/2nknm7s.jpg

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/22429983?searchTerm=climate%20change&searchLimits=

November 1922 - arctic melting

http://i66.tinypic.com/2ryn6rt.jpg
http://i66.tinypic.com/358w37t.jpg

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

Hey JV

These same nut jobs were heralding global cooling and an ice age in the early 1970's.

They would even slay democracy to save us all from global cooling and the coming ice age....LOL.

http://i65.tinypic.com/25pk1s3.jpg

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

http://i68.tinypic.com/nzorhj.jpg
http://i63.tinypic.com/sz8w9u.jpg
http://i63.tinypic.com/29ntmkn.jpg
http://i66.tinypic.com/351979l.jpg

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=jjgiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9KsFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1371,2354081&hl=en

The 1970's media scare.

Hey JV

I bet you would have believed this malarkey too....?!?!

http://i65.tinypic.com/dw76vo.jpg


For more newspaper artciles on global COOLING in the 1970's go to this site and scroll down.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

Like the sheeple of today that have been fooled into believing the pseudo science that is AGW.

Poor Spock also believed in the propaganda of the 1970's about the coming ice age.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_861us8D9M

Last one JV

Monday 11th September 1972

http://i64.tinypic.com/34hgcpv.jpg

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=MnMQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=R4sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2204,1181394&hl=en


Is that the same H. Lamb that worked for the IPCC....??

Well at least he was an honest fellow, unlike Michael Mann and his fraudulent hockey SHHHHTick....... :-*

http://i66.tinypic.com/fzaudt.jpg

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 8:08pm:

Hm of the extra CO2 is dissolved in the oceans?

Shouldn't that be how much CO2 is outgassed by the oceans?

Ajax and his voodoo charms  :) :)

"Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences"

Why are you not talking science?

Tell us about Meehle et al 2014 and their claims that GHG's are anthropogenic.

Tell us the science.

lee wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 4:58pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 24th, 2017 at 8:08pm: Hm of the extra CO2 is dissolved in the oceans? Shouldn't that be how much CO2 is outgassed by the oceans?

https://skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html

https://skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html
https://skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html


https://skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html
https://skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html
https://skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html
https://skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html

"Carbon 14 is formed in the atmosphere by collisions between cosmic rays and Nitrogen.  It has a very short half life (5,730 years)"

https://skepticalscience.com/pics/14Cratio.png

Oh, tree rings - never mind.

"More recent, high precision measurements show the decline in C14 continued after the end of atmospheric nuclear testing."

Actually it shows C14 increasing since nuclear testing.

https://skepticalscience.com/pics/CO2massbalance.jpg

So how do they determine that Natural CO2 is net negative.

You remember greening of the planet?

Seriously  ;D

Now who is relying on SKS?  ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2017 at 1:37pm:

Now who is relying on SKS?  ;)

If you really had a clue you would see it was DRAH.


TheFunPolice wrote on Apr 26^th, 2017 at 11:50am:

https://skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html

https://skepticalscience.com/pics/CO2massbalance.jpg

https://skepticalscience.com/pics/CO2massbalance.jpg

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2017 at 2:16pm:

https://skepticalscience.com/pics/CO2massbalance.jpg https://skepticalscience.com/pics/CO2massbalance.jpg

Yep certainly hilarious. ;)

Quote:

Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis Contents99.7 9.7 Combining Evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change <> The widespread change detected in temperature observations of the surface (Sections 9.4.1, 9.4.2, 9.4.3), free atmosphere (Section 9.4.4) and ocean (Section 9.5.1), together with consistent evidence of change in other parts of the climate system (Section 9.5), strengthens the conclusion that greenhouse gas forcing is the dominant cause of warming during the past several decades. This combined evidence, which is summarised in Table 9.4, is substantially stronger than the evidence that is available from observed changes in global surface temperature alone (Figure 3.6). The evidence from surface temperature observations is strong: The observed warming is highly significant relative to estimates of internal climate variability which, while obtained from models, are consistent with estimates obtained from both instrumental data and palaeoclimate reconstructions. It is extremely unlikely (<5%) that recent global warming is due to internal variability alone such as might arise from El Niño (Section 9.4.1). The widespread nature of the warming (Figures 3.9 and 9.6) reduces the possibility that the warming could have resulted from internal variability. No known mode of internal variability leads to such widespread, near universal warming as has been observed in the past few decades. Although modes of internal variability such as El Niño can lead to global average warming for limited periods of time, such warming is regionally variable, with some areas of cooling (Figures 3.27 and 3.28). In addition, palaeoclimatic evidence indicates that El Niño variability during the 20th century is not unusual relative to earlier periods (Section 9.3.3.2; Chapter 6). Palaeoclimatic evidence suggests that such a widespread warming has not been observed in the NH in at least the past 1.3 kyr (Osborn and Briffa, 2006), further strengthening the evidence that the recent warming is not due to natural internal variability. Moreover, the response to anthropogenic forcing is detectable on all continents individually except Antarctica, and in some sub-continental regions. Climate models only reproduce the observed 20th-century global mean surface warming when both anthropogenic and natural forcings are included (Figure 9.5). No model that has used natural forcing only has reproduced the observed global mean warming trend or the continental mean warming trends in all individual continents (except Antarctica) over the second half of the 20th century. Detection and attribution of external influences on 20th-century and palaeoclimatic reconstructions, from both natural and anthropogenic sources (Figure 9.4 and Table 9.4), further strengthens the conclusion that the observed changes are very unusual relative to internal climate variability. The energy content change associated with the observed widespread warming of the atmosphere is small relative to the energy content change of the ocean, and also smaller than that associated with other components such as the cryosphere. In addition, the solid Earth also shows evidence for warming in boreholes (Huang et al., 2000; Beltrami et al., 2002; Pollack and Smerdon, 2004). It is theoretically feasible that the warming of the near surface could have occurred due to a reduction in the heat content of another component of the system. However, all parts of the cryosphere (glaciers, small ice caps, ice sheets and sea ice) have decreased in extent over the past half century, consistent with anthropogenic forcing (Section 9.5.5, Table 9.4), implying that the cryosphere consumed heat and thus indicating that it could not have provided heat for atmospheric warming. More importantly, the heat content of the ocean (the largest reservoir of heat in the climate system) also increased, much more substantially than that of the other components of the climate system (Figure 5.4; Hansen et al., 2005; Levitus et al., 2005). The warming of the upper ocean during the latter half of the 20th century was likely due to anthropogenic forcing (Barnett et al., 2005; Section 9.5.1.1; Table 9.4). While the statistical evidence in this research is very strong that the warming cannot be explained by ocean internal variability as estimated by two different climate models, uncertainty arises since there are discrepancies between estimates of ocean heat content variability from models and observations, although poor sampling of parts of the World Ocean may explain this discrepancy. However, the spatial pattern of ocean warming with depth is very consistent with heating of the ocean resulting from net positive radiative forcing, since the warming proceeds downwards from the upper layers of the ocean and there is deeper penetration of heat at middle to high latitudes and shallower penetration at low latitudes (Barnett et al., 2005; Hansen et al., 2005). This observed ocean warming pattern is inconsistent with a redistribution of heat between the surface and the deep ocean.

Cont’d

Quote:

Thus, the evidence appears to be inconsistent with the ocean or land being the source of the warming at the surface. In addition, simulations forced with observed SST changes cannot fully explain the warming in the troposphere without increases in greenhouse gases (e.g., Sexton et al., 2001), further strengthening the evidence that the warming does not originate from the ocean. Further evidence for forced changes arises from widespread melting of the cryosphere (Section 9.5.5), increases in water vapour in the atmosphere (Section 9.5.4.1) and changes in top-of-the atmosphere radiation that are consistent with changes in forcing. The simultaneous increase in energy content of all the major components of the climate system and the pattern and amplitude of warming in the different components, together with evidence that the second half of the 20th century was likely the warmest in 1.3 kyr (Chapter 6) indicate that the cause of the warming is extremely unlikely to be the result of internal processes alone. The consistency across different lines of evidence makes a strong case for a significant human influence on observed warming at the surface. The observed rates of surface temperature and ocean heat content change are consistent with the understanding of the likely range of climate sensitivity and net climate forcings. Only with a net positive forcing, consistent with observational and model estimates of the likely net forcing of the climate system (as used in Figure 9.5), is it possible to explain the large increase in heat content of the climate system that has been observed (Figure 5.4).

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html

Have a read of the whole chapter including the tables and figures.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 30^th, 2017 at 3:42pm:

The observed warming is highly significant relative to estimates of internal climate variability which, while obtained from models, are consistent with estimates obtained from both instrumental data and palaeoclimate reconstructions.

But the paleoclimate reconstructions don't have the small scale variations necessary for certainty. How do you determine a period of say 50-100 years from climate proxies that are measured in millions of years.

Apart from which you disbelieve the hiatus described in Box 9.2.

Seems you are cherry picking what you want to believe. ;D ;D ;D

What hiatus?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 30^th, 2017 at 4:33pm:

What hiatus?

Yep Exactly. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

So you don’t know what hiatus you are talking about?

Something about land clearance and the useless Emissions Reductions Fund.

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2017/04/29/land-clearing-and-climate-change/14933880004562

Global warming and the sun:

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page4.php

Quote:

Scientists theorize that there may be a multi-decadal trend in solar output, though if one exists, it has not been observed as yet. Even if the Sun were getting brighter, however, the pattern of warming observed on Earth since 1950 does not match the type of warming the Sun alone would cause. When the Sun’s energy is at its peak (solar maxima), temperatures in both the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) become warmer. Instead, observations show the pattern expected from greenhouse gas effects: Earth’s surface and troposphere have warmed, but the stratosphere has cooled.

So, not the sun but GHGs are causing the warming.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 10:37pm:

Instead, observations show the pattern expected from greenhouse gas effects: Earth’s surface and troposphere have warmed, but the stratosphere has cooled.

Except for the trpospheric hotspot, which is a pillar that supports AGW theory.

According to the theory the tropospheric hotspot should rise at 2-3 times that of the surface. Instead, using new and imaginative techniques, they have found some warming.

"Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2)"

" An attempt to reconstruct tropical warming profiles indirectly from changes in wind also found a maximum in the tropical upper troposphere since the 1970s (Allen and Sherwood 2008). Thus the picture from radiosondes remains somewhat unclear, although there are signs that improved records are showing warming close to expectations."

"These data have been interpreted as indicating too little warming trend in the upper compared to the lower troposphere (Fu et al 2011, Po-Chedley and Fu 2012) and one satellite product shows less warming in the atmosphere than at the surface (Christy et al 2010). Caution is warranted however because the satellites suffer from uncertain changes over time in calibration and other inhomogeneities, exacerbated by the manipulations of the data necessary to extract the signals of concern here (CCSP 2006)."

"Recent findings suggest that overall global warming rates in the troposphere have been too weak in some previous studies due to characterization of the diurnal cycle and imprecise corrections for calibration errors (Po-Chedley et al 2015). "

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta;jsessionid=89AFA309480100A4448B2CE434AC1E0F.c5.iopscience.cld.iop.org

All that uncertainty about inhomogeneities, but they they can homogenise it all out? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Greenland melt May 2017:

https://nsidc.org/greenland-today/images/greenland_melt_area_plot_tmb.png

Very early indications then of a record melt.

https://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

Seems the South and East are melting first.

Wow. hat looks like it is  in the interdecile range.

I wonder why it varies from DMI so much?

https://www.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/b/m/s/d/e/accumulatedsmb.png

https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
Still above the 1981 - 2010 mean. ;)

https://nsidc.org/greenland-today/images/greenland_melt_nomelt_tmb.png

https://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

That sure looks scary. NOT.

There has been talk and 400+ stupid videos that we are in a long interglacial with an ice age due any day (millennium.) That may not be so.


Quote:

A medley of forces influences the glacial-interglacial cycle, including the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth, which is controlled mainly by Earth’s orbital shape and axial tilt, the composition of gasses and aerosols and extent of cloud cover in the atmosphere, and the reflectivity of Earth’s surface (for example, the extent of ice and vegetation cover at high latitudes). A reduction in incoming summer solar radiation would be the primary trigger for glaciation, but atmospheric CO2 concentrations—the primary driver of climate change—must be relatively low, too. How low is “relatively low”? Tzedakis and colleagues compared ice and marine records from previous interglacials and found that, given the current small decrease in summer solar radiation, CO2 concentrations would have to fall to around 240 ppm for the next glacial period to take place.

Sunspots not mentioned  ;D


Quote:

A medley of forces influences the glacial-interglacial cycle, including the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth, which is controlled mainly by Earth’s orbital shape and axial tilt, the composition of gasses and aerosols and extent of cloud cover in the atmosphere, and the reflectivity of Earth’s surface (for example, the extent of ice and vegetation cover at high latitudes). A reduction in incoming summer solar radiation would be the primary trigger for glaciation, but atmospheric CO2 concentrations—the primary driver of climate change—must be relatively low, too. How low is “relatively low”? Tzedakis and colleagues compared ice and marine records from previous interglacials and found that, given the current small decrease in summer solar radiation, CO2 concentrations would have to fall to around 240 ppm for the next glacial period to take place.

CO2 concentrations are now at 410ppm (depending on season—the carbon cycle.) FAR above 240ppm:


Quote:

Since the Industrial Revolution, however, atmospheric CO2 levels have been trending higher and higher. They reached an estimated 395.09 ppm globally in January 2013. So, if business proceeds as usual, with carbon release being driven primarily by fossil-fuel burning, we likely have a long thaw ahead of us. Modeling work by geophysical scientist David Archer has shown, for instance, that burning all potential fossil carbon on Earth—5,000 gigatons—would be enough to delay the next glaciation by 500,000 years.

Hopefully we, mankind, do not end up burning all the fossil fuels! Interesting that they mention 240ppm when what is assumed to be “preindustrial” levels (1800–1830 or so) are 280ppm. Could be just due to increasing human population before the industrial age?


Quote:

The real question, then, might have more to do with the next “age,” generally, that we face, rather than the next ice age. Some scientists consider the current era to be defined by human influence, what Dutch chemist Paul J. Crutzen dubbed the Anthropocene Epoch, which has its origins in the Industrial Age.

http://www.sciencefriday.com/articles/will-there-be-another-ice-age/

Jovial Monk wrote on May 7^th, 2017 at 8:32pm:

Quote: The real question, then, might have more to do with the next “age,” generally, that we face, rather than the next ice age. Some scientists consider the current era to be defined by human influence, what Dutch chemist Paul J. Crutzen dubbed the Anthropocene Epochrl][/u, which has its origins in the Industrial Age.

And he is supposed to be right?

This interglacial will be last for 20–30,000 years yet.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 7^th, 2017 at 9:34pm:

This interglacial will be last for 20–30,000 years yet.

Got a peer-reviewed paper for that? or is it one of your beliefs.

Google is your friend.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 7^th, 2017 at 10:27pm:

Google is your friend.

Your famous quote for when you make sch!itt up.

See, you are hopeless when thrown on your own resources. Clueless.

As I have pointed out many times, AGW means warmer temperatures which means more evaporation which means, eventually more precipitation. Here is one example:


Quote:

Devastating storms still roiling much of the American Midwest have dumped record levels of rain over the past week and caused flash flooding that has killed at least 10 people, inundated towns and highways, and forced hundreds of people to evacuate their homes. Parts of Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Arkansas and Louisiana received 10 to 15 inches of rain in the past seven days, according to the National Weather Service, resulting in record crests of numerous rivers across the central United States. Extreme storms like these have become more common as global temperatures have risen and the oceans have warmed. Some have the clear fingerprints of man-made climate change. "Of course there is a climate change connection, because the oceans and sea surface temperatures are higher now because of climate change, and in general that adds 5 to 10 percent to the precipitation," Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said. "There have been many so-called 500-year floods along the Mississippi about every five to 10 years since 1993."

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/03052017/flooding-storms-climate-change-extreme-weather-missouri-arkansas

Adds 5 to 10% to precipitation. Hmmm.

Of course, you can believe it is “cosmic gamma rays” but this has been long discredited.

The article goes on:

Quote:

Scientists won't know the extent to which climate change played a role in these storms unless they do an attribution study. Such analyses determine how much the rise in trapped greenhouse gases increased the odds of a single event happening. Increasingly, scientists have tried to do these studies far more quickly to spread accurate information about how climate change is affecting us today and improve longer-term forecasts and warnings. An attribution study of last August's deadly Louisiana's storms—classified as a 1,000-year storm in the worst-hit areas and a 500-year storm in others—found that human-caused climate warming increased the chances of the torrential rains by at least 40 percent. That figure corresponds to the overall increase in extreme storms in the region. "Across the board, the United States has seen an increase in the heaviest rainfall events, and the Midwest specifically has seen an increase [in these events] of almost 40 percent," said Heidi Cullen, chief scientist at Climate Central and a member of World Weather Attribution (WWA), a group that is developing methods to quickly determine climate change's role in extreme weather events. Like last summer's downpours in Louisiana, however, the ongoing storms across much of the central U.S. are moving slowly, a characteristic that has not been directly attributed to climate change and has likely exacerbated current flooding.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 4:46pm:

"Of course there is a climate change connection, because the oceans and sea surface temperatures are higher now because of climate change, and in general that adds 5 to 10 percent to the precipitation," Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said. "There have been many so-called 500-year floods along the Mississippi about every five to 10 years since 1993."

Oh. Kevin Trenberth? ;D ;D ;D ;D

"On average, total annual precipitation has increased over land areas in the United States and worldwide (see Figures 1 and 2). Since 1901, global precipitation has increased at an average rate of 0.08 inches per decade, while precipitation in the contiguous 48 states has increased at a rate of 0.17 inches per decade."

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-precipitation

So .17 of an inch in a decade? 4.2mm a decade? Wow.

A consequence of a warming world, more bush/wild fires and a longer wild/bushfire season: the BoM confirmed this in their State of the Climate report. Here is one case, in spring in the US:


Quote:

A wildfire that has burned more than 100,000 acres (40,469 hectares) at the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in southern Georgia could take until November before it is put out, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said on Monday. The fire has burned about one-fourth of the wildlife refuge, and the blaze is considered only eight-percent contained, said Mark Davis, spokesman for the service. "November is the worst-case scenario," said Davis. "The firefighters' plan is to contain the fire as best they can, hoping that nature will cooperate with some rainfall."

. . .


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-georgia-fire-idUSKBN17X2H2

Sea level rise threatening historic sites, even telephone poles in Tasmania:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/climate/tasmania-global-warming-shoreline-erosion.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

Need I point out that if we were in a real ice age, not the BIIA, sea levels would be dropping not rising?

Jovial Monk wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 7:36pm:

A consequence of a warming world, more bush/wild fires and a longer wild/bushfire season: the BoM confirmed this in their State of the Climate report. Here is one case, in spring in the US: Quote: A wildfire that has burned more than 100,000 acres (40,469 hectares) at the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in southern Georgia could take until November before it is put out, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said on Monday. The fire has burned about one-fourth of the wildlife refuge, and the blaze is considered only eight-percent contained, said Mark Davis, spokesman for the service. "November is the worst-case scenario," said Davis. "The firefighters' plan is to contain the fire as best they can, hoping that nature will cooperate with some rainfall." 1. The BoM only reported from 1979 to 1990 odd. It didn't address all the data available. They didn't say the bushfire seasons are worse than they have ever been. 2. The fire in the USA; is it the worst or have there been others worse? . . . http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-georgia-fire-idUSKBN17X2H2

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

Sea level rise threatening historic sites, even telephone poles in Tasmania: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/climate/tasmania-global-warming-shoreline-ero...

So a New York Times article on erosion in Tasmania. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Sea level trend Spring Bay - Triabunna, Tas.

http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_61170_SLI.png
Sea level was higher in about 1994-5? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

More wildfires:


Quote:

Increased risk of drought-related wildfires at the heart of the Amazon rainforest adds to vulnerability caused by deforestation at the periphery. LONDON, 6 May, 2017 – The Amazon rainforest, the greatest and richest of the world’s tropical forests, is vulnerable both from without and within, according to two new studies. The forested regions in the flood plains at the heart of the Amazon could be more than usually at risk of wildfire that could spread through the rest of the canopy to higher ground. . . . An international team of researchers reports in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that they matched satellite and field data for the entire Amazon basin, compared forest resilience in those places that were often flooded and never flooded, and analysed the distribution of trees across the river basin. Rainforest cycles They found that fire-related savanna dominated the flooded parts when rainfall dropped below 1,500 mm a year. In the upland regions, the forest survived even when rainfall dropped to 1,000 mm a year. “Our findings suggest that if the Amazonian climate becomes drier, forests will probably collapse first in the seasonally inundated areas,” says Bernardo Flores, a Brazilian scientist now based at Wageningen University in the Netherlands, who led the study. The great rainforest is subject to cycles of drought, and during severe episodes the region is less likely to absorb carbon from the atmosphere and more likely to release it − a process that could only accelerate global warming. And this in turn could only bring further hazard to the rainforest. It was ravaged by fire after the droughts of 1997 and 2005, and the impact on tree cover and soil fertility was, unexpectedly, more persistent in the floodplains. . . . Scientists from the University of Maryland in the US looked at data from 2000 to 2013 for the whole vast area of the Legal Amazon Region, an administrative entity that embraces 5 million square kilometres of nine states in Brazil, and is home to 24 million people. They found that although humans were still invading and clearing primary forest, they were disturbing an even greater area of secondary forest, plantation and woodland. Altogether, this clearing of regenerated forest and plantation accounted for 53% of gross tree cover loss, the researchers say, and up to 35% of the above-ground carbon released to the atmosphere. Fire cleared about 9% of the primary forest, with the damage peaking during the droughts of 2005, 2007 and 2010. – Climate News Network

http://climatenewsnetwork.net/amazon-rainforest-double-jeopardy/

Wildfires becoming more frequent and more unmanageable with AGW and the wildfires in turn add to the CO2 in the air and so increase AGW.

lee wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 11:19pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 7:36pm: A consequence of a warming world, more bush/wild fires and a longer wild/bushfire season: the BoM confirmed this in their State of the Climate report. Here is one case, in spring in the US: Quote: A wildfire that has burned more than 100,000 acres (40,469 hectares) at the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in southern Georgia could take until November before it is put out, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said on Monday. The fire has burned about one-fourth of the wildlife refuge, and the blaze is considered only eight-percent contained, said Mark Davis, spokesman for the service. "November is the worst-case scenario," said Davis. "The firefighters' plan is to contain the fire as best they can, hoping that nature will cooperate with some rainfall." 1. The BoM only reported from 1979 to 1990 odd. It didn't address all the data available. They didn't say the bushfire seasons are worse than they have ever been. 2. The fire in the USA; is it the worst or have there been others worse? . . . http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-georgia-fire-idUSKBN17X2H2

You stuffed that reply up.  :D :D :D

The BoM said that since 1970 the bushfire season had become longer. You are reading things into that that are not there. Do that Elementary Logic course, Lees!

Jovial Monk wrote on May 9^th, 2017 at 9:16am:

The BoM said that since 1970 the bushfire season had become longer. You are reading things into that that are not there. Do that Elementary Logic course, Lees!

Yes 1979 was finger error. Should have been 1970. ;)


And that report was based on CSIRO research which was based on "Changes in Australian fire weather between 1973 and 2010".

"For this study, FFDI is chosen to quantify fire weather conditions. This index was empirically derived in the late 1960s to relate weather conditions to expected fire behaviour and rate of spread. "

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.3480/full

If you look at figures 3 & 4 you will see they only go back to about 1974.

"Trends from 1974 to 2015 in annual 90th percentile of daily FFDI at 38 climate reference locations. Trends are in FFDI points per decade and larger circles represent larger trends.
Filled circles represent statistically significant trends. Trends are upward (in red), except for Brisbane airport (in blue). Figure is updated to 2015 from Clarke et al. (2013)."

www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Assessing-our-climate/State-of-the-Climate-2016/Report-at-a-glance

So FFDI wasn't derived until the 1960's. Clarke et al methodology only goes back to the early 1970's.

So they can't compare early 20th century bushfire seasons to anything. Capiche?

Jovial Monk wrote on May 9^th, 2017 at 7:57am:

They found that although humans were still invading and clearing primary forest, they were disturbing an even greater area of secondary forest, plantation and woodland. Altogether, this clearing of regenerated forest and plantation accounted for 53% of gross tree cover loss, the researchers say, and up to 35% of the above-ground carbon released to the atmosphere. Fire cleared about 9% of the primary forest, with the damage peaking during the droughts of 2005, 2007 and 2010. – Climate News Network http://climatenewsnetwork.net/amazon-rainforest-double-jeopardy/ Wildfires becoming more frequent and more unmanageable with AGW and the wildfires in turn add to the CO2 in the air and so increase AGW.

Nothing there about AGW. You do know how humans clear forests?

This is similar to the pine bark beetle now wreaking havoc on the conifer forests of the west coast of the US and Canada: winters too short and mild to kill enough of the beetles or their eggs.


Quote:

A small but dangerous parasite, the winter tick, is spreading north and west as winters become shorter and now is knocking at Alaska's border. The winter tick, which has already devastated moose populations in New England and the upper Midwest, has been confirmed in Canada's Yukon Territory and in the Northwest Territories, where it's infecting elk, mule deer and some moose. "Now that they're moving farther north through Canada, north and west, they're eventually going to arrive here, if they're not here already," said Kimberlee Beckmen, wildlife veterinarian for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. "We will be next. It's only a matter of time."

Shorter winters and likely milder winters a result of AGW, of course.

These ticks are more than a nuisance to the animals, especially calves:


Quote:

The average tick load on an infested moose is 40,000, and some have been found with 90,000, said Peter Pekins of the University of New Hampshire, one of the lead scientists studying the disastrous impacts of winter ticks on New England moose. A load of more than 40,000 ticks will use up a calf's entire blood supply in four weeks, Pekins said. "They get anemic, they have declining weight too, and that's just the end of them," he said. Adult moose are more likely to survive, but reproduction has been affected, with far fewer cows giving birth to twins, he said.

The life cycle of the tick allows massive numbers of tick eggs to survive winter:

Quote:

The spread of winter ticks is aided by the warming climate, according to Pekins and other scientists. Because of the timing of ticks' life events, higher temperatures, earlier springs, later winters — the pattern in a warming world — help them survive, proliferate and attach to moose. Adults females drop off animals in the spring to lay eggs, Pekins said. For an egg-laying female tick, "Her survival is much higher if it's bare ground than if it's 2 feet of snow," he said. The resulting larvae climb up vegetation and cluster together in the fall in big balls, which passing moose or deer can pick up — and they are affected by the timing of winter's arrival, Pekins said. "The first snow event is key to killing the larval ticks that are up in the vegetation," he said.

The shorter winters helps their spread:

Quote:

In the Northwest Territories, tick-infected "ghost moose" were first documented in the 1980s, and cases have increased since then. They have spread as far north as 66 degrees latitude in the territory's Sahtu region, and have also been found on caribou, according to biologists' reports. The Arctic Circle is about 66 degrees north latitude.

The North West Territories:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Northwest_Territories_in_Canada.svg/375px-Northwest_Territories_in_Canada.svg.png

Showing the ticks/eggs survive the present shorter winters:

Quote:

Also ominous for Alaska is the result of past research, done by Beckmen's predecessor at Fish and Game, which suggests winter ticks can survive even harsh Fairbanks temperatures. Randall Zarnke, a former Fish and Game veterinarian, and his research partners tested some captive winter ticks, monitoring adult females and the eggs' hatch success in three Alaska locations, including Fairbanks; many test subjects survived, said the study, published in 1990.

That was 1990, AGW has powered along since then, of course.

Quote:

A recent study co-authored by Beckmen analyzed ticks and found 10 different species of ticks had been retrieved from dogs, cats, people, other mammals and wild birds at 29 sites around the state between 2010 and 2016. Some of the tick species were native, but some were not — and some nonnative species were found on dogs or humans without recent history of travel outside of Alaska, indicating those ticks have already settled in Alaska. The brown dog tick is one nonnative species that appears to be well-established in the state, Beckmen said. The study also included the first Alaska record of one species, Ixodes texanus, commonly called the raccoon tick, which was found on a marten. There is also one tick-borne disease that has long been in Alaska — tularemia. People exposed to tularemia are treated with antibiotics, but those exposures do not always result in formal diagnoses reported to health authorities, Beckmen said. Other serious tick-borne diseases have yet to be reported in Alaska. Not so in the European Arctic and subarctic, where tick-borne diseases are rising in a pattern correlated with increasing temperatures.

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/environment/2017/05/06/threat-of-moose-killing-tick-infestation-looms-as-far-north-climate-warms/

Jovial Monk wrote on May 9^th, 2017 at 7:51pm:

The brown dog tick is one nonnative species that appears to be well-established in the state, Beckmen said.

So how did non-native ticks get there?

Jovial Monk wrote on May 9^th, 2017 at 7:51pm:

The shorter winters helps their spread: Quote: In the Northwest Territories, tick-infected "ghost moose" were first documented in the 1980s, and cases have increased since then. They have spread as far north as 66 degrees latitude in the territory's Sahtu region, and have also been found on caribou, according to biologists' reports. The Arctic Circle is about 66 degrees north latitude.

Oh, Only first reported in the 1980's. Wonder how long it has been there.

Oh,

"Habitat/Range: The winter tick has a large geographic distribution in North America. They can be found coast to coast through much of Canada and the United States ranging from the Yukon Territory in the north to along the Mexican border in the south. They can be found in a wide variety of habitats, but are strongly associated with the presence of moose. Winter ticks are found in forested areas throughout the state of Maine, particularly in central and northern counties."

https://extension.umaine.edu/ipm/tickid/maine-tick-species/winter-tick-or-moose-tick/

Just hopped across the border, to the right. ;)

Edit: "The only NWT reports were anecdotal reports of moose affected by winter tick recorded from Fort Providence in 1987 and near Fort Liard and near Fort Smith prior to 19671. However, hunters north of 62º in the NWT were not surveyed in this study."

http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/state-environment/157-trends-winter-tick-moose

Quote:

Thawing Alaska Permafrost Sends Autumn CO2 Emissions Surging Emissions from thawing permafrost are now outpacing the uptake of carbon dioxide during the growing season, a new study suggests Soaring temperatures in the Arctic have triggered a huge seasonal surge in carbon dioxide emissions from thawing permafrost and may be tipping the region toward becoming a net source of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, a new study shows. Even into early winter, when the ground would have been frozen 40 years ago, microbes in the permafrost are continuing to release heat-trapping greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide emissions are now outpacing the uptake of CO2 during the spring and summer growing season, the study suggests. The study's authors, researchers from Harvard, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other institutions, measured atmospheric CO2 in Alaska and found that emissions from October through December have increased by 73 percent since 1975 and that the increase correlates with rising summer temperatures.

Positive feedback where increasing warmth releases more heat–trapping emissions.


Quote:

The findings suggest that global climate models are underestimating how much greenhouse gas pollution will be unleashed as the Arctic continues to warm at twice the global average rate, said lead author Roisin Commane of the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. The Arctic climate feedback loop is stronger than scientists estimated, Commane said. Global warming thaws permafrost, releasing more greenhouse gases, which causes yet more warming. "It's consistent with the effects of a warming Arctic," she said. "We're seeing very large emissions in the early winter. When I looked at the models used by the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], none of them looked at the fall respiration. They didn't realize how important that is."

Quote:

Year-round measurements of CO2 emissions from permafrost have been sparse up to now, and some widely cited studies suggested that rising emissions from thawing permafrost were offset by increased uptake from Arctic forests. But according to the new research, those calculations need to be revised. Plants inhale massive amounts of CO2 in the spring and summer growing season. Then, in the fall and winter, the plants die and decompose, releasing CO2 and methane. That cycle gives the global CO2 level its signature zigzag pattern. In the Arctic, emissions during the decomposition phase are outpacing CO2 uptake during the growing season, according to the study.

Quote:

A recent report from the Arctic Council found that near-surface permafrost has warmed by more than 0.5 degrees Celsius in the last 10 years, and that summer thawing has deepened at most monitoring locations. Permafrost currently covers about 5.8 million square miles. A study published in April that looked at the impact rising temperatures would have on the permafrost and found that as much as 2.5 million square miles of it could thaw if global temperatures reached 2 degree Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. Another study, published in February, found that 52,000 square miles of Canadian permafrost was already in rapid decline.

Quote:

The new Alaska study is another step toward understanding how sensitive the Arctic is to increasing temperatures. The Arctic permafrost seals in a massive store of carbon, roughly double the amount of CO2 currently in Earth's atmosphere. If the trends being seen in Alaska are similar in Siberia and Canada, it would have a big effect on the global carbon budget, said co-author Pieter Tans, with NOAA's Earth Systems Research laboratory. "The important thing in this paper is, it shows where the models fail. They don't capture these cold-season emissions very well," said Donatella Zona of San Diego State University in California, who was not involved in the new research. "We need to make the case that this is important and get the resources to expand the studies in other areas, especially Siberia," she said.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08052017/arctic-permafrost-thawing-alaska-temperatures-co2-emissions

Yeah, “just a cycle” eh ’Erbert?

Jovial Monk wrote on May 14^th, 2017 at 9:22am:

Soaring temperatures in the Arctic have triggered a huge seasonal surge in carbon dioxide emissions from thawing permafrost and may be tipping the region toward becoming a net source of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, a new study shows.

Oh, I thought the scare campaign was methane.


Jovial Monk wrote on May 14^th, 2017 at 9:22am:

Year-round measurements of CO2 emissions from permafrost have been sparse up to now, and some widely cited studies suggested that rising emissions from thawing permafrost were offset by increased uptake from Arctic forests. But according to the new research, those calculations need to be revised.

So we have little knowledge, long term


Jovial Monk wrote on May 14^th, 2017 at 9:22am:

A recent report from the Arctic Council found that near-surface permafrost has warmed by more than 0.5 degrees Celsius in the last 10 years,

Was it still below freezing?


Jovial Monk wrote on May 14^th, 2017 at 9:22am:

A study published in April that looked at the impact rising temperatures would have on the permafrost and found that as much as 2.5 million square miles of it could thaw if global temperatures reached 2 degree Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures.

It must be worse than we thought. What happens id it stops at 1 degree Celsius?


Jovial Monk wrote on May 14^th, 2017 at 9:22am:

"The important thing in this paper is, it shows where the models fail. They don't capture these cold-season emissions very well," said Donatella Zona of San Diego State University in California, who was not involved in the new research.

Oh well back to sleep then. ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on May 14^th, 2017 at 9:22am:

Yeah, “just a cycle” eh ’Erbert?

Can you show it has never happened before?

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/dilbert-climate-science.png

For the full url

http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-05-14

Thawing of the Arctic tundra releasing CO₂ into the atmosphere:

https://thinkprogress.org/alaskas-vicious-cycle-warming-tundra-spews-co2-speeding-up-warming-8cf7aec95fc7

Oh No Think Progress.

from the  paper behind it.

". Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Barrow station indicate that October through December emissions of CO2 from surrounding tundra increased by 73% since 1975, "

How did they determine what was caused by melting permafrost and the Urban Heat Island effect caused by fossil fuel heaters? Peer-reviewed paper at springer

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.971/pdf

Dated 2003. Do you think they might be using solar heaters now?

Quote:

It was designed as an impregnable deep-freeze to protect the world’s most precious seeds from any global disaster and ensure humanity’s food supply forever. But the Global Seed Vault, buried in a mountain deep inside the Arctic circle, has been breached after global warming produced extraordinary temperatures over the winter, sending meltwater gushing into the entrance tunnel. The vault is on the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen and contains almost a million packets of seeds, each a variety of an important food crop. When it was opened in 2008, the deep permafrost through which the vault was sunk was expected to provide “failsafe” protection against “the challenge of natural or man-made disasters”. But soaring temperatures in the Arctic at the end of the world’s hottest ever recorded year led to melting and heavy rain, when light snow should have been falling. “It was not in our plans to think that the permafrost would not be there and that it would experience extreme weather like that,” said Hege Njaa Aschim, from the Norwegian government, which owns the vault.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/19/arctic-stronghold-of-worlds-seeds-flooded-after-permafrost-melts

Yes. More alarmist crap from the Garudian. ;D ;D ;


Jovial Monk wrote on May 20^th, 2017 at 2:33pm:

at the end of the world’s hottest ever recorded year l

You mean the world's average temperature; first calculated in 1986. Not from readings, because Sea Surface Temperatures were not well sampled.

Sea Surface temperatures were taken from ships, which of course sailed defined routes. Therefore vast areas of the ocean were not sampled at all, and others rarely.

But the alarmists don't want to admit that.  According to them everything is hunky-dory.

They don't want to admit climate changes. It should be static at some "goldilocks temperature". Don't ask then what that is; they don't know.

Lees: blah blah blah oh Mummy, don’t let global temperatures increase, I am frightened.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 20^th, 2017 at 4:43pm:

Lees: blah blah blah oh Mummy, don’t let global temperatures increase, I am frightened.

I see you still haven't got over your fear. It's all right possum. ;)

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/files/2017/05/LOTI_201704_robin_sf200.png


Quote:

NASA has come out with its monthly analysis of global temperatures, and the results are notable, if not terribly surprising: Last month was the second warmest April in 137 years of modern record-keeping. Last month beat out April of 2010 by just a small amount to achieve that distinction, according to the analysis by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. It was second only to April 2016, which shattered the record for warmest year, thanks in part to a boost from El Niño. Temperatures have moderated just a bit from the astonishing highs of 2016, as you can see in the following graph charting how the global average surface temperature has varied from that of the pre- and early-industrial time of 1880 to 1920:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/files/2017/05/globalT_1880-1920base_pdf.jpg


Quote:

ImaGeo « Why you should take hyperventilating headlines about CO2 with a grain of salt — but still be quite concerned Polar eye candy: check out this spectacular aerial photo of a Greenlandic fjord from NASA’s Operation IceBridge » The heat goes on: This past April was second warmest in records dating back to 1880 — as were February and March By Tom Yulsman | May 17, 2017 1:41 pm 19 But with the monster El Niño of 2015/2016 far back in the rear-view mirror, temperatures in 2017 are running somewhat lower than last year A map of temperature anomalies in April 2017 shows that central and northeast Asia, as well as Alaska, were much warmer than the 1951-1980 base period. (Source: NASA GISS) NASA has come out with its monthly analysis of global temperatures, and the results are notable, if not terribly surprising: Last month was the second warmest April in 137 years of modern record-keeping. Last month beat out April of 2010 by just a small amount to achieve that distinction, according to the analysis by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. It was second only to April 2016, which shattered the record for warmest year, thanks in part to a boost from El Niño. Temperatures have moderated just a bit from the astonishing highs of 2016, as you can see in the following graph charting how the global average surface temperature has varied from that of the pre- and early-industrial time of 1880 to 1920: This graph shows how global temperatures have changed from pre- and early-industrial times. (Source: NASA GISS) Source: NASA GISS The graph, which takes us through April, shows the 2016 peak and subsequent modest fall-off so far this year. Also noteworthy is the pattern. There are obvious short-term variations, including some periods of slower warming. But overall, since 1970 the globe has experienced an unambiguous long-term warming trend. Although we’re clearly off last year’s peak, the globe continues to be plenty warm. January was the third-warmest such month on record. Since then, February and March, like last month, were second warmest respectively. . . . The most intense warmth anomalies during April were in the high north, as well as central Asia. Alaska was particularly warm last month (following a relatively cool March), as were Russia’s Arctic reaches. Overall, the Arctic continues to warm at twice the average rate of the rest of the globe. In fact, during 2016, land areas of the Arctic experienced the highest average temperature in the observational record, with a 6.3 degree Fahrenheit increase since 1900, according to the NOAA-sponsored Arctic Report Card. “Rarely have we seen the Arctic show a clearer, stronger or more pronounced signal of persistent warming and its cascading effects on the environment,” said Jeremy Mathis, director of NOAA’s Arctic Research Program, quoted in a NOAA news release.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2017/05/17/april-was-second-warmest-on-record/#.WSDwVBOGPdT

Wow. Look at all that warming since 1951 - 1981. I wonder how they got the data for the Arctic and Antarctic back then? No satellites, sparsely populated, few records.

How much homogenisation? What grid size for the data?

Look how much Australia has warmed in that period.  ;)

Quote:

Nitrous Oxide Poses Fresh Threat to the Arctic As permafrost thaws, emissions of this potent greenhouse gas increase The thawing of the Arctic permafrost is releasing a potent greenhouse gas into the atmosphere that has rarely been considered as a threat despite its tremendous potential to drive global warming. Nitrous oxide, or N2O, is more of a threat to the Arctic and global warming than previously believed, according to a study published yesterday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Currently, it's not usually considered when researchers create models to predict the future warming of the region, said Carolina Voigt, a researcher at the University of Eastern Finland and a lead author of the study. "It is roughly 300 times more powerful in warming the climate than CO2 [carbon dioxide] on a 100-year time horizon, so it is a strong greenhouse gas, and even small amounts emitted can add to the total greenhouse gas budget of the area," she said.

So N2O is worse than methane in terms of AGW, methane is like 35 times more powerful than CO2 but not as long lasting.


Quote:

Scientists are still studying some of the natural sources of carbon dioxide. The Arctic's permafrost, which is steadily thawing as the region keeps getting warmer, is also releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, creating a feedback loop of transformation that drives further warming. Currently, the world's largest source of terrestrial nitrous oxide is the tropical forest. However, the study found that emissions of nitrous oxide from a typical Arctic landscape, permafrost peatlands with little vegetation cover, could equal those from the tropics. About a quarter of the Arctic is permafrost peatlands, meaning the area has tremendous potential to be a major source of nitrous oxide release, researchers found. Researchers have also begun to explore sources of methane, a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and how that drives climate change. But little research has been conducted on nitrous oxide as a source of warming, Voigt said. The study shows more research is needed to understand what is happening to the Arctic, she said.

We certainly would not want huge releases of N2O and CH4!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nitrous-oxide-poses-fresh-threat-to-the-arctic/

Jovial Monk wrote on May 31^st, 2017 at 4:52pm:

methane is like 35 times more powerful than CO2 but not as long lasting.

Back to 35 from 100, or  80 but still above 20.

But then it is measured in ppb; so its effect is really, really small.

lee wrote on May 31^st, 2017 at 6:18pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on May 31st, 2017 at 4:52pm: methane is like 35 times more powerful than CO2 but not as long lasting. Back to 35 from 100, or  80 but still above 20. But then it is measured in ppb; so its effect is really, really small.

Methane is basically exactly counteracted by the fact it is measured in ppb, yes! It all breaks down to CO2 anyway so the whole methane argument is a red herring: presuming it's rate of release is constant of course  :D :D :D :D :D
::)

But we all know this so it's more wasted internet address space: we've all done the circle party a million times over this exact issue!

Jovial Monk wrote on May 21^st, 2017 at 11:38am:

from the astonishing highs of 2016,

Ooh Astonishing. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on May 21^st, 2017 at 11:38am:

In fact, during 2016, land areas of the Arctic experienced the highest average temperature in the observational record, with a 6.3 degree Fahrenheit increase since 1900, according to the NOAA-sponsored Arctic Report Card.

So tell me how many observational records were available in 1900?

On land? Quite a few I suppose.

lee wrote on May 31^st, 2017 at 6:42pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on May 21st, 2017 at 11:38am: from the astonishing highs of 2016, Ooh Astonishing. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wants to talk about colourful language: from the crowd who voted for copper internet no less  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on May 31^st, 2017 at 7:15pm:

On land? Quite a few I suppose.

oh dear.

lee wrote on May 31^st, 2017 at 7:40pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on May 31st, 2017 at 7:15pm: On land? Quite a few I suppose. oh dear.

the semantic circle game is baaaaaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaccccccckkkkkkkkkkkkkk  ::)

Well let's see.

"The development of Russian Arctic stations carrying out meteorological observations began around 1923 (Taracouzio 1938). "

http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndHistory%201900-1949.htm#1923:%20Establishment%20of%20early%20meteorological%20stations%20in%20the%20Soviet%20Arctic

Well that certainly cuts out a large part of the Arctic.

"Fig.1. Location of current manual weather stations in the Norwegian Arctic. Bjørnøya: elevation 16m a.s.l., start of measurements1920. Hopen: 6 m a.s.l., 1944. Hornsund (Polish): 10 m a.s.l., 1978. Sveagruva 9 m a.s.l., 1978.
Barentsburg (Russian): 70 m a.s.l., 1933. Svalbard Airport:
28 m a.s.l., 1975. Ny-Ålesund: 8 m a.s.l., 1974. Jan Mayen: 10 m a.s.l., 1921."

"Past and future climate variations in the Norwegian Arctic:
overview and novel analyses
Eirik J. Førland & Inger Hanssen-Bauer"

"Substantial variations in temperature and precipitation have been observed since the first permanent weather station was established in the Svalbard region in 1911."

" The annual temperature has increased in Svalbard and Jan Mayen during the latest decades, but the present level is still lower than in the 1930s"

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-8369.2003.tb00102.x/full

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/amete/2011/893790/

Have you got anything back to 1900?

I found a pretty graph too..

http://www.climate4you.com/images/GlobalTemp%20HadCRUT3%20since1850%20MonthlyTempChange%20With61monthRunningAverage%20C4Y.gif

and another...

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Vooro_4.gif

oh and the BIGGER picture...

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/clip_image0061.jpg

Sea level rise gets an uptick:

https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/879492932352528384/1PACZ1Px?format=jpg


Quote:

The rate of global sea level rise has increased by 50 per cent in a little over two decades, a study from Australian and international researchers has found. The study, published by Nature Climate Change, used refined satellite estimates to show global sea level rise has increased from 2.2 millimetres each year in 1993, to 3.3 millimetres each year in 2014.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/rate-of-global-sea-level-rise-jumps-50-per-cent-in-two-decades-20170626-gwyu52.html


Quote:

It was launched in an effort to understand why an accelerated rate of sea-level rise, between 1993 and 2014, had not been accurately represented in data from altimeters [satellite instruments used to measure height or altitude], despite accelerating contributions from ice sheets. According to researchers from Qingdao National Laboratory for Marine Science and Technology, CSIRO Australia and the Universities of NSW, Tasmania and Arizona, the dramatic increase is thought to be mostly related to the melting of the Greenland ice sheet.

Hence all the ice choking the sea off Newfoundland. And Dubyne said it was proof of the ridiculous LIA  :D :D :D

https://www.fairfaxstatic.com.au/content/dam/images/g/k/k/m/c/s/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gwyu52.png/1498520582091.jpg

Quote:

The Greenland Ice Sheet contributed 5 per cent of the total sea level rise in 1993, by 2014 this figure increased to about 25 per cent. Photo: New York Times

Quote:

"We don't know exactly why the pace has increased, as ice sheets are dynamic and quite complex," said report co-author Xuebin Zhang, senior scientist of CSIRO oceans and atmosphere. "Based on robust estimates of the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet ... maybe it's from the surface melting and also the discharge of the ice gradually into the ocean," he said. "Both processes cause a shifting of mass from the Greenland ice sheet into the ocean, so as long as you have the mass shifting from land to ocean, you will get this sea level rise effect." The team of researchers compared satellite data between 1993 and 2014 with other environmental changes that contribute to sea level rise, such as thermal expansion, melting of land ice and changes to the amount of water stored on land.

https://www.fairfaxstatic.com.au/content/dam/images/g/w/y/z/y/e/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gwyu52.png/1498520582091.jpg

Very interesting.

Are they using tide gauge data, you know like in Tasmania?

Photos of erosion? Again like you showed in Tasmania?

Satellite data?

Or a tricky bit of legerdemain, and adding tide gauge data to satellite  data?

I guess it is satellite data, it is only from 1993. Can you show tide gauge data that shows the same. It should be easy with those you beaut climate averaging models. ;D ;D ;D

Edit: Kiribati-

http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/1804.png

You would think there would be some sign for Kiribati. But no.

Perhaps you can give us one of these sites that show increased sea level there. Marshall Islands?

Here you go:

Quote:

Accept and close | More info. nature.com homepagePublications A-Z index Browse by subject LoginRegisterCart Nature Climate Change Search GoAdvanced search Menu home advance online publication abstract ARTICLE PREVIEW view full access options NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | LETTER Print Share/bookmark The increasing rate of global mean sea-level rise during 1993–2014 Xianyao Chen,      Xuebin Zhang,      John A. Church,      Christopher S. Watson,      Matt A. King,      Didier Monselesan,      Benoit Legresy      & Christopher Harig AffiliationsContributionsCorresponding authors Nature Climate Change (2017) doi:10.1038/nclimate3325 Received 19 October 2016 Accepted 22 May 2017 Published online 26 June 2017 Article tools Citation Rights & permissions Article metrics Global mean sea level (GMSL) has been rising at a faster rate during the satellite altimetry period (1993–2014) than previous decades, and is expected to accelerate further over the coming century1. However, the accelerations observed over century and longer periods2 have not been clearly detected in altimeter data spanning the past two decades3, 4, 5. Here we show that the rise, from the sum of all observed contributions to GMSL, increases from 2.2 ± 0.3 mm yr−1 in 1993 to 3.3 ± 0.3 mm yr−1 in 2014. This is in approximate agreement with observed increase in GMSL rise, 2.4 ± 0.2 mm yr−1 (1993) to 2.9 ± 0.3 mm yr−1 (2014), from satellite observations that have been adjusted for small systematic drift, particularly affecting the first decade of satellite observations6. The mass contributions to GMSL increase from about 50% in 1993 to 70% in 2014 with the largest, and statistically significant, increase coming from the contribution from the Greenland ice sheet, which is less than 5% of the GMSL rate during 1993 but more than 25% during 2014. The suggested acceleration and improved closure of the sea-level budget highlights the importance and urgency of mitigating climate change and formulating coastal adaption plans to mitigate the impacts of ongoing sea-level rise.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3325.html

Long article on the science of ice sheets and their melting:

http://environment.harvard.edu/news/general/answers-ice

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 27^th, 2017 at 11:20pm:

Here you go:

As I suspected satellite not tide gauge.

from Jason -2

"Measure the surface topography of the world's oceans to within a few centimetres, which is important for accurately describing seasonal and inter-annual climate variations, etc. "

https://www.eumetsat.int/jason/print.htm

A few centimetres? 20-30mm accuracy? Too funny.

So, you didn’t understand the article? Probably didn’t bother reading it, skimmed it just looking for something to sneer at.

LOL
the world (mostly Western democracies)
are being asked to spend Trillions of dollars for almost no appreciable outcome.
The IPCC started this as a wealth redistribution scheme.
That is the true consequence.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 28^th, 2017 at 1:42pm:

So, you didn’t understand the article? Probably didn’t bother reading it, skimmed it just looking for something to sneer at.

So you don't understand accuracy of measurement. Oh dear.

This wouldn't be Lee trying to argue with the person and not argue about the issue would it? Usually that's the debating technique either idiots or people with nothing to back up their opinions use.
Of course, you could prove me wrong and provide some peer reviewed evidence that supports any of the "wisdom" that you post here, but we all know that's never going to happen ;D

Pho Huc wrote on Jun 30^th, 2017 at 12:10am:

This wouldn't be Lee trying to argue with the person and not argue about the issue would it? Usually that's the debating technique either idiots or people with nothing to back up their opinions use. Of course, you could prove me wrong and provide some peer reviewed evidence that supports any of the "wisdom" that you post here, but we all know that's never going to happen

You are so funny.


Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 27^th, 2017 at 11:20pm:

However, the accelerations observed over century and longer periods2 have not been clearly detected in altimeter data spanning the past two decades3, 4, 5. Here we show that the rise, from the sum of all observed contributions to GMSL, increases from 2.2 ± 0.3 mm yr−1 in 1993 to 3.3 ± 0.3 mm yr−1 in 2014

lee wrote on Jun 28^th, 2017 at 11:54am:

from Jason -2 "Measure the surface topography of the world's oceans to within a few centimetres, which is important for accurately describing seasonal and inter-annual climate variations, etc. " https://www.eumetsat.int/jason/print.htm A few centimetres? 20-30mm accuracy? Too funny.

Now you do understand that an accuracy of centimetres cannot give readings accurate to 0.3mm.

Or if you have a different view please give it, with citation. ;)


Pho Huc wrote on Jun 30^th, 2017 at 12:10am:

you could prove me wrong and provide some peer reviewed evidence that supports any of the "wisdom" that you post here,

Being able to read would be a good start.

BTW - What was the outcome of your review of AR5. Chapter9 Table 9.5. ;)

lee wrote on Jun 30^th, 2017 at 10:58pm:

BTW - What was the outcome of your review of AR5. Chapter9 Table 9.5. ;)

Given I think the AR5 is an unwieldy piece of politico-science I prefer to base my opinions on peer reviewed studies. But i'm funny like that. And again,your cherry picking. Everything you base your arguments on are just fragments of science. distorted for your own purpose. its gross.

Pho Huc wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2017 at 4:00am:

lee wrote on Jun 30th, 2017 at 10:58pm: BTW - What was the outcome of your review of AR5. Chapter9 Table 9.5. ;) Given I think the AR5 is an unwieldy piece of politico-science I prefer to base my opinions on peer reviewed studies.

Strange. The IPCC claim they use peer-reviewed studies. Are you saying they cherry-pick? ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2017 at 6:46pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Jul 2nd, 2017 at 4:00am: lee wrote on Jun 30th, 2017 at 10:58pm: BTW - What was the outcome of your review of AR5. Chapter9 Table 9.5. ;) Given I think the AR5 is an unwieldy piece of politico-science I prefer to base my opinions on peer reviewed studies. Strange. The IPCC claim they use peer-reviewed studies. Are you saying they cherry-pick? ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yep. the IPCC report is a mess. Im always happy to talk about the studies the IPCC actually used, but the IPCC is a political report, not a peer review document. I don't know why you obsess over it honestly. It's such a time wasting piece of garbage, time that could be better spent reading actual research.

It is a cherry orchard for Lees.

Pho Huc wrote on Jul 4^th, 2017 at 5:34am:

the IPCC report is a mess. Im always happy to talk about the studies the IPCC actually used,

You don't believe the IPCC got their data on the climate models in Table 9.5 from the modellers?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Pho Huc wrote on Jul 4^th, 2017 at 5:34am:

lee wrote on Jul 2nd, 2017 at 6:46pm: Pho Huc wrote on Jul 2nd, 2017 at 4:00am: lee wrote on Jun 30th, 2017 at 10:58pm: BTW - What was the outcome of your review of AR5. Chapter9 Table 9.5. ;) Given I think the AR5 is an unwieldy piece of politico-science I prefer to base my opinions on peer reviewed studies. Strange. The IPCC claim they use peer-reviewed studies. Are you saying they cherry-pick? ;D ;D ;D ;D Yep. the IPCC report is a mess. Im always happy to talk about the studies the IPCC actually used, but the IPCC is a political report, not a peer review document. I don't know why you obsess over it honestly. It's such a time wasting piece of garbage, time that could be better spent reading actual research.

Political documents are actionable by the relevant minister.

Necessarily cautious in nature as economies need stability or you get anarchy but it's well known the vested interests of included countries make it even more so.

You could say it's useless but it's very existence portends change for us all. The relationship has been established... The rest is just a numbers game !

lee wrote on Jul 4^th, 2017 at 11:33am:

Pho Huc wrote on Jul 4th, 2017 at 5:34am: the IPCC report is a mess. Im always happy to talk about the studies the IPCC actually used, You don't believe the IPCC got their data on the climate models in Table 9.5 from the modellers?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I believe that you would be more comfortable arguing minutia on a complex political report than giving a explanation for why the earth is warming at least ten times faster than any previous period in earth history(at least since it established a biosphere), that doesnt include a large AGW component.
Hence, you choose to argue about reports, while ignoring rising sea temperatures, air temperatures, desertification, ice coverage loss, changing rainfall patterns and changes in ocean currents. you know, all the stuff that matters.

I don't know why you guys bother about what are essentially political documents.
The original treatise and its in writing somewhere mantra has posted it before states that the main reason for the IPCC is simply global wealth redistribution.

Pho Huc wrote on Jul 4^th, 2017 at 10:35pm:

I believe that you would be more comfortable arguing minutia on a complex political report than giving a explanation for why the earth is warming at least ten times faster than any previous period in earth history(at least since it established a biosphere), that doesnt include a large AGW component.

Well first that would have to be established. Did you read Marcott's Explanation?

"Global Temperature Reconstruction: We combined published proxy temperature records from across the globe to develop regional and global temperature reconstructions spanning the past ~11,300 years with a resolution >300 yr; previous reconstructions of global and hemispheric temperatures primarily spanned the last one to two thousand years."

you lose a lot of data in 300 years.. At present you are talking 130 years.  Longer timespans lose more data.

"Holocene Temperature Distribution: Based on comparison of the instrumental record of global temperature change with the distribution of Holocene global average temperatures from our paleo-reconstruction, we find that the decade 2000-2009 has probably not exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene, but is warmer than ~75% of all temperatures during the Holocene. In contrast, the decade 1900-1909 was cooler than~95% of the Holocene. Therefore, we conclude that global temperature has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene in the past century. Further, we compare the Holocene paleotemperature distribution with published temperature projections for 2100 CE, and find that these projections exceed the range of Holocene global average temperatures under all plausible emissions scenarios. "

The biosphere existed before humans.

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

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

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


Pho Huc wrote on Jul 4^th, 2017 at 10:35pm:

Hence, you choose to argue about reports, while ignoring rising sea temperatures

Oh dear, back to sea surface temperatures. Taken as given back to 1880. Ships buckets were used to take the temperature. Then they were taken in ships engine rooms, at various depths, depending on whether the ship was laden or not. And the ship's engine rooms warm the water. See Hausfather's reconstruction.

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

The pristine buoy data put a "cooling bias" on the perceived warm engine room data.


Pho Huc wrote on Jul 4^th, 2017 at 10:35pm:

desertification,

Please look at the CSIRO.


https://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2


Pho Huc wrote on Jul 4^th, 2017 at 10:35pm:

changing rainfall patterns and changes in ocean currents. you know, all the stuff that matters.

Climate changes. Now link it to AGW.

Grendel wrote on Jul 5^th, 2017 at 8:42am:

I don't know why you guys bother about what are essentially political documents. The original treatise and its in writing somewhere mantra has posted it before states that the main reason for the IPCC is simply global wealth redistribution.

You should back it up bros  :D

AGW is hitting part of Spain, causing draught and fast–rising temperatures"

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/07/02/534746211/drought-threatens-crops-wildlife-along-spains-guadalquivir-river-delta?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=environment


Quote:

Drought Threatens Crops, Wildlife Along Spain's Guadalquivir River Delta Wild horses and cattle graze on the marshy banks of southern Spain's mighty Guadalquivir River. From the mouth of this river, Christopher Columbus set off for the New World. But since then, the river has gotten more salty. As fresh water is extracted for agriculture, drought — made more frequent by climate change — means less rainfall replaces it. Tides send salt water farther upriver.

800 gallons per second are pumped out the river and sent to irrigated fields,mainly rice paddies. The water is tested hourly and pumping stops if salt concentrations get too high. So the rice plants face death from too much salt in the water or from not enough water. This gets worse as this area of Spain gets hotter and drier. Less fresh water from rain coming down the river means seawater pushing further into the river every flood tide.


Quote:

That's happened at least three times in the past two decades. Whole harvests have been lost, when there isn't enough fresh water to irrigate.

That isn’t all.


Quote:

But rice is not the biggest offender to the environment here, because rice farmers draw water from the river, extractions from which are regulated. The bigger problem is berries. The Guadalquivir region supplies about a third of all of Europe's strawberries — and strawberry farmers drill wells into the aquifer. "The problem with the aquifer is that it's something you don't see, because it's an underground pool," says Felipe Fuentelsaz, who tests groundwater levels for the local branch of the World Wildlife Fund. Eighty percent of the region's aquifer has dried up because of intensive agriculture and the drilling of illegal wells, the WWF says. Some farmers rent drilling rigs and haul them out into secluded forests in the middle of the night, or on holiday weekends, to drill wells for which they don't have permits. The WWF estimates there are at least 10,000 illegal wells in the entire region, and it contends that local officials aren't doing enough to stop them.

So aquifers are being drained to provide water to grow strawberries. That can go on only so long.

But that’s not all!


Quote:

This isn't only about farmers stealing water. It's about farmers stealing water that won't be replenished as quickly by rainfall, because of increasing drought. Climate change is already driving up local temperatures, experts say. "At the moment, they are increasing 0.07 degrees [Celsius] every year. So it's something that's really high," the WWF's Fuentelsaz says. "The normal seasons have been moved. This is really a complete change for biodiversity — for flora, for fauna, for everything."

Temperatures increasing by .7°C every decade.

This is similar but more extreme  to what is happening to Southern Australia.

Things can be done in Guadalquivir part of Spain: barriers to prevent ingress of sea water, stricter enforcement of rules re drilling of wells and pumping water from the aquifers.

That .7°C increase every decade and ever–worsening droughts will be harder to live with.

Pacific islands 'growing not shrinking' due to climate change

Low-lying Pacific islands regarded as "poster child" examples of the threat from rising sea levels are expanding not sinking, a new study has revealed.

Low-lying Pacific islands regarded as "poster child" examples of the threat from rising sea levels are expanding not sinking, a new study has revealed.

Scientists have been surprised by the findings, which show that some islands have grown by almost one-third over the past 60 years.

Among the island chains to have increased in land area are Tuvalu and neighbouring Kiribati, both of which attracted attention at last year's Copenhagen climate summit …

Professor Paul Kench, of Auckland University, who co-authored the study with Dr Arthur Webb, a Fiji-based expert on coastal processes, said the study challenged the view that the islands were sinking as a result of global warming.

"Eighty per cent of the islands we've looked at have either remained about the same or, in fact, got larger.

"Some have got dramatically larger," he said.

"We've now got evidence the physical foundations of these islands will still be there in 100 years," he told New Scientist magazine.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/tuvalu/7799503/Pacific-islands-growing-not-shrinking-due-to-climate-change.html

Whatever happens, a 'new study' will always reveal that everything - shrinking growing - to be due to AGW. This is the best scientific theory - whatever happens proves AGW. YAY!!!!!!

But sadly, no more bogus climate refugees, then. :'( :'( :'(

From the article linked above:


Quote:

[quote]But the two scientists warn that people living on the islands still face serious challenges from climate change, particularly if the pace of sea level rises were to overtake that of sediment build-up. The fresh groundwater that sustains villagers and their crops could be destroyed. "The land may be there but will they still be able to support human habitation?" he said. Naomi Thirobaux, a student from Kiribati who has studied the islands for a PhD, said no one should be lulled into thinking erosion and inundation were not taking their toll on the islands. "In a populated place, people can't move back or inland because there's hardly any place to move into, so that's quite dramatic," she said.

[/quote]

We have seen that sea level rise from Greenland melting/calving has recently accelerated. Antarctica too is starting to add to sea level rise.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 6^th, 2017 at 4:59am:

AGW is hitting part of Spain, causing draught and fast–rising temperatures"

Yes. They never had drought in the old days. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

People are so scared on Kiribati the population has increased by about 20% since 2005.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 6^th, 2017 at 4:59am:

AGW is hitting part of Spain, causing draught and fast–rising temperatures" http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/07/02/534746211/drought-threatens-crops-wildlife-along-spains-guadalquivir-river-delta?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=environment Quote: Drought Threatens Crops, Wildlife Along Spain's Guadalquivir River Delta Wild horses and cattle graze on the marshy banks of southern Spain's mighty Guadalquivir River. From the mouth of this river, Christopher Columbus set off for the New World. But since then, the river has gotten more salty. As fresh water is extracted for agriculture, drought — made more frequent by climate change — means less rainfall replaces it. Tides send salt water farther upriver. 800 gallons per second are pumped out the river and sent to irrigated fields,mainly rice paddies. The water is tested hourly and pumping stops if salt concentrations get too high. So the rice plants face death from too much salt in the water or from not enough water. This gets worse as this area of Spain gets hotter and drier. Less fresh water from rain coming down the river means seawater pushing further into the river every flood tide. [quote]That's happened at least three times in the past two decades. Whole harvests have been lost, when there isn't enough fresh water to irrigate.

That isn’t all.


Quote:

But rice is not the biggest offender to the environment here, because rice farmers draw water from the river, extractions from which are regulated. The bigger problem is berries. The Guadalquivir region supplies about a third of all of Europe's strawberries — and strawberry farmers drill wells into the aquifer. "The problem with the aquifer is that it's something you don't see, because it's an underground pool," says Felipe Fuentelsaz, who tests groundwater levels for the local branch of the World Wildlife Fund. Eighty percent of the region's aquifer has dried up because of intensive agriculture and the drilling of illegal wells, the WWF says. Some farmers rent drilling rigs and haul them out into secluded forests in the middle of the night, or on holiday weekends, to drill wells for which they don't have permits. The WWF estimates there are at least 10,000 illegal wells in the entire region, and it contends that local officials aren't doing enough to stop them.

So aquifers are being drained to provide water to grow strawberries. That can go on only so long.

But that’s not all!


Quote:

This isn't only about farmers stealing water. It's about farmers stealing water that won't be replenished as quickly by rainfall, because of increasing drought. Climate change is already driving up local temperatures, experts say. "At the moment, they are increasing 0.07 degrees [Celsius] every year. So it's something that's really high," the WWF's Fuentelsaz says. "The normal seasons have been moved. This is really a complete change for biodiversity — for flora, for fauna, for everything."

Temperatures increasing by .7°C every decade.

This is similar but more extreme  to what is happening to Southern Australia.

Things can be done in Guadalquivir part of Spain: barriers to prevent ingress of sea water, stricter enforcement of rules re drilling of wells and pumping water from the aquifers.

That .7°C increase every decade and ever–worsening droughts will be harder to live with.[/quote]
So conservatively are we saying that Spain will see a 3.5 degree temperature change in the next 100 years?


  :o

7°C.

And more and more frequent droughts.

And, not mentioned in the article, rising sea levels pushing salt water further and further inland. Big storms should see flooding over larger and larger areas, destroying soils, aquifers etc.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 6^th, 2017 at 11:59am:

7°C. And more and more frequent droughts. And, not mentioned in the article, rising sea levels pushing salt water further and further inland. Big storms should see flooding over larger and larger areas, destroying soils, aquifers etc.

I would expect a sgnificant error value, to such a number... Because if a 7 degree temperature rise for Spain is assured over the next 100 years I would expect global panic would already be upon us!

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 6^th, 2017 at 11:59am:

7°C. And more and more frequent droughts. And, not mentioned in the article, rising sea levels pushing salt water further and further inland. Big storms should see flooding over larger and larger areas, destroying soils, aquifers etc.

I would expect a significant error value to such a number... Because if a 7 degree temperature rise for Spain is assured over the next 100 years I would expect global panic to already be upon us!

Also,... Have you seen this: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2017/07/Figure5x.png

Christ, DRAH, can you shrink that image?

It says .7°C increase a year. I just multiplied by 10 and 100, doubt it will work like that DRAH  ;D

TheFunPolice wrote on Jul 5^th, 2017 at 4:40pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 5th, 2017 at 8:42am: I don't know why you guys bother about what are essentially political documents. The original treatise and its in writing somewhere mantra has posted it before states that the main reason for the IPCC is simply global wealth redistribution. You should back it up bros  :D

Ask mantra...
i'm too busy to look right now.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 6^th, 2017 at 11:59am:

7°C.

So two doublings of CO2. 1120ppm.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

That would mean no mitigation strategies like nuclear.

That was a bit of a joke, really. Trust you not to get that  ;)

Nice to see how up to date you are with the CO2/temperature relationship tho.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 6^th, 2017 at 3:35pm:

That was a bit of a joke, really.

Or just a dumbarse comment from Bluff, Bluster and Bullshit. ;)

No, it was my comment, not yours  ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 6^th, 2017 at 1:12pm:

Christ, DRAH, can you shrink that image? It says .7°C increase a year. I just multiplied by 10 and 100, doubt it will work like that DRAH  ;D

- image: no can do,... I'm on the iPad and it's all a guessing game!

- I thought you said 0.7 per decade,... or 0.07 per year? I simply halved it because you didn't give me an error value and presented it as a conservative estimate of which I still questioned!

The article said 0.7°C increase every year.

When you work out figures for a decade (7°C) etc it doesn’t seem realistic.

Quote:

WASHINGTON — When it splits off, the Delaware-sized chunk of ice now barely clinging to one of Antarctica’s largest ice shelves will become one of the most massive icebergs in recorded history, scientists say. For over two years, the U.K.-based Project MIDAS has been monitoring a large, fast-moving rift in the Larsen C ice shelf, located on the northern end of the Antarctic Peninsula. On Wednesday, researchers with the European Space Agency released a detailed analysis of the soon-to-be iceberg. Data collected from ESA’s CryoSat satellite, which measures and monitors polar ice in Greenland and Antarctica, shows the iceberg will likely have an area of more than 2,500 square miles — larger than the island of Bali in Indonesia. It’s expected to be about 620 feet thick and contain about 277 cubic miles of ice, according to ESA. Below the surface, the iceberg could reach a depth of nearly 700 feet. “This is a single piece which is remarkable I guess because it’s of somewhat biblical proportions,” Mark Drinkwater, head of the mission science division at ESA’s European Space Research and Technology Centre, told Mashable. In a post to Twitter, Drinkwater said the hype around the impending separation has given rise to the term “bergxit.”  Follow Mark Drinkwater @kryosat "Bergxit"- a new term capturing the hype surrounding the inevitable separation of the #LarsenC iceberg from #Antarctica ! 🕚 10:02 PM - 5 Jul 2017   26 26 Retweets   36 36 likes Twitter Ads info and privacy Researchers warn the iceberg will likely be so large that it could pose a risk to maritime traffic. “Whole or in pieces, ocean currents could drag it north, even as far as the Falkland Islands,” located east of South America’s southern peninsula, Anna Hogg of the University of Leeds said in a statement. “If so it could pose a hazard for ships in Drake Passage” ― a stretch of ocean between South America’s Cape Horn and Antarctica. At 21,000 square miles, Larsen C is the largest ice shelf in the region. In recent years, however, what started as a small fracture has moved rapidly through the frozen structure, widening to more than 1,000 feet. During the month of December, the rift grew by more than 10 miles, followed by another 6 miles in the first few weeks of January. Between May 25 and May 31, it grew by an astounding 11 miles — over 1.5 miles per day. Today, the fissure is over 120 miles long, and only about three miles from reaching the ocean, according to ESA’s new analysis. “The iceberg remains attached to the ice shelf, but its outer end is moving at the highest speed ever recorded on this ice shelf,” researchers with Project MIDAS wrote in a blog post last week. “We still can’t tell when calving will occur — it could be hours, days or weeks — but this is a notable departure from previous observations.” Project MIDAS estimates the calving event will remove more than 10 percent of the Larsen C shelf, leaving the ice at “its most retreated position ever recorded.” Along with fundamentally changing the Antarctic Peninsula, scientists worry a break-off could destabilize the entire shelf, meaning Larsen C could be headed for a similar fate as nearby Larsen A and Larsen B, which collapsed and disintegrated in 1995 and 2002, respectively.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/larsen-c-ice-shelf-iceberg_us_595d1c68e4b02734df359334

This happened with Greenland too, the ice shelves around it disappeared and the warmer waters that melted them then started working on the glaciers at sea level, causing more ice to be lost from those glaciers. Greenland is losing 200Gtons of ice a year, if Antarctica starts losing ice like that sea level rise will accelerate again.

The bit of the shelf, once fully free won’t change sea level, but the ice calved from sea level Antarctic glaciers will.

Ice is increasing in Greenland.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuw9gMSIOLs


Greenland Coldest Temperature Ever Recorded in Northern Hemisphere in July (409)


Published on Jul 6, 2017

Incredibly the coldest temperature ever recorded in the Northern Hemisphere was July 05, 2017 at Summit Station on GREENLAND. Additionally the mass surface ice budget is blowing away all records from the 1981-2010 averages. This was not predicted in the IPCC climate models, but all we still get are stories of microbes being unearthed in melting permafrost that will wipe out humanity. If this were true then the Nomoli figures from Sierra Leone could never have been created 17,000 years ago as it was warmer then and there would have been more microbes released from the permafrost.

Yes Boobhead?

Greenland nevertheless lost a huge amount of ice this NH summer. What Liar Dubyne is talking about is just the surface ice loss/gain.

I have been looking at the surface ice melt, certainly not a usual pattern. This should tell us much more about what is happening on the top of the Greenland ice sheet.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 8^th, 2017 at 8:46am:

Yes Bobby? Greenland nevertheless lost a huge amount of ice this NH summer. What Liar Dubyne is talking about is just the surface ice loss/gain. I have been looking at the surface ice melt, certainly not a usual pattern. This should tell us much more about what is happening on the top of the Greenland ice sheet.

Ignoreth the evidence presented unto thee with caution.

Do you know what it is evidence of?

Despite the surface mass gain Greenland continued losing ice on a massive scale.

Antarctica is about to start doing the same.

Dubyne had his arse handed to him on a plate about his Arctic “cold” rubbish, didn’t he?

I have read about algae and stuff living on the surface of melting ice. I never read any crap about it wiping out all life on earth. Dubyne is a confirmed liar.

BTW Boobhead—how old is the Summit weather station?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 8^th, 2017 at 10:04am:

Despite the surface mass gain Greenland continued losing ice on a massive scale.

Not according to your graph on the other page. Ice melt is way below normal.

Just another way that JM shows he has comprehension issues.

Bluff, Bluster and Bullshit.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 8^th, 2017 at 10:12am:

BTW Boobhead—how old is the Summit weather station?

Do you mean in its current location?

From your ref -

"Summit Station (also known as Summit Camp) is a high-altitude (10,551 feet) year-round research station in central Greenland and its exact coordinates actually can change since the ice sheet underneath is often on the move. "

But it was established in 1989.

You answer to “Boobhead” do you? summit was actually established in 1988.

I showed there was heat, pretty close to or actually record heat/runs of hot days over nearly all the northern hemisphere to show to Boobhead that it is a funny LIA with really hot summers :)

Not that Boobhead read or tried to understand, of course. He is in thrall to a bullshit artist named Dubyne making obviously bullshit, lying videos.

YOU know AGW is happening but will not let yourself admit it.

I can’t decide whether you or Boobhead are the most pathetic.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 8^th, 2017 at 12:16pm:

I showed there was heat, pretty close to or actually record heat/runs of hot days over nearly all the northern hemisphere

And Summit confirmed that?

It confirmed the heat wasn’t there all the time in every spot in the NH. Just nearly all.

Dear Jovial,
ye doth ignoreth the evidence at thy own peril.

The world is cooling - over 400 videos have proven it.

Those videos are pathetic lies meant to fool pathetic, gullible idiots like yourself.

They are evidence only that people will still buy from snake oil salesmen.

The NH summer is as hot as they get pretty much everywhere. Does not look like a LIA to me or to anyone capable of thinking for themselves.

Quote:

A team of scientists, led by the University of Bristol, has discovered that a marked decrease in summer cloud cover during the last 20 years has significantly accelerated melt from the Greenland ice sheet. The new findings, published in Science Advances, show that less cloud cover and more summer sunshine allows increased solar radiation to reach the surface providing more energy for melting. Using data from earth-observing satellites and high-resolution climate models, the authors found a consistent decrease in summer cloud cover since 1995. The research shows that a one percent reduction in summer cloud cover is equivalent to 27 gigatons of extra ice melt on the Greenland ice sheet -- this is roughly equivalent to the annual domestic water supply of the USA or 180 million times the weight of a blue whale. Since 1995, researchers found that Greenland has lost a total of about 4,000 gigatons of ice, which has become the biggest single contributor to the rise in global sea levels. PhD student, Stefan Hofer, from the University's School of Geographical Sciences and member of the Black and Bloom and GlobalMass projects is the lead author of the study. He said: "The impact of increased sunshine during summer is large, it explains about two-thirds of Greenland's melting signal in recent decades. "Until now we thought that the recent Greenland melt is caused almost exclusively by higher temperatures and the resulting feedbacks. "Our study shows that there is more to the story than the local increase in temperatures and the change in cloud cover isn't just a blip, it's been happening for the last two decades. That was a big surprise." The team also reported that climate change has found a second pathway to increase melt over Greenland, adding to the effect of higher temperatures: Co-author Professor Jonathan Bamber, based at the University of Bristol, and President of the European Geoscience Union (EGU), added: "We are seeing changes in the large-scale circulation patterns, which leads to more frequent sunshine and higher amounts of solar energy reaching the surface of the ice sheet. "These changes in large-scale circulation patterns during summer are especially pronounced over the Arctic and the North Atlantic. "The state shift in atmospheric circulation is unprecedented in the observational record, which goes back as far as 1850. "This highly unusual state of the atmosphere has been linked to record low sea ice cover during summer over the Arctic Ocean. This highlights the coupled nature of the climate system and the consequences of changes in one component on another."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170628144917.htm

I guess the low summit temperature could mean heavy cloud cover? The real story should emerge over the next few days.


Quote:

Since 1995. . .Greenland has lost a total of about 4,000 gigatons of ice

That is a lot of ice lost!

Bobby. wrote on Jul 8^th, 2017 at 3:57pm:

Dear Jovial, ye doth ignoreth the evidence at thy own peril. The world is cooling - over 400 videos have proven it.

shakes head.

Pho Huc wrote on Jul 8^th, 2017 at 7:24pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 8th, 2017 at 3:57pm: Dear Jovial, ye doth ignoreth the evidence at thy own peril. The world is cooling - over 400 videos have proven it. shakes head.

;D ;D ;D

But I know what you mean.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 8^th, 2017 at 6:35pm:

I guess the low summit temperature could mean heavy cloud cover?

Well higher temperatures should lead to higher evaporation, which should increase cloud cover. ;)

What are you babbling on about now?

Quote:

The water is everywhere. For the second time in a month, Hawaii’s coastlines have been swamped by epic tides. The phenomenon, known as a king tide, is actually a convergence of a few different factors: high lunar tides, rising sea levels associated with last year’s strong El Niño and climate change, swirling pockets of ocean eddies, and a robust south swell—that is, big waves rolling onto south-facing shores. King tides happen routinely in the Hawaiian Islands—a few times a year, usually—but this year’s batch have been particularly extreme. Data from federal tide stations around Hawaii show that water levels have been up to six inches above predicted tidal heights since early last year. In April, levels peaked at more than nine inches above predicted tides and broke the record high for any water level around Hawaii since 1905. Scientists say the record is likely to be broken again in 2017. Several Honolulu roadways have been submerged. Beaches have been washed out. Beachfront hotels have canceled shorefront entertainment and readied generators. Property owners living near the coasts were told to move electronics and other valuables up to the second floor of their houses and park their cars elsewhere. People photographed fish swimming down the streets. And all around the islands, small mountains of sand have been deposited in parking lots and other strange places—spots the waves should never reach.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/the-ghost-of-climate-change-future/528471/

lee wrote on Jul 8^th, 2017 at 8:00pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 8th, 2017 at 6:35pm: I guess the low summit temperature could mean heavy cloud cover? Well higher temperatures should lead to higher evaporation, which should increase cloud cover. ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 8^th, 2017 at 8:11pm:

What are you babbling on about now?

You don't understand the "science" of AGW? Oh dear. ;)

What are you babbling about?

Please, let go of the bong.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 8^th, 2017 at 8:17pm:

For the second time in a month, Hawaii’s coastlines have been swamped by epic tides. The phenomenon, known as a king tide, is actually a convergence of a few different factors: high lunar tides, rising sea levels associated with last year’s strong El Niño and climate change, swirling pockets of ocean eddies, and a robust south swell—that is, big waves rolling onto south-facing shores.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/interactive-sea-level-time-series-wizard?dlat=28&dlon=172&fit=s&smooth=b&days=60

Yep. Really scary ;D ;D ;D

With Greenland melt having accelerated and Antarctica about to start losing massive amounts of ice yeah, be a bit concerning, eh?

Now, what were you babbling about?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 8^th, 2017 at 9:37pm:

With Greenland melt having accelerated and Antarctica about to start losing massive amounts of ice yeah, be a bit concerning, eh? Now, what were you babbling about?

Oh dear. The crystal ball again. ;D ;D ;D ;D

What were you babbling about or have you forgotten?

A long detailed paper about satellite drift, how changes to orbit (decay) meant temperatures meant to be measured at 2.00pm got measured at 6.00pm to 8.00pm instead.

As the paper points out, temperature increase since the 1970s is of the order of 0.6°C so the decay of satellite orbits can override that signal.

The world is warming ever–faster.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

And this isn’t the same as previous correction, Loser Lees.

Quote:

But no matter how well-informed you are, you are surely not alarmed enough. Over the past decades, our culture has gone apocalyptic with zombie movies and Mad Max dystopias, perhaps the collective result of displaced climate anxiety, and yet when it comes to contemplating real-world warming dangers, we suffer from an incredible failure of imagination. The reasons for that are many: the timid language of scientific probabilities, which the climatologist James Hansen once called “scientific reticence” in a paper chastising scientists for editing their own observations so conscientiously that they failed to communicate how dire the threat really was; the fact that the country is dominated by a group of technocrats who believe any problem can be solved and an opposing culture that doesn’t even see warming as a problem worth addressing; the way that climate denialism has made scientists even more cautious in offering speculative warnings; the simple speed of change and, also, its slowness, such that we are only seeing effects now of warming from decades past; our uncertainty about uttncertainty, which the climate writer Naomi Oreskes in particular has suggested stops us from preparing as though anything worse than a median outcome were even possible; the way we assume climate change will hit hardest elsewhere, not everywhere; the smallness (two degrees) and largeness (1.8 trillion tons) and abstractness (400 parts per million) of the numbers; the discomfort of considering a problem that is very difficult, if not impossible, to solve; the altogether incomprehensible scale of that problem, which amounts to the prospect of our own annihilation; simple fear. But aversion arising from fear is a form of denial, too.

Look at that last line, fits Loser Lees to a “t” does it not? Aversion, fear, denial.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html

http://overpassesforamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/chicken-little-global-warming.gif

Global warming...  global dimming, global warming, global cooling, climate change...

roach must be sharing the bong with Loser Lees.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 15^th, 2017 at 11:05am:

roach must be sharing the bong with Loser Lees.

I reckon they're all drinking metho personally!

On the street arguing about who purchased the majority of the bottle etc.....

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 15^th, 2017 at 11:05am:

roach must be sharing the bong with Loser Lees.

Wassup monkeyboy?
can't refute a few simple facts? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

What facts? So far I just see you sharing Loser Lees’ bong and posting piss–poor cartoons.

World has had its second warmest March:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/files/2017/04/LOTI_201703_robin_sf200.png
This map shows how temperatures varied from the long-term mean in March 2017. Europe and all of Russia were again much warmer than the 1951-1980 base period. Much of the United States was also relatively warm, but Alaska was cool. (Source: NASA GISS)


So much for an Ice Age, eh Booby?

Link for second warmest March:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/news/20170414/


Quote:

Last month was 1.12 degrees Celsius warmer than the mean March temperature from 1951-1980. The two top March temperature anomalies have occurred during the past two years.

Hmmm top two March temps: 2016 and 2017. I guess we can say there is no pause in warming. Oops.

Here is how March temperatures have changed:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/files/2017/04/cycle_1782.png

You can see just eyeballing the graph that temperatures for March have increased significantly (i.e. any statistical test will show the probability that temperatures have not moved is vanishingly small.)

Temperature anomalies:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/files/2017/04/globalT_1880-1920base_pdf-1024x790.jpg

See the line of best linear fit (the green dots) and see how it continues up through the so–called pause? No pause, sorry.

So, AGW is confirmed, the pause bullshit has been busted.

Just look at that heat in West Antarctica! (that is at the bottom of the map, roach, just so you know where to find it.)

So, roach, scurry around and try and refute these facts! Like to see you try but you won’t.

Anthropogenic Global Warming = A storm in a tea cup.

95% of the greenhouse effect comes from water vapour.

3.7% of the greenhouse effect comes from CO2.

Man's contribution to the CO2 is about 3%.

So you are worried about 3% of 0.0037 = 0.000111

From 0.0037 man contributes 0.000111.

CO2 molecules have a life span of about 5 years in our atmosphere.

Our history shows that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.

All of the CO2 increase can be attributed to the current warming and the release of natural CO2 emissions which dwarf man made emissions.

And your going to let the oligarchy (a hand full of rich men) dictate to the whole world how and when we should use our energy and how much it will cost.

Seriously when the sh!t hits the fan because of the cost and people REALLY look into it, they will think believers in AGW were just plain STUPID IDIOTS.

Wake up FFS........................ :D

Hey Monkeyboy...  there is more truth in this cartoon than in anything you believe.

Grendel wrote on Jul 15^th, 2017 at 10:51am:

http://overpassesforamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/chicken-little-global-warming.gif Global warming...  global dimming, global warming, global cooling, climate change...

You can't refute facts, just admit it.

You are wrong. Simple as that.

You have no idea as to how much CO2 we have put into the atmosphere for one.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 15^th, 2017 at 12:48pm:

You are wrong. Simple as that. You have no idea as to how much CO2 we have put into the atmosphere for one.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Grendel wrote on Jul 15^th, 2017 at 12:48pm:

Hey Monkeyboy...  there is more truth in this cartoon than in anything you believe. Grendel wrote on Jul 15th, 2017 at 10:51am: http://overpassesforamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/chicken-little-global-warming.gif Global warming...  global dimming, global warming, global cooling, climate change... You can't refute facts, just admit it.

You are an idiot, just admit it.

I post facts, you post cartoons  ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 15^th, 2017 at 12:49pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 15th, 2017 at 12:48pm: Hey Monkeyboy...  there is more truth in this cartoon than in anything you believe. Grendel wrote on Jul 15th, 2017 at 10:51am: http://overpassesforamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/chicken-little-global-warming.gif Global warming...  global dimming, global warming, global cooling, climate change... You can't refute facts, just admit it. You are an idiot, just admit it. I post facts, you post cartoons  ;)

You should read them then, you'd learn more. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Grendel wrote on Jul 15^th, 2017 at 12:49pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 15th, 2017 at 12:48pm: You are wrong. Simple as that. You have no idea as to how much CO2 we have put into the atmosphere for one. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You don’t either I suppose.

Currently CO2 is present at 410ppm. Pre Industrial Revolution there was 280ppm.

So the increase, as percent is:

(410-280) x 100/280

That works out to 46%.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 15^th, 2017 at 12:55pm:

That works out to 46%.

But man's emissions are only 4%. Bugger that lazy 96% natural emissions not doing anything. ;D ;D ;D ;D

No, those are our emissions added to the natural carbon cycle.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 15^th, 2017 at 3:41pm:

No, those are our emissions added to the natural carbon cycle.

The 4%? You are so right. Why does that 4% scare you and not the 96% natural emissions?

46% of CO2 is anthropogenic, Loser Lees:

(410–280)*100/280 and all that.

46% and that is causing the globe to heat.

That is shown not just by the temperatures rising but by the spectroscopic evidence.

Oops. AGW is heating the globe.

We could stop it before the CO2 gets much higher.

Pity we have deniers swallowing fossil fuel interests’ propaganda. Truth be told, most people, like Loser Lees, Brainless Boobhead and crud like roach, ’Erbert and Frank don’t WANT to learn what is happening!

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

46% of CO2 is anthropogenic, Loser Lees:

have you got a reference for that?  ;)

:D :D :D :D
I'm sorry but Monk is such a dipstick.
I'm thinking he's started pulling figures out of his proverbial.

You are wrong Monk.

Apologise now.

(410-280)*100/280 = 46%

How many times must the figures be reposted for you?

http://burnanenergyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/atmospheric.gif

http://diggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/ed1.png

Go back to PA roach. You are a waste of space and not wanted here. Go away!

.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 15^th, 2017 at 7:19pm:

(410-280)*100/280 = 46%

Quote:

46% and that is causing the globe to heat.

Sorry that is simply wrong.

The Sun is causing the earth to heat.
No Sun =  Iceball Earth.  With or without CO2.

Now the piddling current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere whether or not it is "man made" or not is of no concern, when in the past the Earth has survived a much greater amount for a great many years.

The Earth is dynamic not static.

How many times must YOU be told.

BUT we are not talking a dead Sun are we, idiot roach?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 15^th, 2017 at 7:26pm:

Go back to PA roach. You are a waste of space and not wanted here. Go away!

Go back to your SEWER Monkeyboy where you can talk to yourself and feel happy.

You need to stop your flaming and trolling of me and others. ::)

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 15^th, 2017 at 7:33pm:

BUT we are not talking a dead Sun are we, idiot roach?

No and neither was I you idiot. :D :D :D :D :D

It was YOU mentioned a dead sun.

YOU could not argue your way out of a wet paper bag, roach, and we all know it.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 15^th, 2017 at 7:36pm:

It was YOU mentioned a dead sun. YOU could not argue your way out of a wet paper bag, roach, and we all know it.

No you idiot.
You said CO2 was heating the globe.
I merely pointed out YOU WERE WRONG...  The Sun heats the Earth.
Greenhouse gases help regulate that heat.

Oh and 1 more thing.

http://diggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/ed2.png

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 15^th, 2017 at 7:19pm:

(410-280)*100/280 = 46%

That's the total increase in CO2 dropkick. NOT the anthropogenic portion.

"NATURAL CO2 SOURCES

Natural CO2 sources account for the majority of CO2 released into the atmosphere. Oceans provide the greatest annual amount of CO2 of any natural or anthropogenic source. Other sources of natural CO2 include animal and plant respiration, decomposition of organic matter, forest fires, and emissions from volcanic eruptions. There are also naturally occurring CO2 deposits found in rock layers within the Earth’s crust that could serve as CO2 sources."

https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage/carbon-storage-faqs/what-are-the-primary-sources-of-co2

Or of course you could look at SKS

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

Now if you look at outgoing CO2 - it totals 800Gt.
Anthro -29Gt

29/800*100% = 3.625%

Skewered by one of your favourite sources. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Thwaites glacier is in West Antarctica where all the heating in Antarctica is going on. It has a frontage of 90Km and drains a much bigger area than the Larsen ice sheets on the Antarctic Peninsula. And it is in trouble.


Quote:

The trouble with Thwaites, which is one of the largest glaciers on the planet, is that it's also what scientists call "a threshold system." That means instead of melting slowly like an ice cube on a summer day, it is more like a house of cards: It's stable until it is pushed too far, then it collapses. When a chunk of ice the size of Pennsylvania falls apart, that's a big problem. It won't happen overnight, but if we don't slow the warming of the planet, it could happen within decades. And its loss will destabilize the rest of the West Antarctic ice, and that will go too. Seas will rise about 10 feet in many parts of the world; in New York and Boston, because of the way gravity pushes water around the planet, the waters will rise even higher, as much as 13 feet. "West Antarctica could do to the coastlines of the world what Hurricane Sandy did in a few hours to New York City," explains Richard Alley, a geologist at Penn State University and arguably the most respected ice scientist in the world. "Except when the water comes in, it doesn't go away in a few hours – it stays."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-doomsday-glacier-w481260

That is not a hugely scientific publication but the above is entirely in accord with the views of climatologists and glaciologists quoted in articles on the Larsen C breakoff.

Maybe we are being too pessimistic? NASA thinks so:


Quote:

The melt rate of West Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier is an important concern, because this glacier alone is currently responsible for about 1 percent of global sea level rise. A new NASA study finds that Thwaites' ice loss will continue, but not quite as rapidly as previous studies have estimated. The new study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, finds that numerical models used in previous studies have overestimated how rapidly ocean water is able to melt the glacier from below, leading them to overestimate the glacier's total ice loss over the next 50 years by about 7 percent. Thwaites Glacier covers an area nearly as large as the state of Washington (70,000 square miles, or 182,000 square kilometers). Satellite measurements show that its rate of ice loss has doubled since the 1990s. The glacier has the potential to add several inches to global sea levels. The new study is led by Helene Seroussi, a scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. It is the first to combine two computer models, one of the Antarctic ice sheet and one of the Southern Ocean, in such a way that the models interact and evolve together throughout an experiment—creating what scientists call a coupled model. Previous modeling studies of the glacier used only an ice sheet model, with the effects of the ocean specified beforehand and unchanging. Seroussi and colleagues at JPL and the University of California at Irvine (UCI) used an ocean model developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge with an ice sheet model developed at JPL and UCI. They used data from NASA's Operation Icebridge and other airborne and satellite observations, both to set up the numerical model simulations and to check how well the models reproduced observed changes.

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-thwaites-glacier-ice-loss-quickly.html#jCp

https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/csz/news/800/2017/7-studyshowsth.jpg

That is what you get when you increase the CO2 in the atmosphere by 46%.

After mentioning Thwaites Glacier several times I noticed nobody here had the wit to actually look at it.

Whichever view point is right about the rate at which Thwaites will melt and/or collapse metres of sea level rise are locked in over the next several decades.

And Thwaites is not the only glacier in rapidly warming West Antarctica.

Something to think about.

What about the West Antarctic Rift and sub-sea volcanoes? ;)

Where is the Antarctic Rift, Loser Lees?

Are the volcanoes new or actually active etc?

You are proving nothing, sorry.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 16^th, 2017 at 1:03pm:

You are proving nothing, sorry.

You do that all the time and are never sorry. ;D ;D ;D


lee wrote on Jul 15^th, 2017 at 7:41pm:

Now if you look at outgoing CO2 - it totals 800Gt. Anthro -29Gt 29/800*100% = 3.625%

I notice you never responded

What about the volcanoes in the Rift etc in Antarctica?

Did you notice what the study set out to do?

There is 46% more CO2 in the atmosphere pre industrial revolution.

410ppm v 280ppm.

That seems pretty clear, not? Going to quibble with that?

Going to quibble that the extra CO2 is not heating the earth? It is, you know.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 16^th, 2017 at 1:18pm:

There is 46% more CO2 in the atmosphere pre industrial revolution.

Your claim was that it was all anthropogenic. ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 16^th, 2017 at 1:18pm:

There is 46% more CO2 in the atmosphere pre industrial revolution. 410ppm v 280ppm. That seems pretty clear, not? Going to quibble with that? Going to quibble that the extra CO2 is not heating the earth? It is, you know.

The logarithmic effect of CO2

http://i65.tinypic.com/2r47o5i.jpg



Quote:

Throw more carbon up there and most of the extra gas is just “unemployed” molecules.

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

JoNova is a paid denier shill publishing Heartland Institute obfuscation and false science.

That histogram is very misleading.

In any case, the more CO2 the more AGW.

How do you explain Venus, Ajax? It is closer to the sun, yes, but the temperature on Venus is FAR higher than the extra insolation compared to Earth can explain. The reason—the high CO2 content in the atmosphere of Venus.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 16^th, 2017 at 3:04pm:

JoNova is a paid denier shill publishing Heartland Institute obfuscation and false science. That histogram is very misleading. In any case, the more CO2 the more AGW. How do you explain Venus, Ajax? It is closer to the sun, yes, but the temperature on Venus is FAR higher than the extra insolation compared to Earth can explain. The reason—the high CO2 content in the atmosphere of Venus.

Venus's atmosphere is 55.8 times denser than Earths.

Atmospheric Pressure on  Earth = 1 bar

Atmospheric Pressure on  Venus = 93 bar

Density of air on Earth = 1.2kg/m³

Density of air on Venus = 67kg/m³

67 / 1.2 = 55.8

It wouldn't matter which gas ruled Venus.

It is still the CO2 that did it. All the carbonate rocks—gave up their carbon. That is why the atmosphere is so dense.

If the CO2 left the Venusian atmosphere—the planet would cool down.

All standard denier fare, none of it with any truth behind it.

The more CO2 the more warming we will get. The increments may be smaller but the temperature*still*increments*

Not is CO2 the only GHG. Methane and nitrous oxide are entering the atmosphere and they have 30 and 200 times the greenhouse potential of CO2.

A man faces unpleasant truths, does not hide or run away from them.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 16^th, 2017 at 1:18pm:

There is 46% more CO2 in the atmosphere pre industrial revolution. 410ppm v 280ppm. That seems pretty clear, not? Going to quibble with that? Going to quibble that the extra CO2 is not heating the earth? It is, you know.

LOL
Arguing correlation = causation again eh....  you alarmists just never let up on it do you?
But wait didn't I read somewhere you denied it? ;D ;D ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 16^th, 2017 at 3:04pm:

JoNova is a paid denier shill publishing Heartland Institute obfuscation and false science.

Got a reference for that? Or is it another of your famous "facts"?

Another large aggressive wild fire, this time in California:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/07/19/538090510/-extreme-and-aggressive-california-wildfires-force-thousands-to-evacuate?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=environment

First half of 2017 was the second hottest recorded:


Quote:

At the halfway point of the year, 2017 remains the second-hottest year to date — a surprise given the demise of the El Niño that helped boost temperatures to record levels last year. The continued near-record warmth is a marker of just how much global temperatures have risen thanks to the greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere from fossil fuel use. . . . The odds are good that 2017 will stay in second place through the end of the year, and it is even more likely that it will remain in at least the top three hottest years. NOAA released its global temperature data for June on Tuesday, and ranked June as the third warmest in its records. The four warmest Junes in its records have all happened in the past four years. (NASA, which released its June numbers on Friday, ranked June as the fourth hottest. The two agencies handle the data slightly differently, which can lead to small differences in their rankings, though they strongly agree on recent warming.)

https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/gistemp-seasonal-cycle-chart.jpg

http://grist.org/article/the-first-half-of-2017-was-the-second-hottest-to-date/

No sign of an ice age is there, Booby?

The next El Nino year promises to be a right bastard!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/world-heritage-coral-reefs-likely-to-disappear-by-2100_us_596e6c53e4b05561da5a5b5d?utm_hp_ref=climate-change


Quote:

Last month, UNESCO released the first global scientific assessment of climate change impacts on World Heritage coral reefs. While international media has regularly reported on bleaching at the Great Barrier Reef, we knew that was just the tip of the iceberg. The El Nino and climate-fueled temperature spikes that were wiping out corals in Australia were also causing serious damage to reefs in Costa Rica, Mexico, France, the United States, the Philippines, and the Seychelles. And that is just the beginning of the story. It only takes a spike of 1 to 2 degrees to threaten the health of coral reefs. As seawater heats up, coral animals expel the microscopic algae they rely on for energy. If heat stress lasts too long, and corals don’t reabsorb the algae, they can die. Reefs can recover from bleaching, but it takes 15 to 25 years, and with climate change causing more frequent heat waves, we are approaching the breaking point of these fragile systems.

Oh, No huffpo, that great scientific publication.  ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 1:00pm:

It only takes a spike of 1 to 2 degrees to threaten the health of coral reefs

Yes. If fast enough. A sudden upward spike or downward spike will cause bleaching.


Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 1:00pm:

The El Nino and climate-fueled temperature spikes that were wiping out corals in Australia

There is no comeback from a wipe out. Just a trifle emotive. ;)

Not with AGW making the seas hotter and hotter.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 16^th, 2017 at 1:18pm:

There is 46% more CO2 in the atmosphere pre industrial revolution. 410ppm v 280ppm. That seems pretty clear, not? Going to quibble with that? Going to quibble that the extra CO2 is not heating the earth? It is, you know.

here we go again with just another of Monks empty headed tactic...  he denies it of course.

CORRELATION EQUALS CAUSATION....

Sure it does Monk.... :D :D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

I don't recall saying Correlation vs Causation.
If ever I do it will be a typo.

I'm guessing you don't know what you are saying so other peoples comments leave you even more lost. :)

Oh and I was right again...  you denied it again.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 1:36pm:

Not with AGW making the seas hotter and hotter.

yeah yeah everyday I look out to sea at all that boiling water :D

No, roach, since the mechanism is known it is not correlation v causation.

Grendel wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 2:17pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 1:36pm: Not with AGW making the seas hotter and hotter. yeah yeah everyday I look out to sea at all that boiling water :D

Heard what is happening to coral reefs the world over?

Grendel wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 2:17pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 1:36pm: Not with AGW making the seas hotter and hotter. yeah yeah everyday I look out to sea at all that boiling water :D

Lol, you are a unit!

Grendel wrote on Jul 16^th, 2017 at 3:27pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 16th, 2017 at 1:18pm: There is 46% more CO2 in the atmosphere pre industrial revolution. 410ppm v 280ppm. That seems pretty clear, not? Going to quibble with that? Going to quibble that the extra CO2 is not heating the earth? It is, you know. LOL Arguing correlation = causation again eh....  you alarmists just never let up on it do you? But wait didn't I read somewhere you denied it? ;D ;D ;D

Grendel has nothing, again  :D

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3351.epdf?referrer_access_token=2mYD3Xh31P3w3L26JDxewtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NhnoliwwS7kwFdlOpbqwgCi2AcmaXyDaa6Is4drMO5GMsYwbEnSB1LgFwI7ueUzHI0scaZv2t6_dBTxEqPSuYptlMN0b9x292yKYuBjGXD-AOgSwhae49K-D0cJj6jHLl3gbr0fHb62zEfKpDobeDqfUh8fpkAdPNI2yHN6xptQ4JBLZdQIhfgTnynuY5qPrdeY8_OCMl1sipQeJpRr1Hc2t8If8Heasfmq4KjXwRZNh3ajfaGWdf4MPJ71sA-XDP4VbYN8xW0NyD9cVfSgsg_ggJsb0lwVZ56-r39LZ-9vmVJ4GhKvl12v8rsB5XdlybLNnzcV9uV_0wzTeKcTAtqUANbRJJZZEizlPIjQ4f2NA%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com

Extreme El Nino/La Nina events to increase even if we keep global temperature increase to 1.5°C. Need to do more,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/resurrecting-ancient-wines-that-can-survive-climate_us_5975ee4fe4b0f1feb89b44f9?utm_hp_ref=climate-change

Spanish wine industry turning to old grape varieties to find  grapes that can cope with the extra heat from AGW to produce wines that are sound and balanced, fruit v acidity etc.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 27^th, 2017 at 10:52am:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3351.epdf?referrer_access_token=2mYD3Xh31P3w3L26JDxewtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NhnoliwwS7kwFdlOpbqwgCi2AcmaXyDaa6Is4drMO5GMsYwbEnSB1LgFwI7ueUzHI0scaZv2t6_dBTxEqPSuYptlMN0b9x292yKYuBjGXD-AOgSwhae49K-D0cJj6jHLl3gbr0fHb62zEfKpDobeDqfUh8fpkAdPNI2yHN6xptQ4JBLZdQIhfgTnynuY5qPrdeY8_OCMl1sipQeJpRr1Hc2t8If8Heasfmq4KjXwRZNh3ajfaGWdf4MPJ71sA-XDP4VbYN8xW0NyD9cVfSgsg_ggJsb0lwVZ56-r39LZ-9vmVJ4GhKvl12v8rsB5XdlybLNnzcV9uV_0wzTeKcTAtqUANbRJJZZEizlPIjQ4f2NA%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com Extreme El Nino/La Nina events to increase even if we keep global temperature increase to 1.5°C. Need to do more,

Oh. The models. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jul 27^th, 2017 at 12:26pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 27th, 2017 at 10:52am: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3351.epdf?referrer_access_token=2mYD3Xh31P3w3L26JDxewtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NhnoliwwS7kwFdlOpbqwgCi2AcmaXyDaa6Is4drMO5GMsYwbEnSB1LgFwI7ueUzHI0scaZv2t6_dBTxEqPSuYptlMN0b9x292yKYuBjGXD-AOgSwhae49K-D0cJj6jHLl3gbr0fHb62zEfKpDobeDqfUh8fpkAdPNI2yHN6xptQ4JBLZdQIhfgTnynuY5qPrdeY8_OCMl1sipQeJpRr1Hc2t8If8Heasfmq4KjXwRZNh3ajfaGWdf4MPJ71sA-XDP4VbYN8xW0NyD9cVfSgsg_ggJsb0lwVZ56-r39LZ-9vmVJ4GhKvl12v8rsB5XdlybLNnzcV9uV_0wzTeKcTAtqUANbRJJZZEizlPIjQ4f2NA%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com Extreme El Nino/La Nina events to increase even if we keep global temperature increase to 1.5°C. Need to do more, Oh. The models. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee couldn't stand a world that uses models  ;D ;D ;D

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51B2X-gB6iL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 27^th, 2017 at 11:05am:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/resurrecting-ancient-wines-that-can-survive-climate_us_5975ee4fe4b0f1feb89b44f9?utm_hp_ref=climate-change Spanish wine industry turning to old grape varieties to find  grapes that can cope with the extra heat from AGW to produce wines that are sound and balanced, fruit v acidity etc.

You mean the old grape varieties lived in a time of higher temperatures? Oh NOOOOO. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Time or place of higher temperatures.

Why, Lees, you aren’t saying temperatures have to be constant are you?

But wineries are also moving to cooler areas and planting new vineyards: UK and Tasmania. That will work until and if we allow AGW to just spiral out of control.

TheFunPolice wrote on Jul 27^th, 2017 at 12:27pm:

lee couldn't stand a world that uses models

Ah, Bill Nye. The science NOT guy who once famously made a video of westerly trade winds. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Check this out at about the 1min mark -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19IpzJWSRAc

And his high school physics experiment that didn't work.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 27^th, 2017 at 12:31pm:

Why, Lees, you aren’t saying temperatures have to be constant are you?

No JM. But old varieties strongly suggests a change in climate. But according to you climate change/AGW is a new beastie on the block. ;)

Now you are being silly, again.

Changing to new varieties (remember me talking about Fiano grapes??) or new areas for winegrapes is only going to take them that far, eventually AGW will mean winemaking isn’t feasible.