For keeping track of Arctic and Greenland ice mass gains and losses.

Arctic:
https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_iqr_timeseries.png

April sea ice extent 1979–17:
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2017/05/Figure3-350x270.png

That seems to tell a definite story of rapid AGW in the Arctic. All this with a sun relatively quiescent.


Greenland:

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

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

Have a look at these figures every week or so.

May 8th. The west coast is again the coast where most melting is taking place tho the east coast was where melting started this year.

Your map seems to show most of the melt, for Greenland, outside the Arctic Circle. ;)

The Greenland ice melt has really accelerated in the last couple of days—see the figures in the OP. Seems to be well above average so far but early days yet.

Some articles I have read have talked about a collapse in parts of the ice sheet and it looks like that is happening. Will post some of these later today.

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

Still above 1981 - 2010 baseline.

https://www.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/p/a/m/d/e/accumulatedmap.png

Source : https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

Sure looks scary. ;)

Quote:

DMI notes Greenland’s ice sheet “snows more than it melts,” but adds that “calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet.” “Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance,” according to DMI. “The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.”

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/02/greenland-enters-2017-adding-extraordinary-amounts-of-ice-and-snow/

Jovial Monk wrote on May 11^th, 2017 at 2:46pm:

“Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance,” according to DMI. “The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.”

Very good. Now how much ice is there in Greenland? How long would it take to melt completely at 200G'ton/ year?

" If the entire 2,850,000 cubic kilometres (684,000 cu mi) of ice were to melt"

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

What of the "old" people?

"The frozen ground around Ilulissat Ice Fjord in western Greenland is a treasure trove for archaeologists.

The permafrost in this area, which is on the UNESCO World Heritage list, acts like a giant freezer, preserving the remains of the three major cultures of Greenland’s past in deposits known as kitchen middens -- essentially ancient dunghills created by the early cultures on Greenland.

These are the Saqqaq, Dorset and Thule peoples, who at various times in the last 3500 years all lived in the old settlement of Qajaa, in south Greenland."

http://sciencenordic.com/climate-change-destroying-greenland%E2%80%99s-earliest-history

Back when Greenland was truly a "green land".


But you believe the climate shouldn't change. That it should be the same year after year or that Greenland is a special case that should only increase ice mass. ;)

The Arctic


Quote:

Arctic Sea Ice Keeps Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel Brian Kahn By Brian Kahn   Published: May 3rd, 2017 The astounding transformation of the Arctic before our very eyes continues. Yet another month has passed with record low sea ice. This April merely tied April 2016 for the lowest extent on record, but it’s hardly reason to celebrate. The Arctic was missing 394,000 square miles of ice, with each day setting a record low or within 36,000 square miles of setting one.

http://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/5_3_17_Brian_ArcticIceExtentZackLabe_720_480_s_c1_c_c.jpg

Continuing:

Quote:

Temperatures averaged up to 14°F above normal in part of the Arctic last month, fueling the melt season. Scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center said the rate of ice loss was about average. . . . One of the biggest issues for sea ice is its increasingly youthful appearance. Young ice is more susceptible to the vagaries of weather, whether it be warm air or water or storms that knock it around and break it up. Ice older than five years in age now only comprises 5 percent of the Arctic’s ice pack. It accounted for 30 percent of all Arctic sea ice in 1984, but relentless warmth driven by rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has slowly squeezed it out of existence.

http://www.climatecentral.org/wgts/ArcticSeaIce-5_3_17/5_3_17_Brian_ArcticSeaIce_12-2017.png

And the weakening of the Jet Stream is allowing storms from the North Atlantic to reach the Arctic raising temperatures, blowing sea ice around etc—one whole mass of ice was lost forever when it was blown out into the Pacific and this is likely to happen again:


Quote:

Looking at where the older and middle-aged ice is paints a grim picture for the Arctic. A trail of third-year ice sits huddled between Greenland and the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard. That location means it will likely ride ocean currents out of the Arctic, leaving the region with even less of an increasingly precious resource.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 11^th, 2017 at 5:56pm:

Temperatures averaged up to 14°F above normal in part of the Arctic last month,

At last it wasn't 40ºF above normal. ;)

https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

Oh look back in 2SD territory. ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on May 11^th, 2017 at 5:56pm:

Arctic Sea Ice Keeps Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel

13 million square kilometres is a bloody big barrel. ;D ;D ;D

Following the usual pattern, melt has almost stopped for a couple of days.

Here's a nice dummie-spit from someone at the CSIRO who's in a sulk that the Liberal government has wound down on funding grants to all the little piglets who've been suckling off the taxpayers' tits with the 'Climate Change' fraud.

link

You mean the libs pulled the plug on a long term study, ’Erbert?

You put this in the wrong fvvcking thread!

Jovial Monk wrote on May 13^th, 2017 at 9:04am:

You mean the libs pulled the plug on a long term study, ’Erbert? You put this in the wrong fvvcking thread!

Stop panicking and eat more tofu and mung beans, you bohemian plonker.

I'm sure Far Leftwing do-gooders like Bill Gates, Richard Branson, and Bob Geldof will open their wallets to keep this Gravy Train chugging along with all its little passenger piggies hogging from the Bullshit Trough we know-and-love by the name of 'Climate Change'.

Don't you just love the catch-all two-way-bet of 'Climate Change' ... a version of 'Heads I win - tails you lose' - ?

May 16th & 17th, melting has resumed on the west coast, low level as yet.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 19^th, 2017 at 7:48am:

May 16th & 17th, melting has resumed on the west coast, low level as yet.

Mostly outside the Arctic Circle. How scary is that? ;)

May 18, melt is continuing to increase.

http://i1263.photobucket.com/albums/ii636/maxine124/greenland_melt_nomelt_18May17_zpsejow8e0h.png

http://i1263.photobucket.com/albums/ii636/maxine124/greenland_melt_area_plot_18May17_zpslgfilz34.png

Wow. Down in the noise.

May 19th—melt is continuing, is now above the interdecile range.

Still early in the season tho.

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

Certainly looks scarifying. ;)

https://www.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/e/n/i/b/m/Melt_combine.png

Now melting North of the Arctic Circle. But that happens every year.


Jovial Monk wrote on May 21^st, 2017 at 6:51am:

May 19th—melt is continuing, is now above the interdecile range.

Yep but within the interquartile. That means it was warmer more than 10 years ago. The AGW must be going backwards. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

Interdecile range - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdecile_range In statistics, the interdecile range is the difference between the first and the ninth deciles (10% and 90%). The interdecile range is a measure of statistical ...

Oops, Lees gets it wrong again.

Sea ice volume, which is related to thickness is a better measure of the effect of global warming.

http://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/4_11_17_Brian_ArticSeaIce_volume_720_480_s_c1_c_c.jpg

Unforgiven wrote on May 21^st, 2017 at 12:40pm:

Sea ice volume, which is related to thickness is a better measure of the effect of global warming.

http://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/4_11_17_Brian_ArticSeaIce_volume_720_480_s_c1_c_c.jpg

Yup. It shows old ice is just a tiny part of the whole Arctic ice. Ice extent is affected by things like wind that blows the floes around, dispersing or packing it tighter or blowing it right out the Arctic Ocean into the Pacific which happened not so long ago.

Volume is better but harder to measure.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 21^st, 2017 at 12:39pm:

Quote: Interdecile range - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdecile_range In statistics, the interdecile range is the difference between the first and the ninth deciles (10% and 90%). The interdecile range is a measure of statistical ... Oops, Lees gets it wrong again.

So I did. Now all you have to do is admit your mistakes. ;)

You stuff up heaps, Lees. That your ignorance of science or your desperation to pretend the world isn’t warming, you think?

Jovial Monk wrote on May 21^st, 2017 at 12:43pm:

Yup. It shows old ice is just a tiny part of the whole Arctic ice. Ice extent is affected by things like wind that blows the floes around, dispersing or packing it tighter or blowing it right out the Arctic Ocean into the Pacific which happened not so long ago.

Good of you to compare the whole Arctic to JM's fixation with Greenland. ;)

DMI shows 2017 tracking 2016 -

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/anim/plots_uk/CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20170519.png
You just have to choose which model of volume you believe. ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on May 21^st, 2017 at 12:58pm:

You stuff up heaps, Lees. That your ignorance of science or your desperation to pretend the world isn’t warming, you think?

How long before Lees turns up?  ;)

60 minutes!

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

Jovial Monk wrote on May 21st, 2017 at 12:58pm: You stuff up heaps, Lees. That your ignorance of science or your desperation to pretend the world isn’t warming, you think? How long before Lees turns up?  ;)

Why? Disappointed I didn't respond to your pontifications immediately?

I quote science, You generally quote the Garudian or SKS. But you don't see the difference. So much for being a scientist,

I notice you haven't admitted to any stuff ups. Must be perfect. ;)

Where have I said the world isn't warming? Direct quotes please. or you can continue to lie.

See how you go tomorrow.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 21^st, 2017 at 7:28pm:

See how you go tomorrow.

A scientist who doesn't know the meaning of a direct quote. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Will test you several times over the week.

And Lees beats his previous effort! Well done Lees!

We are doomed.

It's actually too late to fix the problem. The Arctic and Antarctic are experiencing faster temperature rise than the rest of the world. The situation is past the tipping point where it accelerates.

Even if all manmade greenhouse gas emissions were stopped now, the temperature rise would continue for some decades before it could be arrested.

CO2 and Methane release is a positive feedback function whereby as the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere causes temperature rise which accelerates the release of greenhouse gases from soils and frozen regions.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XsvIVx_IfK4/V8fIpWT9DsI/AAAAAAAAKQg/5cftFgNxuGo6nSQqGUy7hoL1sjnxYqpqACLcB/s640/methane%2Bhydrate%2Bstructure.png

Yeah, not even adaptation or mitigation has been pursued at all vigorously.

I remain optimistic—but upheavals there will be.

If we had to, aerosols would be pumped into the upper atmosphere so that more sunlight is reflected back out to space. Meantime, reafforestation—with trees and faster growing bamboo—with the timber/bamboo harvested turned into permanent products like flooring.

Many coastal communities will need to relocate further inland or sea defences built.

The melting of Antarctic will be the turning point, once it starts adding to sea level rise the message will be undeniable.

Unforgiven wrote on May 21^st, 2017 at 8:56pm:

Antarctic are experiencing faster temperature rise than the rest of the world.

Citation needed. Although this seems to be scary -NOT. ;)

http://www.climate4you.com/images/70-90S%20MonthlyAnomaly%20Since2000.gif


Unforgiven wrote on May 21^st, 2017 at 8:56pm:

CO2 and Methane release is a positive feedback function whereby as the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere causes temperature rise which accelerates the release of greenhouse gases from soils and frozen regions.

And where did you get the information it has never happened before. You know those periods as warm or warmer than now.

May 20th melting on Greenland continues, well above average for this time of year.

http://i1263.photobucket.com/albums/ii636/maxine124/greenland_melt_nomelt_20May17_zps2kzgtc7k.png

http://i1263.photobucket.com/albums/ii636/maxine124/greenland_melt_area_20May17_zpsrmg6oxvg.png

2012 was a year of record melting, three large surges of melting, see how 2017 matches up to that. Still early days tho. Interactive chart here:

http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/greenland-surface-melt-extent-interactive-chart/

Jovial Monk wrote on May 22^nd, 2017 at 8:34am:

May 20th melting on Greenland continues, well above average for this time of year.

Still above the 1981 -2010 average on the DMI page. ::)


Citation needed. Your graph only represents averages from 1981. Or did you mean it was above average in comparison to your graph?


Jovial Monk wrote on May 22^nd, 2017 at 8:34am:

Still early days tho.

Yep. But it won't stop you bleating. ;)

Melting in summer; who woudda thunk.

Let us have a look at the Arctic:

http://arctic.noaa.gov/Portals/7/EasyDNNNews/thumbs/286/173fig4.3-perovich.png

http://arctic.noaa.gov/Portals/7/EasyDNNNews/thumbs/286/173fig4.3-perovich.png

Nah, no warming.

Which model did they use for multi-year ice? What are the attached error bars?

You need error bars????

Jovial Monk wrote on May 23^rd, 2017 at 9:20pm:

You need error bars????

You think multi-year ice graphs are that accurate that they don't need them? That their estimations are perfect?

The two conditions are so far apart one is on the sun and one on pluto. No need for bloody error bars!

I do keep telling you to buy and read that “Statistics for Dummies.”

Remember this graph from the OP?

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2017/05/Figure3-350x270.png


That is just sea ice extent.

No, asking for error bars here is just a sign of desperation.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 23^rd, 2017 at 9:29pm:

Remember this graph from the OP?

Yes and it is only from 1979.  And then of course somehow you have to extrapolate sea ice extent to sea ice volume. And then you have to determine how old the old ice is.

That's not statistics.

Sea ice is measured not inferred from sea ice extent.

The two charts are chalk and cheese and show just how much the Arctic has warmed.

Error bars  :D :D :D

Jovial Monk wrote on May 23^rd, 2017 at 9:44pm:

Sea ice is measured not inferred from sea ice extent. Error bars  :D :D :D

Perhaps you need to do some reading. ;)

"The Polar Science Center at the University of Washington uses a model to calculate sea ice volume. Patterns and trends in ice volume are similar to patterns and trends in ice extent in some ways, but different in others (and not just because the two groups use a different baseline for their long-term average)."


https://www.climate.gov/news-features/features/arctic-sea-ice-getting-thinner-younger

The two extremes are chalk and cheese. Whatever variation or uncertainty there might be won’t close the gap between them  :)

http://arctic.noaa.gov/Portals/7/EasyDNNNews/thumbs/286/173fig4.3-perovich.png

So repeating the crap makes it real? Measurement from models. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Measurements based on data.

Two distributions, totally different. Asking for error bars is ludicrous.

Just accept it: AGW has cut a swathe through the Arctic and is still doing so. Error bars are to distinguish between similar datasets, similar (statistical) populations—is the variance wide enough that we have two different if overlapping populations or is there one population and we are just looking at experimental uncertainty? That is where error bars, uncertainty and variance are important. Not in the case of the two distributions of arctic ice thickness.

We have seen how Arctic sea ice extent for April has decreased over the years. We see how the amount of thicker ice has drastically diminished. There is no need for error bars for goodness sake!

Read ”Statistics for Dummies!”

Jovial Monk wrote on May 23^rd, 2017 at 10:32pm:

Measurements based on data.

Model output is not measurement. How many parameters? Albeit DRAH insists a ruler is a model. But that is a model with ISO standards.

Here we have estimates, guesstimates. But good enough for climate science. ;)

You are so transparently desperate, Lees. Oh yeah, the two distributions are so similar have to really test if they are the same  :D :D :D I mean, just LOOK!

http://arctic.noaa.gov/Portals/7/EasyDNNNews/thumbs/286/173fig4.3-perovich.png

Don’t feel too bad tho Lees, Booby would look at the above then say “Mt Baw Baw is at {whatever typical temperature for the time of year} so clearly we are in an ICE AGE! Booby told me he has a house full of stuff for the Ice Age. Loony toons. You are just desperate, Lees, pathetically so.

You said only you and me read this board. That then logically means you are posting all the denialist crap you do just to convince yourself.  ;)

I suppose you also need error bars here too   ::) ::) ::)

http://psctestsite.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/zhang/PIDAO/iceComparison.jpg

Quote:

These NASA provided images show the minimum arctic sea ice concentration in 1979, at left, and in 2003. Satellite passive microwave data since the 1970s indicate a 3% decrease per decade in arctic sea ice extent.

Can't wait for Booby's Mini Ice Age to kick in.

It is taking its time, isn’t it Emma?

May 22nd. Greenland melt is at 1981–2010 median level.

A couple of interactive graphs:

Greenland:
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/greenland-surface-melt-extent-interactive-chart/

Arctic:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

The years 2012 and 2016 are years of strong melts.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 23^rd, 2017 at 11:08pm:

Oh yeah, the two distributions are so similar have to really test if they are the same  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy I mean, just LOOK!

Wow. two model simulations. Am I supposed to be impressed?


Jovial Monk wrote on May 23^rd, 2017 at 11:08pm:

You said only you and me read this board.

Please quote that directly. ;) We know you have trouble with the written word. Remember 40deg F above normal?

Jovial Monk wrote on May 24^th, 2017 at 6:56am:

May 22nd. Greenland melt is at 1981–2010 median level.

http://beta.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/b/m/s/d/e/accumulatedsmb.png

Still? How sad for you. Isn't it supposed to be worse?

Oh dear the melt has moved back outside the Arctic Circle.

http://beta.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/e/n/i/b/m/Melt_combine.png

lee wrote on May 23^rd, 2017 at 10:16pm:

So repeating the crap makes it real? Measurement from models. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Lee doesn't even know what a model is  :D

lee wrote on May 24^th, 2017 at 11:14am:

Jovial Monk wrote on May 24th, 2017 at 6:56am: May 22nd. Greenland melt is at 1981–2010 median level. http://beta.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/b/m/s/d/e/accumulatedsmb.png Still? How sad for you. Isn't it supposed to be worse? Oh dear the melt has moved back outside the Arctic Circle. http://beta.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/e/n/i/b/m/Melt_combine.png

2m sea ice is slightly easier to melt than 2km thick land ice  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Jovial Monk wrote on May 24^th, 2017 at 12:18am:

I suppose you also need error bars here too   ::) ::) ::) http://psctestsite.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/zhang/PIDAO/iceComparison.jpg Quote: These NASA provided images show the minimum arctic sea ice concentration in 1979, at left, and in 2003. Satellite passive microwave data since the 1970s indicate a 3% decrease per decade in arctic sea ice extent.

The change is all from the pacific side it would seem from those graphics!

Poor desperate Lees. Must suck to be him.

lee wrote on May 23^rd, 2017 at 10:04pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on May 23rd, 2017 at 9:44pm: Sea ice is measured not inferred from sea ice extent. Error bars  :D :D :D Perhaps you need to do some reading. ;) "The Polar Science Center at the University of Washington uses a model to calculate sea ice volume. Patterns and trends in ice volume are similar to patterns and trends in ice extent in some ways, but different in others (and not just because the two groups use a different baseline for their long-term average)." https://www.climate.gov/news-features/features/arctic-sea-ice-getting-thinner-younger

Lee doesn't know what a model is!

TheFunPolice wrote on May 24^th, 2017 at 11:29am:

Jovial Monk wrote on May 24th, 2017 at 12:18am: I suppose you also need error bars here too   ::) ::) ::) http://psctestsite.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/zhang/PIDAO/iceComparison.jpg Quote: These NASA provided images show the minimum arctic sea ice concentration in 1979, at left, and in 2003. Satellite passive microwave data since the 1970s indicate a 3% decrease per decade in arctic sea ice extent. The change is all from the pacific side it would seem from those graphics!

Yeah, it does look like but with the Jetstream weakening north atlantic storms are entering the Arctic. Some ice simply gets blown out into the Pacific where it melts.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 24^th, 2017 at 11:29am:

Poor desperate Lees. Must suck to be him.

The whole of climate denial is based around pretending not to understand what models do: yet profit margins and markets are modelled all the time,.. then there's the rest of the bluebloods comfortable world that was modelled exactly on the industrial revolution before it... with slight changes to add and not subtract to the modelled outcome. How do efficient process get created: by modelling them and remodelling them until a point of satisfaction is reached but the arrow of time means all systems need to be remodelled as disintegration attacks even man-made system.

Lee is so full of hot lava he is literally overflowing and we all just can't seem to look away: but perhaps we're all just a bit too pervy to bring ourselves to do just that  :D :D

This is why I call it 'pause button politics' because it has no legs.

Trump knows it's a failure of the markets just like Rudd did: and all markets are regulated so when the time comes he just ticks a few boxes and bang he's got two terms! The discussion is over rates-of-change and if change is really desperately necessary or not as business requires certainty- they all know it's happening it's just everyone hates moving.

I hate moving. We all hate moving.

Simple as that! It's just pause button politics  ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on May 24^th, 2017 at 11:33am:

TheFunPolice wrote on May 24th, 2017 at 11:29am: Jovial Monk wrote on May 24th, 2017 at 12:18am: I suppose you also need error bars here too   ::) ::) ::) http://psctestsite.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/zhang/PIDAO/iceComparison.jpg Quote: These NASA provided images show the minimum arctic sea ice concentration in 1979, at left, and in 2003. Satellite passive microwave data since the 1970s indicate a 3% decrease per decade in arctic sea ice extent. The change is all from the pacific side it would seem from those graphics! Yeah, it does look like but with the Jetstream weakening north atlantic storms are entering the Arctic. Some ice simply gets blown out into the Pacific where it melts.

Right, ok. They talk about cyclone cannons and that's coming from the atlantic side: gotcha!

I wonder if Greenland melting and so freshening the ocean is having an effect on the jet-stream? It is known that ice melt from Antarctica is altering the circumpolar current in the SH and this is reflected by anti-cyclones not reaching into the Australian continent: 30 year rainfall patterns seem to show this as the reality!

Atmospheric currents partially reflect what is going on in the ocean.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 24^th, 2017 at 11:29am:

Poor desperate Lees. Must suck to be him.

Says the man who measures sea ice volume by model. ;)

lee wrote on May 24^th, 2017 at 1:25pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on May 24th, 2017 at 11:29am: Poor desperate Lees. Must suck to be him. Says the man who measures sea ice volume by model. ;)

How does lee measure sea ice volume?

:o :o :o :o

How does lee measure sea ice volume?

:o :o :o :o


How does lee measure sea ice volume?

:o :o :o :o






How does lee measure sea ice volume?

:o :o :o :o



How does lee measure sea ice volume?

:o :o :o :o

How does lee measure sea ice volume?

:o :o :o :o

How does lee measure sea ice volume?

:o :o :o :o


How does lee measure sea ice volume?

:o :o :o :o






How does lee measure sea ice volume?

:o :o :o :o



How does lee measure sea ice volume?

:o :o :o :o



How does lee measure sea ice volume?

:o :o :o :o

How does lee measure sea ice volume?

:o :o :o :o


How does lee measure sea ice volume?

:o :o :o :o






How does lee measure sea ice volume?

:o :o :o :o



How does lee measure sea ice volume?

:o :o :o :o


How does lee measure sea ice volume?

:o :o :o :o

How does lee measure sea ice volume?

:o :o :o :o


How does lee measure sea ice volume?

:o :o :o :o






How does lee measure sea ice volume?

:o :o :o :o



How does lee measure sea ice volume?

:o :o :o :o

TheFunPolice wrote on May 24^th, 2017 at 11:42am:

yet profit margins and markets are modelled all the time,.

Yes and even then they fail. That's why companies make losses. Incorrectly reading the market. ;)


TheFunPolice wrote on May 24^th, 2017 at 11:42am:

How do efficient process get created: by modelling them and remodelling them until a point of satisfaction is reached

Except in climate science. :D 30 years of medeliing and they haven't closed the gap on what happens when CO2 doubles. It went up, it went down. ;)

Poor desperate Lees, denying denying denying and looking like a clown doing so.

TheFunPolice wrote on May 24^th, 2017 at 1:29pm:

How does lee measure sea ice volume?

He doesn't. He understands sea ice melts. It is no catastrophe. The Arctic was sailed in 19th century; without icebreakers. It would seem logical it was less then. ;)

Lovely fantasy there, Lees.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 24^th, 2017 at 5:51pm:

Lovely fantasy there, Lees.

Does your ignorance know no bounds?

"Sailing from Tromsø, Norway, aboard the steam vessel Vega on July 21, 1878, he reached Cape Chelyushkin, Siberia, roughly the midpoint of his journey, on August 19. From the end of September until July 18, 1879, the ship was frozen in near the Bering Strait. Resuming its course, the Vega reached Port Clarence, Alaska, on July 22 and returned to Europe by way of Canton (China), Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), and the Suez Canal."


https://www.britannica.com/biography/Adolf-Erik-Baron-Nordenskiold

"The Portuguese navigator David Melgueiro – according to some sources – would have made the first Northeast Passage complete crossing, from east to west, in 1660. The first confirmed complete passage, from west to east, was made by the Finnish-Swedish explorer Adolf Erik Nordenskiöld, in 1878."

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

So it was frozen, he didn’t just sail it.

See, fantasy.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 24^th, 2017 at 6:57pm:

So it was frozen, he didn’t just sail it. See, fantasy.

No wonder you have trouble with the Arctic being 40 degrees F above normal. Your reading comprehension skills are crap.

More fantasy, more desperation. I never said the Arctic was 40°F above normal. But when you deny reality you end up looking like a sad clown quite often.

TheFunPolice wrote on May 24^th, 2017 at 11:42am:

Jovial Monk wrote on May 24th, 2017 at 11:29am: Poor desperate Lees. Must suck to be him. The whole of climate denial is based around pretending not to understand what models do: yet profit margins and markets are modelled all the time,.. then there's the rest of the bluebloods comfortable world that was modelled exactly on the industrial revolution before it... with slight changes to add and not subtract to the modelled outcome. How do efficient process get created: by modelling them and remodelling them until a point of satisfaction is reached but the arrow of time means all systems need to be remodelled as disintegration attacks even man-made system. Lee is so full of hot lava he is literally overflowing and we all just can't seem to look away: but perhaps we're all just a bit too pervy to bring ourselves to do just that  :D :D This is why I call it 'pause button politics' because it has no legs. Trump knows it's a failure of the markets just like Rudd did: and all markets are regulated so when the time comes he just ticks a few boxes and bang he's got two terms! The discussion is over rates-of-change and if change is really desperately necessary or not as business requires certainty- they all know it's happening it's just everyone hates moving. I hate moving. We all hate moving. Simple as that! It's just pause button politics  ;)

Great post, DRAH!

Jovial Monk wrote on May 24^th, 2017 at 7:22pm:

More fantasy, more desperation. I never said the Arctic was 40°F above normal.

You're right. It was only most of the US and Canada. ;)


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

As to global cooling, ahahaha, how come most of the US and Canada had temperatures over 40°F above normal?

BTW- did you check out the power on theVega that sailed the Arctic in the 19th century?

Propulsion : Sails, 70 hp auxiliary steam engine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Vega_(1872)

Sails and a 40hp donk? A smaller motor than most outboards these days.

May 23rd

Greenland melt increased again.

lee wrote on May 24^th, 2017 at 9:12pm:

BTW- did you check out the power on theVega that sailed the Arctic in the 19th century? Propulsion : Sails, 70 hp auxiliary steam engine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Vega_(1872) Sails and a 40hp donk? A smaller motor than most outboards these days.

How long did it take and what route was taken?

Jovial Monk wrote on May 25^th, 2017 at 9:29am:

May 23rd Greenland melt increased again.

..what I want to know is if that means the jetstream got weaker in direct relationship!???!

You can't expect direct relationships in complex systems, of course- that is when the system becomes simple by definition  :o

As the Arctic warmed temperatures on both sides of Jet Stream approached equality and that weakened it.

It now meanders and can’t block occasional excursion of lobes of Arctic air heading south until blocked by another weather system, causing cold, snow etc.

I think something similar happens with the Antarctic and very cold air, snow etc travels up the east coast of Australia. Meantime the cyclone/anticyclone belt has moved south, drying out the southern half of Australia.

TheFunPolice wrote on May 25^th, 2017 at 11:31am:

How long did it take and what route was taken?

2 years to complete. And the northeast passage.
But you could have googled that.

Why would the route matter? It wasn't a race over a predetermined course.

Also 150 tons compare that to the modern ships. No modern navigation aids. A true feat of seamanship.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 25^th, 2017 at 11:57am:

It now meanders and can’t block occasional excursion of lobes of Arctic air heading south until blocked by another weather system, causing cold, snow etc.

"The study shows the jet stream's plunging pattern is a long-standing natural phenomenon. However, the findings also suggest that global warming may boost the frequency or intensity of the curves, which would mean more winter extremes in the United States and Canada, the researchers said. The study was published today (April 16) in the journal Nature Communications."

http://www.livescience.com/44881-jet-stream-history-north-america.html

Wow. "May boost the frequency or intensity of the curves"
Not both? Which one? May be it won't also, after all it is only a suggestion. ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on May 25^th, 2017 at 11:57am:

As the Arctic warmed temperatures on both sides of Jet Stream approached equality and that weakened it. It now meanders and can’t block occasional excursion of lobes of Arctic air heading south until blocked by another weather system, causing cold, snow etc. I think something similar happens with the Antarctic and very cold air, snow etc travels up the east coast of Australia. Meantime the cyclone/anticyclone belt has moved south, drying out the southern half of Australia.

Cheers mate, I'll try and keep some of that in mind  ;)

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2017 at 12:34pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on May 25th, 2017 at 11:31am: How long did it take and what route was taken? 2 years to complete. And the northeast passage. But you could have googled that. Why would the route matter? It wasn't a race over a predetermined course. Also 150 tons compare that to the modern ships. No modern navigation aids. A true feat of seamanship.

The point is no-one cares about the north-east passage in this context so you're all fake news buddy  :D :D :D :D :D :D

hey, i know: why don't I own the internet and impress daddykins to get the spare rental  ::) (Yeh, go tryhard upper middle-class fake silver spooners  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D)

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2017 at 12:54pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on May 25th, 2017 at 11:57am: It now meanders and can’t block occasional excursion of lobes of Arctic air heading south until blocked by another weather system, causing cold, snow etc. "The study shows the jet stream's plunging pattern is a long-standing natural phenomenon. However, the findings also suggest that global warming may boost the frequency or intensity of the curves, which would mean more winter extremes in the United States and Canada, the researchers said. The study was published today (April 16) in the journal Nature Communications." http://www.livescience.com/44881-jet-stream-history-north-america.html Wow. "May boost the frequency or intensity of the curves" Not both? Which one? May be it won't also, after all it is only a suggestion. ;)

Where is the quantitative argument?

TheFunPolice wrote on May 25^th, 2017 at 12:58pm:

The point is no-one cares about the north-east passage in this context

The point is it has been sailed before current.

And then of course there are unsubstantiated stories of Arctic polar navigation in the 17th century. Who know what route they took?

Unsubstantiated.

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2017 at 1:14pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on May 25th, 2017 at 12:58pm: The point is no-one cares about the north-east passage in this context The point is it has been sailed before current. And then of course there are unsubstantiated stories of Arctic polar navigation in the 17th century. Who know what route they took?

No-one cares brospeh  :D :D :D :D :D

Look at Lees, we see how the Arctic has shrunk and there he is trying to argue that it hasn’t.

The world is warming, Lees, and the warming is anthropogenic, WE caused it.

http://arctic.noaa.gov/Portals/7/EasyDNNNews/thumbs/286/173fig4.3-perovich.png

Looking at that, no wonder the NE passage is clear nowadays, all the old ice that was there has gone, pretty much.

http://psctestsite.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/zhang/PIDAO/iceComparison.jpg

He knows noone cares about the north-east passage: he's just chewing up internet address space because he is your old school young and up and coming individual loving daddys noodle  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Go liberal voters: go copper internet in the asian century this once clever country built yayyyyyyyyy  ::)


Malcolm is truly fingered in the political history books: let alone abbott and howard and let's not forget that cosmically influential PETER 'AWESOME-SAUCE' COSTELLO  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

oH YEH.... SU*** SU**& sUc%$  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Jovial Monk wrote on May 25^th, 2017 at 1:48pm:

Unsubstantiated.

Wow. Classic response.

TheFunPolice wrote on May 25^th, 2017 at 1:54pm:

No-one cares brospeh

Especially those on the AGW train. ;D ;D ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on May 25^th, 2017 at 2:03pm:

Looking at that, no wonder the NE passage is clear nowadays, all the old ice that was there has gone, pretty much.

Yeah and only clearing since 2009.

"Shunning conventional shipping routes between Asia and Europe in what appears to be the first commercial navigation via the treacherous Arctic sea-lane, Beluga, the shipping company behind the voyage, said in a statement that "we are all very proud" to have "successfully transited the legendary Northeast Passage."  "


"Global Warming Reopens the Northeast Passage
By Adam Smith Thursday, Sept. 17, 2009"

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1924410,00.html

So I guess Time magazine found it significant. Only 130years after the 19th century travel. ;)

TheFunPolice wrote on May 25^th, 2017 at 2:19pm:

He knows noone cares about the north-east passage: he's just chewing up internet address space because he is your old school young and up and coming individual loving daddys noodle  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Go liberal voters: go copper internet in the asian century this once clever country built yayyyyyyyyy  ::) Malcolm is truly fingered in the political history books: let alone abbott and howard and let's not forget that cosmically influential PETER 'AWESOME-SAUCE' COSTELLO  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D oH YEH.... SU*** SU**& sUc%$  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Trying to be relevant again. Poor you.

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2017 at 3:40pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on May 25th, 2017 at 2:03pm: Looking at that, no wonder the NE passage is clear nowadays, all the old ice that was there has gone, pretty much. Yeah and only clearing since 2009. "Shunning conventional shipping routes between Asia and Europe in what appears to be the first commercial navigation via the treacherous Arctic sea-lane, Beluga, the shipping company behind the voyage, said in a statement that "we are all very proud" to have "successfully transited the legendary Northeast Passage."  " "Global Warming Reopens the Northeast Passage By Adam Smith Thursday, Sept. 17, 2009" http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1924410,00.html So I guess Time magazine found it significant. Only 130years after the 19th century travel. ;)

This one didn’t spend the winter stuck in ice, unlike the 19thC ones.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 25^th, 2017 at 4:24pm:

This one didn’t spend the winter stuck in ice, unlike the 19thC ones.

This one wasn't powered by sail but bloody big motors so probably moved faster. You do understand the improvements in technology since the 19th century? ;)

You do understand the loss of multiyear ice? Even without error bars?  :D :D :D

Jovial Monk wrote on May 25^th, 2017 at 5:22pm:

You do understand the loss of multiyear ice? Even without error bars?  :D :D :D

Well No. Without the error bars how can we be sure?

Bwahahahahahahaha!

Haven't they got a map past March 2016? ;D ;D ;D ;D

You want to see a June map? I will look for it next month.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 25^th, 2017 at 7:09pm:

You want to see a June map? I will look for it next month.

How about one for February or March 2017

Nah, June 2017.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Portals/7/EasyDNNNews/thumbs/286/174fig4.4-perovich.png

Quote:

Fig. 4.4. Observations of sea ice thickness. (a) Sea ice thickness derived from ESA CryoSat-2 in April 2016. (b) Sea ice thickness anomaly in April 2016 to the mean of all previous years (2011 - 2015) of the CryoSat-2 observational data record. Blue indicates regionally thinner and red indicates thicker sea ice in 2016 than the 5 year average.[size=9][/size]

A clear case of Arctic ice thinning.

Still relying on 2016? ;) Why only 2011-2015 as reference? Have they changed their algorithm?

The uncertainties in CryoSat -2

" For the 9 million km2 central Arctic region, over which the large-scale sea ice volume and thickness uncertainty is estimated to be 13.5 %, n∼3, leading to an uncertainty of 23 %. Using this approach and accounting additionally for short-scale correlated errors in freeboard associated with interpolating sea surface heights, we estimate the uncertainty in sea ice thickness increases to 25 % at the 5 km scale of our 28-day NRT grid."

"R. L. Tilling et al.: Near-real-time Arctic sea ice thickness and volume from CryoSat-2"

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/10/2003/2016/tc-10-2003-2016.pdf

Only 25%? That's all right then.

TheFunPolice wrote on May 25^th, 2017 at 2:19pm:

He knows noone cares about the north-east passage: he's just chewing up internet address space because he is your old school young and up and coming individual loving daddys noodle  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Go liberal voters: go copper internet in the asian century this once clever country built yayyyyyyyyy  ::) Malcolm is truly fingered in the political history books: let alone abbott and howard and let's not forget that cosmically influential PETER 'AWESOME-SAUCE' COSTELLO  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D oH YEH.... SU*** SU**& sUc%$  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Well said DRAY.  :) Couldn't agree more. :-*

May 24 Greenland melt is at the interdecile range. Strongest on the southwest coast.

http://beta.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/e/n/i/b/m/Melt_combine.png

http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

Scary looking downturn. ;)

Lees is already pooping his pants tho it is very early days as far as the melt is concerned. Very funny to see.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 26^th, 2017 at 2:39pm:

Lees is already pooping his pants tho it is very early days as far as the melt is concerned. Very funny to see.

You are the one bleating "look at the melt, look at the melt". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on May 26^th, 2017 at 3:10pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on May 26th, 2017 at 2:39pm: Lees is already pooping his pants tho it is very early days as far as the melt is concerned. Very funny to see. You are the one bleating "look at the melt, look at the melt". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Greenland can't really melt until the sea ice does.

That is how the change in advection happens!

TheFunPolice wrote on May 26^th, 2017 at 3:41pm:

Greenland can't really melt until the sea ice does.

Tell that to JM.

lee wrote on May 26^th, 2017 at 3:10pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on May 26th, 2017 at 2:39pm: Lees is already pooping his pants tho it is very early days as far as the melt is concerned. Very funny to see. You are the one bleating "look at the melt, look at the melt". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Am I? No, don’t think I am. But you are pooping your pants. Hate to think how you will melt down once the melt starts to really hit its stride in the next couple of months  :D :D :D

Jovial Monk wrote on May 26^th, 2017 at 5:30pm:

Hate to think how you will melt down once the melt starts to really hit its stride in the next couple of months

Why? It happens every year, at about this time.  You make it sound like it is a new thing. ;)

Like I said, you are already pooping your pants now!
;D ;D ;D

May 25th
Greenland icemelt in interdecile range. Melt all along west coast and southern half of east coast.


Look at the icebergs:
http://www.icebergfinder.com/

These were calved by Greenland glaciers.

http://beta.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/e/n/i/b/m/Melt_combine.png

Scary and still above 1981 -2010 mean.

Nice map of iceberg in Newfoundland - Labrador area. So far from home. Are they lost?

And of course glacier calving is a natural event. let me know when they get to the 2202 icebergs that occurred in 1984. That might be newsworthy. ;)

2202 now?


:D :D :D

Jovial Monk wrote on May 27^th, 2017 at 1:33pm:

2202 now?

lee wrote on Apr 19^th, 2017 at 1:12pm:

According to Weather, RMetS 2014, there were over 2,000 in about 1985. Figure 4. (Edit: 2002 2202) https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/iip/International_Ice_Patrols_Iceberg_Counts_1900_to_2011.pdf

« Last Edit: Apr 19th, 2017 at 11:40am by lee »

Do you have trouble reading?

Nono, just remember you babbling about 1400 or so before.

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

Nono, just remember you babbling about 1400 or so before.

1400 what? Shoelaces? Icebergs/month? per year?

Icebergs some time last century. As I said before, you were clearly lying then.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 27^th, 2017 at 2:53pm:

Icebergs some time last century. As I said before, you were clearly lying then.

Seeing as I can't recall it you will have to quote me direct. Otherwise it would seem you are the liar. ;)

You just have to scroll back up this thread.

You were CLEARLY lying as evidenced by your present link.

I think you do a LOT of lying to hide, from YOURSELF, clear evidence of a warming world.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 27^th, 2017 at 3:04pm:

You just have to scroll back up this thread.

So you shouldn't have trouble providing proof. Anything I say; you will say I'm lying. ;)

You obviously were lying. You often do, hence all the assertions you make that are not backed up with a link.

You are pretty easy to figure out: you are shitscared of ANYTHING showing the world is warming.

Poopy Pants Lees, PPL.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 27^th, 2017 at 4:30pm:

You obviously were lying. You often do, hence all the assertions you make that are not backed up with a link. You are pretty easy to figure out: you are shitscared of ANYTHING showing the world is warming. Poopy Pants Lees, PPL.

So seeing as you can't find it; I'm the liar.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

What a fantasist. But JK Rowlings is more readable. ;)

No, just a bit further ^^^^ this thread is your lie about icebergs.

Quite comical, really.

Just another confirmation you poop your pants at any sign of AGW. Not the way I want to live my life but there you go.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 27^th, 2017 at 7:04pm:

No, just a bit further ^^^^ this thread is your lie about icebergs. Quite comical, really. Just another confirmation you poop your pants at any sign of AGW. Not the way I want to live my life but there you go.

Yep. Just another fantasist, A liar. Can't even provide proof of your assertion. Why are you so scared to admit the truth? That you misread what was said or something similar?

YAWN  yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn
::)

Crikey guys... you're getting very old.

I DO know I haven't built a fire for warmth so far this year. Unseasonally WARM.

Hate to think what next summer will be like. Hotter than I'd like for sure.

We have had some nice days, clear and over 20°C during the day but it does get cold at night.

Today is cold and wet, to be expected in Adelaide winters.

Greenland May 26th

Melt is at 1981–2010  median, mainly along the length of the west coast.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 27^th, 2017 at 7:04pm:

No, just a bit further ^^^^ this thread is your lie about icebergs. Quite comical, really. Just another confirmation you poop your pants at any sign of AGW. Not the way I want to live my life but there you go.

Found something


lee wrote on Apr 19^th, 2017 at 1:12pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 11:54am: And Greenland is calving record numbers of icebergs. Have you got the numbers for that? "In 2014, there were 1,546 icebergs in the shipping lanes – the sixth most severe season on record since 1900, according to the patrol. There were 1,165 icebergs in 2015 and 687 in 2016." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/06/huge-fleet-icebergs-north-atlantic-shipping-lanes According to Weather, RMetS 2014, there were over 2,000 in about 1985. Figure 4. (Edit: 2002 2202) https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/iip/International_Ice_Patrols_Iceberg_Counts_1900_to_2011.pdf http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.2238/full They sure show plenty of swing. How do you or anybody else attribute it to AGW?

That 1400 odd? Quoting one year from your beloved Garudian. They didn't claim it as a record and neither did I. See what I mean about reading comprehension? ;)

Greenland May 27th

Melt has reduced below the 1981–2010 median.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 29^th, 2017 at 5:31am:

Melt has reduced below the 1981–2010 median.

http://beta.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/b/m/s/d/e/accumulatedsmb.png

Doesn't look like it.

Yawn. You can watch as much as you like, nothing you SAY will change anything.

Emma wrote on May 29^th, 2017 at 9:56pm:

Yawn. You can watch as much as you like, nothing you SAY will change anything.

Yep. Who would figure it was melt season?

Lees—what was the state of the Arctic in the early 29th century? Document fully.

Greenland May 28th

Hardly any melt.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 29^th, 2017 at 11:33pm:

Lees—what was the state of the Arctic in the early 29th century? Document fully.

Given the uncertainties no one can. Well, that's my take on it.

If you feel differently please tell us. Document fully. ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on May 30^th, 2017 at 2:40am:

Greenland May 28th Hardly any melt.

Greenland aint going to melt until the sea ice goes: the advection of warmth from the tropics can only happen once the insulating ice goes allowing such advection to occur.

lee wrote on May 30^th, 2017 at 11:58am:

Jovial Monk wrote on May 29th, 2017 at 11:33pm: Lees—what was the state of the Arctic in the early 29th century? Document fully. Given the uncertainties no one can. Well, that's my take on it. If you feel differently please tell us. Document fully. ;)

Everything is uncertain: nothing to see hear sheeple  ::) ::) ... move along!!

The same ol' blue-blooded fake conservative line  :D :D

In other words Lees was L * Y * I * N * G * about the state of the Arctic being like today. Completely lying.

Clumsy lies so Lees could lie TO HIMSELF that AGW is not occurring.

Pathetic!

Jovial Monk wrote on May 30^th, 2017 at 2:53pm:

In other words Lees was L * Y I * N * G * about the state of the Arctic being like today. Completely lying. Clumsy lies so Lees could lie TO HIMSELF that AGW is not occurring. Pathetic!

Luckily lees( ;D) isn't the markets: let alone the regulated markets i.e. government.

Basically, lees is a joke who is embarrassed to wrap a copper internet noose around his little families little necks and is striking out to appear alive once more but alas he is the spark who has left the fire and woe is him because we all know it even ,... well,... we all know,... al the other trolls know he gets owned by little ol' me and they hate it  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on May 30^th, 2017 at 2:53pm:

In other words Lees was L * Y * I * N * G * about the state of the Arctic being like today. Completely lying. Clumsy lies so Lees could lie TO HIMSELF that AGW is not occurring. Pathetic!

Really; where did I say that? You know the drill - direct quote, not what you think you remember. You have been wrong so often. Was it deliberate or is old age catching up with you?

You have crapped on for post after post about “what about the state of the Arctic in early 20th century” when you know nothing about the state of the Arctic in the early 20th century.

That is lying, deliberate lying.

lee wrote on May 30^th, 2017 at 4:16pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on May 30th, 2017 at 2:53pm: In other words Lees was L * Y * I * N * G * about the state of the Arctic being like today. Completely lying. Clumsy lies so Lees could lie TO HIMSELF that AGW is not occurring. Pathetic! Really; where did I say that? You know the drill - direct quote, not what you think you remember. You have been wrong so often. Was it deliberate or is old age catching up with you?

lol, lee wants to give everyone who disagrees with his daddys political party the drill  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Hey, better attack dog than tony abbott this lee guy cos he's got a drill and he knows how to use it: apparently  ::) ::) ::) ::)
8-)

Jovial Monk wrote on May 30^th, 2017 at 4:24pm:

You have crapped on for post after post about “what about the state of the Arctic in early 20th century” when you know nothing about the state of the Arctic in the early 20th century. That is lying, deliberate lying.

You know the drill Jovial: apparently this guys real good with a, ie. read 'daddys', drill and you have already been forewarned I, like the whole internet at large, am/are being led to believe.

I say look out: this guy seems really dangerous or something: he might have multiple drill bits at his disposal  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

(what the bugger did I just say  :o :o :o  ;)  :D)

Jovial Monk wrote on May 30^th, 2017 at 4:24pm:

You have crapped on for post after post about “what about the state of the Arctic in early 20th century” when you know nothing about the state of the Arctic in the early 20th century.

And what did I say about it? Come on quote me. You can do it. ;)

Tell us about the state of the Arctic in the early 20th century, Lees. You wax poetical about it, well, more bulshittical, in post after post.

So I ask, what was the state of the Arctic in the early 20th century Lees? Tell us, and document the story.

It was obviously colder than now so neophyte me is all agog for knowledge. Spill the beans Lees and if you don’t we will all know you are a LIAR!

Booby bullshits more than you, but he is more dupe than liar, tho when he says it is cold in {wherever} it must be the Ice Age he is lying.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 30^th, 2017 at 5:30pm:

Tell us about the state of the Arctic in the early 20th century, Lees. You wax poetical about it, well, more bulshittical, in post after post. So I ask, what was the state of the Arctic in the early 20th century Lees? Tell us, and document the story. It was obviously colder than now so neophyte me is all agog for knowledge. Spill the beans Lees and if you don’t we will all know you are a LIAR! Booby bullshits more than you, but he is more dupe than liar, tho when he says it is cold in {wherever} it must be the Ice Age he is lying.

So you can't come up with that quote. Typical of you. i am starting to think it is deliberate, and not just a poor memory.

And you know what that would make you.

Oh dear, dodging the question rather, aren’t you, poor desperate Lees.

What was the state of the Arctic in the early 20th century?

Jovial Monk wrote on May 30^th, 2017 at 2:53pm:

In other words Lees was L * Y * I * N * G * about the state of the Arctic being like today.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 30^th, 2017 at 5:46pm:

Oh dear, dodging the question rather, aren’t you, poor desperate Lees.

Nope. I want you to quote what I said, to prove IF I'm lying. So the dodging is yours.

So much spin has got you giddy. ;)

You really don’t know, do you?

Jovial Monk wrote on May 30^th, 2017 at 6:06pm:

You really don’t know, do you?

I really don't have any idea why you make stuff up.

Were you a cheap lawyer or cheap politician at some stage?

Why do you post here? Everyone can see you are full of crap, even other deniers. Why not just read denier sites?

Jovial Monk wrote on May 30^th, 2017 at 6:21pm:

Were you a cheap lawyer or cheap politician at some stage?

Is that where you get your cheap shots from? ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on May 30^th, 2017 at 6:21pm:

Why do you post here? Everyone can see you are full of crap, even other deniers. Why not just read denier sites?

You mean like NOAA? 1997 warmer than 2016. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

BTW- Keep trying to find that quote. ;)

May 29 Greenland

Low level of melt.

New paper on Arctic warming from PNAS -

"But then how to explain a similar rapid warming that occurred during the early 20th century, when the effects of greenhouse gases were considerably weaker than today? And what can we prove about the period, given the scarcity of usable data and observations prior to the 1950s?

Now scientists from Kyoto University and UC San Diego have discovered that this phenomenon occurred when the warming phase -- 'interdecadal variability mode' -- of both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans coincided. The team's findings appeared recently in the journal PNAS.

"We found that early 20th century sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific and North Atlantic had warmed much more than previously thought," explains lead author Hiroki Tokinaga of Kyoto.

"Using observations and model simulations, we've demonstrated that rising Pacific-Atlantic temperatures were the major driver of rapid Arctic warming in the early 20th century."

Previous explanations for early Arctic warming have including decreased volcanic aerosols and increased solar radiation, but none of these have been able to simulate observed conditions from the period.

Tokinaga's team found that when the interdecadal rise in sea surface temperatures was included in simulation calculations, the results properly reflected early Arctic conditions."

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-05/ku-poa052917.php

Only models but it is the best they can do trying to interpret the past. ;)

So you agree you were lying about the Arctic in the early 20th century.

Now—do those conditions apply today?

Jovial Monk wrote on May 31^st, 2017 at 1:00pm:

So you agree you were lying about the Arctic in the early 20th century. Now—do those conditions apply today?

Please use direct quote. You just "misinterpret" the written word so often.

I guess those conditions do not apply today, so the state of the Arctic is due to something else, like AGW.

lee wrote on May 31^st, 2017 at 1:19pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on May 31st, 2017 at 1:00pm: So you agree you were lying about the Arctic in the early 20th century. Now—do those conditions apply today? Please use direct quote. You just "misinterpret" the written word so often.

Why don't you please give a shite about your own kids  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Well, I guess it is AGW melting the Arctic today. And Greenland.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 31^st, 2017 at 1:29pm:

I guess those conditions do not apply today, so the state of the Arctic is due to something else, like AGW.

You mean like natural variability?

Jovial Monk wrote on May 31^st, 2017 at 2:20pm:

Well, I guess it is AGW melting the Arctic today. And Greenland.

Why? Cos it can't be anything else? ;D ;D ;D

No, I think AGW is adequate.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 31^st, 2017 at 3:45pm:

No, I think AGW is adequate.

Only adequate?

Lying Lees’ article agrees with me:


Quote:

The researchers explain that these new findings can help constrain model climate projections over the Arctic region. "It is likely that temperatures in the Arctic will continue to rise due to anthropogenic global warming," concludes Tokinaga. "Our study does not deny this. We are rather suggesting that Arctic warming could accelerate or decelerate due to internal variability of the Pacific and the Atlantic." "It is a challenge to accurately predict when the next big swing of multidecadal variability will occur. Careful monitoring is essential, given the enormous impact on the Arctic climate."

So it is AGW not decadal oscillations melting the Arctic today. Nice of Lees to post a paper to show that. Natural variation just does not explain the warming.

Greenland melt continues at low levels.

Greenland weather can be found here: http://www.accuweather.com/en/gl/nuuk/186497/may-weather/186497

lee wrote on May 31^st, 2017 at 12:53pm:

New paper on Arctic warming from PNAS - "But then how to explain a similar rapid warming that occurred during the early 20th century, when the effects of greenhouse gases were considerably weaker than today? And what can we prove about the period, given the scarcity of usable data and observations prior to the 1950s? Now scientists from Kyoto University and UC San Diego have discovered that this phenomenon occurred when the warming phase -- 'interdecadal variability mode' -- of both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans coincided. The team's findings appeared recently in the journal PNAS. "We found that early 20th century sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific and North Atlantic had warmed much more than previously thought," explains lead author Hiroki Tokinaga of Kyoto. "Using observations and model simulations, we've demonstrated that rising Pacific-Atlantic temperatures were the major driver of rapid Arctic warming in the early 20th century." Previous explanations for early Arctic warming have including decreased volcanic aerosols and increased solar radiation, but none of these have been able to simulate observed conditions from the period. Tokinaga's team found that when the interdecadal rise in sea surface temperatures was included in simulation calculations, the results properly reflected early Arctic conditions." https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-05/ku-poa052917.php Only models but it is the best they can do trying to interpret the past. ;)

Your whole world is based on models  :D :D

It is clear Lees does not understand models and their use in climate research.

Basically the models predicting temperature rises, the most denigrated models, are pretty good. In the “Loss of credibility” thread we see models and actual temperature data sets all cluster around the mean/mode.

Given the huge areas involved you can only make sense of events (temperature changes, ice melts etc) by simplifying, by modelling.

If you read how a model of the Greenland ice sheet is built up you see this. It is not just snowfall, it is compaction of the snow, it is rainfall filling in spaces in the “firn” and many other factors.

Greenland May 31st

Melt barely in interquartile range mainly on NW & NE coasts.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 1^st, 2017 at 5:23am:

"Our study does not deny this.

Right, their study does not deny it? They don't say if it admits it. ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 1^st, 2017 at 5:23am:

We are rather suggesting that Arctic warming could accelerate or decelerate due to internal variability of the Pacific and the Atlantic."

They are suggesting? Could accelerate or decelerate? Yep. They sound positive. ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 1^st, 2017 at 5:23am:

So it is AGW not decadal oscillations melting the Arctic today.

Nope. They don't say that. ;)

TheFunPolice wrote on Jun 1^st, 2017 at 12:56pm:

Your whole world is based on models

Nope. I guess you missed this -


TheFunPolice wrote on Jun 1^st, 2017 at 12:56pm:

"Using observations and model simulations,

;)

lee wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2017 at 4:27pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Jun 1st, 2017 at 12:56pm: Your whole world is based on models Nope. I guess you missed this - TheFunPolice wrote on Jun 1st, 2017 at 12:56pm: "Using observations and model simulations, ;)

How is that not saying that your whole world is based on models?

lee wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2017 at 4:22pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 1st, 2017 at 5:23am: "Our study does not deny this. Right, their study does not deny it? They don't say if it admits it. ;) Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 1st, 2017 at 5:23am: We are rather suggesting that Arctic warming could accelerate or decelerate due to internal variability of the Pacific and the Atlantic." They are suggesting? Could accelerate or decelerate? Yep. They sound positive. ;) Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 1st, 2017 at 5:23am: So it is AGW not decadal oscillations melting the Arctic today. Nope. They don't say that. ;)

Do you expect exponential melt?

Once you see a complex system go non-sinusoidal you will have anarchy buddy : and you can't handle that mr tough guy!!

::)

:)
hee heee

ahahahahahah what really makes me laugh is that the idiot Dubyne who Boobyhead thinks is A1+++ god made a stupid video about “Arctic” ice outside the Arctic circle. That ice came from the disappearing Greenland ice sheet! ahahahahaha how STOOPID is that???


:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/images/greenland_daily_melt_plot_tmb.png

Daily melt plot. This is the surface melt, not the ice lost at sea level by glaciers calving which doofus Dubybe has kindly documented for us, tho of course giving the wrong cause, source etc  :D :D :D

(Link for the mentally challenged like Lees who cannot find his arse with both hands it seems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwHYbZIbqkw&t=26s)

http://beta.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/b/m/s/d/e/accumulatedsmb.png

Oh dear still above the 1981-2010 mean. This AGW is surely bothersome.

http://beta.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/e/n/i/b/m/Melt_combine.png

Wow, you can post a graph.

Can you tell us what you think those graphs mean?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 28^th, 2017 at 1:40pm:

Wow, you can post a graph. Can you tell us what you think those graphs mean?

It means ice melts in summer and it is not nearly as bad as you think. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You are looking at melting of the top of the icesheet and not including the ice lost at sea level by glaciers calving.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 28^th, 2017 at 3:41pm:

You are looking at melting of the top of the icesheet and not including the ice lost at sea level by glaciers calving.

And of course that is not a natural thing it is all AGW. ;)

If you want to think so.

Greenland is losing like 200Gton of ice a year so something is happening.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 28^th, 2017 at 4:35pm:

Greenland is losing like 200Gton of ice a year so something is happening.

Yep. Now link it to AGW. What was that calculation? Something like 3,000 years to melt the ice?

Link it to AGW?

Have a look at when the 200Gton ice loss started. Now link it to the study I posted showing an acceleration of the rise of sea level due to Greenland ice loss.

As to when all the Greenland ice is lost, who cares? The problem is sea level rises. Sea level rises when ice formerly on land ends up in the sea and from expansion by the sea as the seas warm. When Antarctica starts adding to sea level rise, which it may be doing already but will do within a couple decades, as articles I have posted here show, then it will be time for panic.

Action taken earlier can be smaller and will be cheaper than action later. We could have had more renewable energy which would give us cleaner skies and lower power prices but noooo we had to stick with coal and now we are deeper into AGW.

The Paris Accord will be too little too late I fear, but with some real panic settling in I bet it can be made to work  8-)

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2017 at 7:16am:

Link it to AGW? Have a look at when the 200Gton ice loss started. Now link it to the study I posted showing an acceleration of the rise of sea level due to Greenland ice loss.

That would link to warming. Now try AGW. ;)

Nope. Spectroscopy shows the warming is AGW.

Beeep! You lose, Lees!

Or are you going to say over 200Gtons of ice is lost due to UHI effect?  ;)

God - all of Jovial's graphs and in depth analysis -

anyone would think he's a climate scientist.  :-[

Please give us peace from this troll.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JtSUeTPsaI

jump to 1:00

Ice Age happened in less than 20 years.

So, we are warming not cooling, Boobhead.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2017 at 6:53pm:

Nope. Spectroscopy shows the warming is AGW.

Really? Spectroscopy can determine source? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

With isotopic analysis. Don’t you read any scientific papers?  ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2017 at 7:57pm:

With isotopic analysis. Don’t you read any scientific papers?  ;)

Which part of the IR spectrum is being used? I found a paper for mid-range IR. But IR is broad ranged. Above 0.7um.

That is a wavelength.

You could actually work it out from the paper you posted I reckon.

Come on buddy, you can DO it! Well, maybe.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2017 at 8:20pm:

That is a wavelength.

No kidding. So what wavelength are you talking about? The mid-range they use is 4.3um. But that doesn't tell us what wavelength your using. Or don't you know?

What are you talking about?

I asked HM IR do we get from the sun. Absolute and percentage terms.

Now you are quibbling about wavelengths when before you wouldn’t even recognise bands  ;D

But HM IR do we get from the sun?

Bobby. wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2017 at 7:28pm:

God - all of Jovial's graphs and in depth analysis - anyone would think he's a climate scientist.  :-[ Please give us peace from this troll.

You are the one trolling, posting videos nobody watches, not able to explain or defend the videos from sensible critiques then calling people fool because they laugh at the pseudoscience, lies, bullshit, cherrypicking and crap in the videos. Lots of weird superstition been appearing in the videos.

The videos do NOT show the melting Arctic nor the melting of Greenland (except accidentally  :D :D :D because Dubyne is an idiot who knows stuff all about climate and science.)

Don’t want the STUPID, LYING videos attacked and you ridiculed then don’t post links to the crap!

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2017 at 9:10pm:

What are you talking about? I asked HM IR do we get from the sun. Absolute and percentage terms. Now you are quibbling about wavelengths when before you wouldn’t even recognise bands

What a dick. Doesn't understand the data is in wavelengths.  And it is my fault they don't delineate it absolute terms. :D :D :D :D :D

So you don’t know how much IR reaches us from the sun.

I suggest you do some reading. Also read up about black body radiation.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2017 at 7:16am:

Link it to AGW? Have a look at when the 200Gton ice loss started. Now link it to the study I posted showing an acceleration of the rise of sea level due to Greenland ice loss. As to when all the Greenland ice is lost, who cares? The problem is sea level rises. Sea level rises when ice formerly on land ends up in the sea and from expansion by the sea as the seas warm. When Antarctica starts adding to sea level rise, which it may be doing already but will do within a couple decades, as articles I have posted here show, then it will be time for panic. Action taken earlier can be smaller and will be cheaper than action later. We could have had more renewable energy which would give us cleaner skies and lower power prices but noooo we had to stick with coal and now we are deeper into AGW. The Paris Accord will be too little too late I fear, but with some real panic settling in I bet it can be made to work  8-)

You think?
:(

Sorry, but you're both arguing about something that is beyond your control.

(Please see above: one correct use of your and you're)

Yes I really think so Emma.

I think sea level rises and the flooding of communities on the east coast of the US will get some nice panic starting that will mean the idiot politicians will have to really do something.

Miami and other parts of Florida are having real problems but there are cities further to the north will likely be the catalyst.

Melt water from the Himalayan glaciers waters a quarter of the worlds population (Ganges, Indus, Yellow and Mekong etc rivers start there. That is why China is getting more serious about reducing its emissions intensity. And so on. Things will get grim but we will see action taken.

Despite all the effort by tobacco companies, all their obfuscation of the science smoking is much reduced in western countries. Despite fossil fuel interests using the same tricks as tobacco (and the Dubyne nonsense is likely part of the obfuscation about AGW) I am confident that coal will become as unwanted as tobacco is today. Despite Trumpy.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2017 at 12:31am:

So you don’t know how much IR reaches us from the sun. I suggest you do some reading. Also read up about black body radiation.

Ok. I did that.


"The three relevant bands, or ranges, along the solar radiation spectrum are ultraviolet, visible (PAR), and infrared. Of the light that reaches Earth’s surface, infrared radiation makes up 49.4% of while visible light provides 42.3% 9. Ultraviolet radiation makes up just over 8% of the total solar radiation."

http://www.fondriest.com/environmental-measurements/parameters/weather/photosynthetically-active-radiation/

Only 49.4%? Some inconsequential amount.

Now seeing as solar radiation is given as about 1366 W/m² that would make incoming IR about 675W/m². ;)

I knew you could do it. Clever little Lees!

Now, what bands do solar and terrestial origin IR occupy? Here is where reading about black body radiation would have helped.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2017 at 4:44pm:

I knew you could do it. Clever little Lees! Now, what bands do solar and terrestial origin IR occupy? Here is where reading about black body radiation would have helped.

Why? Is CO2 dependant on frequency? :D :D :D :D 
Oh, look. CO2 is now a multi-channel pass filter. Remember about CO2 and temperature being logarithmic? Do you mean it will fill up on earth's IR first?

So you didn’t read up on black body radiation?

The little chart you posted has a clue, so does the SKS diagram re spectral absorption lines.

More reading for little Lees  ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2017 at 5:09pm:

So you didn’t read up on black body radiation? The little chart you posted has a clue, so does the SKS diagram re spectral absorption lines. More reading for little Lees  ;)

Nope. More understanding from you. CO2 can only absorb so much IR. That is re-emitted. CO2 is not frequency dependant.

So the incoming IR reaches the CO2 before it is re-emitted, in all directions. The outgoing IR absorption will be limited to that available.

Where does SKS show the incoming IR part of the equation?

Black body radiation Lees, you need to read up on it  ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2017 at 6:06pm:

Black body radiation Lees, you need to read up on it  ;)

So 459W/m² OG as against 675W/m² IC.

Am I supposed to be impressed?  Remember whichever the initial direction of radiation it is all going to be refracted/reflected around. What happens when IR from different directions collide?

The earth is not a black body.

Black body radiation Lees  ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2017 at 6:30pm:

Black body radiation Lees

Yes. Black body radiation is when all that radiation received is re-emitted. It doesn't happen on planet Earth.

Here is a link to an article by Prof, Robert G. Brown at Duke University. Posted at Watts. ;)

Play find the flaws.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/12/earths-baseline-black-body-model-a-damn-hard-problem/

enjoy.

Read up on black body radiation Lees  ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2017 at 6:44pm:

Read up on black body radiation Lees  ;)

lee wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2017 at 6:24pm:

So 459W/m2 OG as against 675W/m2 IC.

Sure sounds like it is not a black body as far as radiation goes. ;)

"Although planets and stars are neither in thermal equilibrium with their surroundings nor perfect black bodies, black-body radiation is used as a first approximation for the energy they emit."

wiki

Only a first approximation. Sounds positive.

Don’t feel bad, black body radiation flummoxes a lot of Physics I students  ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2017 at 7:07pm:

Don’t feel bad, black body radiation flummoxes a lot of Physics I students  ;)

And you. Why don't you give your version? This should be fun. ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2017 at 7:07pm:

Don’t feel bad, black body radiation flummoxes a lot of Physics I students  ;)

Disclaimer:

Jovial is neither a climate scientist nor any person of scientific reputation.

Says the idiot who believes an obvious lying charlatan.

I got a distinction in Physics I and a high pass in Physics II Boobhead. This was about 1967-8 or so but that is what I got.

Also got a distinction in maths + statistics I.

Sorry I’m sure Boobhead.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2017 at 7:29pm:

Says the idiot who believes an obvious lying charlatan. I got a distinction in Physics I and a high pass in Physics II Boobhead. This was about 1967-8 or so but that is what I got. Also got a distinction in maths + statistics I. Sorry I’m sure Boobhead.

Mine is bigger than yours - I'm not playing your 4 year old game.
You must have dementia.

You never went to Uni. That is bloody obvious.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2017 at 7:34pm:

You never went to Uni. That is bloody obvious.

I had 6 years of tertiary education  but
I didn't want to play your 4 year old game.

Not Uni. Not maths and science. TAFE perhaps?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2017 at 7:37pm:

Not Uni. Not maths and science. TAFE perhaps?

I don't want to say as my true identity could be tracked down.

Also - I'm not into 4 year old games.

However - I will state:

I am not a climate scientist.

I refer to docos & other evidence presented by climate scientists.

You are not a scientist and you are not a uni graduate. TAFE level maybe.

I have not claimed to be a climate scientist.

I still remember some of the physics and maths I did at Uni. Climate science is based on maths and physics etc.

I can tell a bullshitter and Dubyne is a really obvious liar and bullshitter.

lee wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2017 at 7:19pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 3rd, 2017 at 7:07pm: Don’t feel bad, black body radiation flummoxes a lot of Physics I students  ;) And you. Why don't you give your version? This should be fun. ;)

Can't answer?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2017 at 7:50pm:

I can tell a bullshitter

Yes. you are a master bullshitter.

lee wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2017 at 9:33pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 3rd, 2017 at 7:50pm: I can tell a bullshitter Yes. you are a master bullshitter.

Jovial is an obsessed troll.

When evidence is presented which is contrary to his point of view
he refuses to even read it or watch it.

It doesn't matter if it's a whole team of professional climate scientists -
Jovial knows more.  ( or so he thinks )

Looks like JM has logged off.

Boobhead does not present evidence.

Couple Melbourne suburbs get a cold snap—LIA cries Boobhead.

What is the GLOBAL picture, Boobhead? You know, temperatures around the world, global temperatures? Trends over some years?

Dubyne cherry picks and lies. You won’t know global trends from that bullshitter, that paid propagandist.

We know Greenland lost a lot of ice from glaciers calving into the sea. Silly Dubyne even mentioned all the ice choking the sea off Newfoundland  :D :D :D and the surface melt is pretty much at the median level. No sign of an LIA there.

Further north we had the Arctic melting even in the northern hemisphere winter, pretty much unheard of!

When you look at temperatures globally, like I did and showed the NH was pretty much sizzling in heat waves then no sign of a LIA.

Boobhead—if you want to show a LIA you need to show global temperature trends over large areas extending for years. You and your idiotic 400+ videos have not shown this.

Nobody here watches your stupid videos. 400+ compilations of bullshit, of paid propaganda. Time for you to take a reality check. Time to wake up.

Still nothing on black body radiation? Where is your reference?

Done any reading on it yet? I am guessing that the answer is no.

FYI the earth is a black body.

Take it from there.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2017 at 7:36pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 3rd, 2017 at 7:34pm: You never went to Uni. That is bloody obvious. I had 6 years of tertiary education  but I didn't want to play your 4 year old game.

You should demand you money back. It was evidently a scam.

Yeah. Wonder if he studied mysticism because Dubyne is pretty heavily into it.

I just pointed out I did study maths and physics at Uni, meaning I can follow the science.

Look at Lees struggling with black body radiation. ahahaha some time back black body radiation came up in the discussion. Lees came back with “the earth is a silvery body”  :D :D :D He has NFI and Boobhead has less than that.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 4^th, 2017 at 12:28pm:

Yeah. Wonder if he studied mysticism because Dubyne is pretty heavily into it. I just pointed out I did study maths and physics at Uni, meaning I can follow the science. Look at Lees struggling with black body radiation. ahahaha some time back black body radiation came up in the discussion. Lees came back with “the earth is a silvery body”  :D :D :D He has Absolutely No Idea and Boobhead has less than that.

I suspect Mr. Light has caused Bobby to receive too much thermal radiation from hot sphincters.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 4^th, 2017 at 12:20pm:

FYI the earth is a black body.

got a reference for that. Apart from SKS? or  Real Climate? ;)

Edit: "While there's no such thing as a perfect blackbody, most solid objects are sufficiently close to being a blackbody that they can be treated as being 'close enough'. The sun giving off sunlight, for example, can be treated as a perfect blackbody. On the other hand, the Earth needs to have a correction factor. This correction is taken to be a percentage, 70% of a perfect blackbody. This means that the radiation emitted still looks like figure 1, but it is 30% less energy, more or less uniformly across all of the wavelengths. The Earth's atmosphere cannot be treated as a blackbody"

http://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Blackbody_radiation

Antarctic sea ice hit a new low:

https://youtu.be/glGR_L1uNSU

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/battering-storms-caused-antarctic-sea-ice-shrink-record-pace


Quote:

Unusually severe storms in 2016 wrought the quickest meltdown of Antarctic sea ice ever seen during a Southern Hemisphere spring. This could explain why Antarctica’s sea ice extent hit a record low earlier this year. Satellite images show that the extent of Antarctic sea ice decreased by an average of 75,000 square kilometers — almost the area of South Carolina — each day from September through December 2016. That was 18 percent faster than the previous record melt rate for this time of year and nearly 50 percent faster than average, researchers report online June 20 in Geophysical Research Letters. Typically, the ring of sea ice surrounding Antarctica expands and contracts over the course of a year, usually peaking at around 18 million square kilometers in September, then shrinking to about 3 million by February. The average expanse of sea ice in a given year has increased since satellite monitoring started in 1979. So scientists were surprised that the sea ice shrank so radically this year. It hit 4.04 million square kilometers in January (SN Online: 2/17/17) and kept shrinking, dropping to about 2 million square kilometers by the beginning of March...

Gee. Severe storms.

https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png

Sure looks scary. ;)

Just in case you wanted to look at a slightly longer time frame.


https://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Kinnard_2011_sea_ice_med.jpg

Pho Huc wrote on Jul 8^th, 2017 at 7:28pm:

Just in case you wanted to look at a slightly longer time frame.

Oh Skeptical Science.

"Here we use a network of high-resolution terrestrial proxies from the circum-Arctic region to reconstruct past extents of summer sea ice, and show that—although extensive uncertainties remain especially before the sixteenth century,—both the duration and magnitude of the current decline in sea ice seem to be unprecedented for the past 1,450 years.

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html

And of course vessels sailing the Arctic in 1878 and anecdotal evidence of sailing the Arctic in 1660, when Arctic ice apparently was much higher than now. How strange is that? And they reckon the uncertainties are especially BEFORE the 16th century. ;)

Wasn’t there a Lees who said anecdotal wasn’t evidence? Must have been another Lees.

Do you dispute the actual conclusion of the article?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 8^th, 2017 at 10:05pm:

Wasn’t there a Lees who said anecdotal wasn’t evidence? Must have been another Lees.

Actually the 1660 is anecdotal. the 1878 is verified fact.


Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 8^th, 2017 at 10:05pm:

Do you dispute the actual conclusion of the article?

Which conclusion was that? The uncertainties of the proxies? No, I do believe they mis-estimated the timing.

According to the graph the 1878 voyage couldn't have taken place. That would seem to indicate the study was flawed.

So another obfuscation.

The conclusion the writers of the article came to is very clear.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 9^th, 2017 at 11:51am:

So another obfuscation. The conclusion the writers of the article came to is very clear.

That the 1878 voyage could not have taken place. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

Slow start to the 2017 melt season July 10, 2017 Despite moderately higher-than-average air temperatures and high air pressure over Greenland, the 2017 melt season began modestly. As of June 30, total melt area was the lowest since the 2009 melt season. To update the Greenland Today site, the team has improved the graphics and land masking; archived records reflect the new values.

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

Greenland "yesterday"
http://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8110/8540635536_c7a2599400_b.jpg

That’s why its called Greenland I suppose.

The barley is making a comeback, but only experimentally. The climate must have changed.

Oh dear. A low melt season. Time to panic.

Why? You forgetting your “longer than 30 years is best” BS seeing a teensy blip somewhere?

You DO tend to forget that BS a lot, don’t you?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 12^th, 2017 at 11:43am:

Why? You forgetting your “longer than 30 years is best” BS seeing a teensy blip somewhere? You DO tend to forget that BS a lot, don’t you?

Don't you understand sarcasm? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Nah!

You crap on about needing more than 30 years to establish climate, then wet your pants and cream your jeans at any tiny blip in the warming trend.

So transparent Lees, so very very desperate!  ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 12^th, 2017 at 12:05pm:

Nah! You crap on about needing more than 30 years to establish climate, then wet your pants and cream your jeans at any tiny blip in the warming trend. So transparent Lees, so very very desperate!  ;)

What a complete tool. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yeah, you are  ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 12^th, 2017 at 10:21am:

That’s why its called Greenland I suppose.

Maybe?  What do you think?
But it has been exactly that in the past.
Arctic Tundra you know. ;)

Is it? Gosh!

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 12^th, 2017 at 3:42pm:

Is it? Gosh!

Oh dear.
Are you losing your English now too?
Oh wait, you just know rocks...  not Botany or Climate, or Physics, or Chemistry or Geography, etc, etc, etc...

Well, you know nothing. EVERYBODY here knows that.

Still got nothing but baseless putdowns eh.

typical TROLL.

You'll never change.

Try addressing and refuting the facts.  then try acknowledging the facts and admit when you are WRONG.  You might gain a bit of credibility.

I talk nothing but facts. Not my problem you idiots are mentally deficient or so bound up in ideology or too afraid to read and absorb what I write.

Go read that article in Relationships about the breakup of Larsen C. Try doing it without ideological blinkers. Then THINK!

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 14^th, 2017 at 10:25am:

I talk nothing but facts.

Kapunda - higher than Nuriootpa
Some US temps - 40ºF above normal
US record temps - in places where they weren't records.

Facts according to the seer and prophet JM. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Poor Lees, desperately deflecting and obfuscating.

Just read and gibber in fear the articles that will be posted in a locked thread in Relationships.

Oh—DO search out Thwaites Glacier.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 14^th, 2017 at 11:27am:

Poor Lees, desperately deflecting and obfuscating.

So, denying you posted those "facts"? ;D ;D ;D ;D


Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 14^th, 2017 at 11:27am:

Just read and gibber in fear the articles that will be posted in a locked thread in Relationships.

I know your relationship with the truth, and it doesn't impress. So no, I wont be visiting.

No, I guess you wouldn’t—you might learn something disquieting.

But the articles will go up and the thread will be locked again. There is no other way I can post some science and not have the post be lost in miles of deflection, obfuscation and bullshit.

I thank Aussie for letting me use his board in that way.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 14^th, 2017 at 11:38am:

There is no other way I can post some science

You should have stopped there.

so what comments on this  'álleged' IMMENSE piece of ice which has just broken off from Antarctica.?

The Le Immensity of iceberg is le meaningless, non?

But oo la la the reasons behind the breakup they are a matter most serious, non?

WARM air—in Antarctica! Mon cherie, so it isn’t so!

WARM water—lapping Antarctica. Och, I feel faint!

But, mon cherie, forget about the silly little Larsen whatsit, eh, consider the subject most dreadful to imagine, the Thwaite Glacier letting go.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 14^th, 2017 at 11:20pm:

But, mon cherie, forget about the silly little Larsen whatsit, eh, consider the subject most dreadful to imagine, the Thwaite Glacier letting go.

No doubt monsieur, we will be afforded the unique opportunity to observe this astonishing phenomenon.

:( :(

Ah dear mademoiselle, I fear, helas! that we will witness this even most dreadful!

dáccord mon ami.
A prospect one would not wish on one's family.
Sacre Bleu ! Cést horrible!.

Eh bien, c'est la vie. :(

More analysis on the Greenland ice sheet surface melt so far:

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

Re: NEW MOD NEEDED FOR ENVIRONMENT
Reply #109 - Today at 12:39pm 
JM says -"Lees thinks climate change is summer giving way to winter!"

"Climate, sometimes understood as the "average weather,” is defined as the measurement of the mean and variability of relevant quantities of certain variables (such as temperature, precipitation or wind) over a period of time, ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. "

https://public.wmo.int/en/about-us/FAQs/faqs-climate

Seems like the World Meteorological Organisation thinks it also. Fancy climate changing over months.  ;)

Melt has kicked into a higher gear:

http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/images/greenland_daily_melt_plot_tmb.png

Don’t know why the huge spurt suddenly—it has been above freezing, tho most of the melt has been at the lower altitudes. Maybe the melt has reached the higher altitudes of the ice sheet?

See how it develops, I suppose.

Yep.

https://www.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/e/n/i/b/m/Melt_combine.png

Though DMI shows a smaller spike.

A lot more area melting, from those maps.

Dunno why it didn’t melt more—the heavy snows last winter insulating the ice maybe?

Hmmmm  more snow whilst we are warming alarmingly...

Nope....  doesn't fit sorry.

Snow in an Arctic winter. Computes very well. There was a huge storm in the Arctic and North Atlantic this NH winter just passed, more snow is not unexpected.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 21^st, 2017 at 4:44pm:

Snow in an Arctic winter. Computes very well. There was a huge storm in the Arctic and North Atlantic this NH winter just passed, more snow is not unexpected.

Was that the one provided the warmest temperatures EVAH?

Grendel wrote on Jul 21^st, 2017 at 4:41pm:

Hmmmm  more snow whilst we are warming alarmingly... Nope....  doesn't fit sorry.

For Jovial,
if there's  less snow it's global warming -

if there's more snow it's global warming.

Poor Booby, even he is starting to see Dubyne is lying to him.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 21^st, 2017 at 4:44pm:

Snow in an Arctic winter. Computes very well. There was a huge storm in the Arctic and North Atlantic this NH winter just passed, more snow is not unexpected.

But if we had alarming warming there would be no snow. :D
Anywhere.... ;D ;D ;D

another non–thinker.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 21^st, 2017 at 7:01pm:

another non–thinker.

No need for a confession Monk.
We all know about YOU already.

Give it some thought.  It's not that difficult. ;D ;D ;D

Global warming since 1850: 1.1°C.

Now think, for once!

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 21^st, 2017 at 7:05pm:

Global warming since 1850: 1.1°C. Now think, for once!

Based on reconstruction done in the 1990's. No chance of errors there. And to 2 decimal places.

I think all the time.

YOU don't apparently.

So...  Mine's bigger than YOURS... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

http://sullivansline.com/BBphotostemp/Dansgaard-Temperature2.jpg

Oh and since you love Greenland so much....

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png

remember this...

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/12/article-2419557-1BAEE1D0000005DC-112_634x364.jpg

and just for the heck of it...

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Stop_global_warming_sign_under_tons_of_snow1.jpg

oh and remember these...
2017 stuck in Arctic Ice
2013 stuck in Antarctic Ice...

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/14/scientists-blame-climate-change-for-thick-sea-ice-that-halted-arctic-expedition/

Booby used to post that crap about scientists stuck in sea ice in Antarctica.

He stopped doing that when it was found the scientists were there to study that ice  ;)

I think this year wasn’t Arctic ice, was ex–Greenland ice choking the sea off Newfoundland  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 21^st, 2017 at 7:38pm:

Booby used to post that crap about scientists stuck in sea ice in Antarctica. He stopped doing that when it was found the scientists were there to study that ice  ;) I think this year wasn’t Arctic ice, was ex–Greenland ice choking the sea off Newfoundland  ;D ;D ;D ;D

That wasn't the "ship of fools" episode was it. Where they took a cruise with paying guests to show how much the ice had melted?

Chris Turney took his guests off on the ice. The ship's captain had given his warnings, but they proceeded. The ice started to close in so the Captain sounded the ship foghorn to recall them. Turney and co. ignored the recall.

Is that the one you remember?

That was the story silly denialists told each other. It was scientists examining the sea ice.

Oops.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 21^st, 2017 at 8:05pm:

That was the story silly denialists told each other. It was scientists examining the sea ice. Oops.

"Shortly before Christmas a team of climate scientists set out on an expedition to Antarctica aboard Russian ship MV Akademic Shokalskiy. Led by Chris Turney, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Australia and an evangelist for the green agenda, this group was accompanied by a number of journalists including several from the BBC and the Left-wing Guardian newspaper, as well as an Australian senator from the Green Party.

The explicit aim of the voyage, whose original costs were estimated to be £900,000, was to research the supposed impact of climate change on the southern polar region, particularly the alleged threat to ice coverage. There was "an increasing body of evidence" that showed "melting and collapse from global warming", proclaimed the Shokalskiy team prior to departure.

Such claims about the disappearing ice caps have long been a central tenet of the green faith. Typically eco-website Click Green reported in 2009 that marine plants were now flourishing in Antarctica "because of the recent and rapid melting of ice shelves and glaciers around the peninsula". But this hysteria about the vanishing Antarctic ice turned out to be wrong. Professor Turney and his acolytes were lured into an embarrassing fiasco by their own neurotic creed. On Christmas Eve, little more than a fortnight after the start of its voyage, the Shokalskiy became wedged in thick ice. As the weather worsened so did the crisis on board."

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/452238/Global-warming-brigade-lose-the-plot-on-a-ship-of-fools

There were also posts from the Green's Senator detailing what went wrong.

"With escalating derision towards Turney’s expedition, Nature rushed another self-serving account of the events into print on January 6, apparently without the slightest peer review, quality control or due diligence. In this article, Turney’s claims became even more fanciful and untrue. Turney falsely stated that the Akademik Shokalskiy was an “ice breaker”, even though it was merely a passenger ship that had been ice strengthened. Turney falsely claimed that the “science case” for the tour had been “approved by the New Zealand Department of Conservation, the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service and the Australian Antarctic Division”, an assertion that was quickly denied by the head of the Australian Antarctic Division, who accused Turney of misrepresentation and said that he had written to Turney asking him to cease such misrepresentations. In respect to the entrapment incident, Turney re-iterated the false assertion that they had been trapped by a “mass breakout” of “multiyear ice”, whereas ...they had been trapped by mobile pack ice within the polynya [an area of open water surrounded by sea ice">... "

"Meanwhile, according to [Greens senator-elect"> Janet Rice, the Captain became very concerned about the closing weather, but was unable to immediately recall the passengers. The vessel appears to have left at least several hours after the captain’s already risky target.

    The third drama of the day is the one which is still unfolding. Because of the Argo mishap we got off late, and had one less vehicle to ferry people to and fro. I’m told the Captain was becoming rather definite late in the afternoon that we needed to get everyone back on board ASAP because of the coming weather and the ice closing in… I’m sure the Captain would have been much happier if we had got away a few hours earlier. Maybe we would have made it through the worst before it consolidated as much as it has with the very cold south- easterly winds blowing the ice away from the coast, around and behind us as well as ahead. "

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/mcintyre-shreds-chris-turneys-excuse-for-having-his-ship-of-fools-stuck-in-ice/news-story/8413385e9589edc3f353b172e8e2dbcd

Trying to rewrite history?

Nah, they were there to investigate the ice. They knew it was there.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 21^st, 2017 at 7:38pm:

Booby used to post that crap about scientists stuck in sea ice in Antarctica. He stopped doing that when it was found the scientists were there to study that ice  ;) I think this year wasn’t Arctic ice, was ex–Greenland ice choking the sea off Newfoundland  ;D ;D ;D ;D

So you claim to be an expert on Bobby eh.
Irrelevant.
I note you've run away from the Greenland and Arctic facts yet again.  How NOT unusual for you. :D :D :D :D :D

BTW it is IRONIC when Climate Change Scientists get stuck in ice, if you had a sense of humour you'd agree.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 21^st, 2017 at 11:55pm:

Nah, they were there to investigate the ice. They knew it was there.

nah they were there to investigate warming/climate change and the lack of ice...

tsk, tsk, tsk, oh dearie dearie me...  to lie to yourself is bad enough Monk.

Nah.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 21^st, 2017 at 11:55pm:

Nah, they were there to investigate the ice. They knew it was there.

breaker
yep. Lied about the cruise ship being an icebreaker.
and
" Turney falsely claimed that the “science case” for the tour had been “approved by the New Zealand Department of Conservation, the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service and the Australian Antarctic Division”, an assertion that was quickly denied by the head of the Australian Antarctic Division,"

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2017 at 12:11pm:

Nah.

careful, your ignorance is showing.
I heard the leader state just what I said on the news Monkeyboy.
Except for the irony bit...  I think the cost blowout was an embarrassment.  Had to get an Icebreaker in to rescue them you know. :D :D :D :D :D

Grendel wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2017 at 6:28pm:

I think the cost blowout was an embarrassment.  Had to get an Icebreaker in to rescue them you know. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Actually two icebreakers. The first one also got stuck.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chinese-icebreaker-stuck-after-help-antarctic-rescue/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YF1NqKDs0Po

Melt picking up late in melt season:

http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/images/greenland_daily_melt_plot_tmb.png

Bit of a weird melt season this year.

lee wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2017 at 6:33pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 22nd, 2017 at 6:28pm: I think the cost blowout was an embarrassment.  Had to get an Icebreaker in to rescue them you know. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Actually two icebreakers. The first one also got stuck.

In what?

Who cares?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 27^th, 2017 at 11:47am:

Who cares?

Jovial doesn't care because the facts don't suit his false argument.

He's a disingenuous fool.

But he doesn't fool me - I'm too smart for his nonsense.

So smart you believe a transparent liar. So smart you can’t refute a letter of any critiques I make of his stupid videos!

Yeah, really smart  :D :D :D

TheFunPolice wrote on Jul 27^th, 2017 at 11:38am:

lee wrote on Jul 22nd, 2017 at 6:33pm: Grendel wrote on Jul 22nd, 2017 at 6:28pm: I think the cost blowout was an embarrassment.  Had to get an Icebreaker in to rescue them you know. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Actually two icebreakers. The first one also got stuck. In what?

Tofu.

lee wrote on Jul 27^th, 2017 at 1:05pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Jul 27th, 2017 at 11:38am: lee wrote on Jul 22nd, 2017 at 6:33pm: Grendel wrote on Jul 22nd, 2017 at 6:28pm: I think the cost blowout was an embarrassment.  Had to get an Icebreaker in to rescue them you know. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Actually two icebreakers. The first one also got stuck. In what? Tofu.

Lee doesn't know  ;D