From wiki:


Quote:

The explanation given in most sources for the warmer temperature in a greenhouse is that incident solar radiation (the visible and adjacent portions of the infrared and ultraviolet ranges of the spectrum) passes through the glass roof and walls and is absorbed by the floor, earth, and contents, which become warmer and re-emit the energy as longer-wavelength infrared radiation. Glass and other materials used for greenhouse walls do not transmit infrared radiation, so the infrared cannot escape via radiative transfer. As the structure is not open to the atmosphere, heat also cannot escape via convection, so the temperature inside the greenhouse rises. This is known as the "greenhouse effect".[14][15] The greenhouse effect, due to infrared-opaque "greenhouse gases", including carbon dioxide and methane instead of glass, also affects the earth as a whole; there is no convective cooling as air does not escape from the earth.

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

That is simple enough to understand: visible light passes through glass or transparent or translucent plastic easily enough (some gets reflected and that is why we can see the bally greenhouses  ;D ) some gets absorbed and the wavelength lengthens from visible light to infrared as the light loses energy. The walls of the greenhouse prevent IR from escaping, heating the greenhouse.

I think everyone agrees that it is warmer in a greenhouse than outside it? I mean, if it wasn’t farmers wouldn’t go to the trouble and expense of building the blessed things, right?

Now, as the last couple of sentences of the wiki article indicate, certain gases in the atmosphere can also block infrared radiation. That is why it is said that the earth is warming from “the greenhouse effect.” This property of carbon dioxide in particular has been known since the 19th century.

That carbon dioxide can block infrared radiation can be easily demonstrated in the lab by holding a glass container of CO2 in between a heat source and a spectrometer or even a sensitive thermometer. A container of air or pure oxygen or pure hydrogen etc does not block IR.

Have a look here for one such demonstration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ

So as we burn more fossil fuels we put more and more carbon dioxide, CO2, into the atmosphere and so increase the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere, warming the earth. Nobody has a credible set of global temperatures over time showing that the global temperature is static or declining. Nobody!

We know other gases have an even stronger greenhouse effect: methane, CH4, a carbon atom bonded to four hydrogen atoms. Methane is being released as the Arctic tundra thaws due to the greenhouse effect. Methane has a much stronger greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide. Fortunately, methane has a shorter life than carbon dioxide and over time changes into carbon dioxide. But there is another greenhouse gas (GHG) with an even stronger greenhouse effect than methane: nitrous oxide:


Quote:

Nitrous oxide (N2O): Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases


Fortunately, nitrous oxide is only present in minute quantities but it is concerning that its concentration is increasing:


Quote:

There’s a greenhouse gas whose concentration is on the rise because of human activities. But it’s not the one you’d expect: it’s nitrous oxide (N2O), also known as laughing gas. It’s been accumulating in the atmosphere since the 1700s, and it’s powerful and persistent. One molecule of N2O has the same greenhouse warming power of 300 molecules of carbon dioxide. Once that N2O molecule gets into the upper atmosphere, it can stay there for more than 100 years before it’s destroyed naturally. Fortunately, air has about 1,000 times less N2O than carbon dioxide. But the rise in N2O has accelerated over the past two decades. And while we know where the excess carbon dioxide is coming from, we don’t know precisely how N2O is produced.

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/another-greenhouse-gas-to-watch--nitrous-oxide

But N2O is being released faster at the poles than was thought:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nitrous-oxide-poses-fresh-threat-to-the-arctic/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231002003400

So the more powerful GHGs methane and nitrous oxide are starting to enter the atmosphere faster as global warming continues. No wonder we see that the fifteen years recording the highest temperatures have all occurred this century—which is only 17 years old!

Climate sensitivity

Climate sensitivity is the degree of change in global temperature in response to a change in GHG concentrations. Since the globe is warming due to the greenhouse effect climate sensitivity is measured as the increase in global temperature per doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere:


Quote:

Climate sensitivity has been hard to pin down accurately. Climate models give a range of 1.5-4.5℃ per doubling of CO₂, whereas historical weather observations suggest a smaller range of 1.5-3.0℃ per doubling of CO₂.

https://theconversation.com/why-the-climate-is-more-sensitive-to-carbon-dioxide-than-weather-records-suggest-80463

To be cont’d

Proof of AGW

• The greenhouse gases—≥3 molecules, so H2O, CO2, CH4 and N2O but not N2, O2 & why

• Hypothesis testing, probability, the tests, confidence levels, noisy weather record

• Black body radiation ===> https://docs.kde.org/trunk5/en/kdeedu/kstars/ai-blackbody.html    
    http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/  


• EM spectrum

• IR spectroscopy

• Spectroscopy results

• But we have had more CO2 in the atmosphere in past geologic eras!

    ===> http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1491514221;start=38;action=threadpagetext;reversetopic=0

Consequences of AGW

• Extreme heat events

• Ice sheet melting and sea level rise

  – Greenland

  – Arctic–sea ice

      – albedo change

      – Gulf Stream

  – Antarctic

  – Himalayan ice sheet

• Ocean acidification

• Wild fires

• Agriculture/horticulture
    – Droughts ===> http://www.theevolvingplanet.com/norway-spruce-climate-change/
    – Pests spreading due to AGW ===> http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/pine-beetles/rosner-text[url][/url]


• Wild life

What can be done?

• Adaptation

• Mitigation, coastal defences etc, east coast of US, sea levels differ from place to place

• ETS/Carbon Tax
  – energy efficiency

• Reafforestation—bamboo quicker growing than trees

• Chemical engineering—still thousands of years to remove CO2 probably

oh dear, Having to resort to wiki and then further having to interpret what's written. ;)

Maybe you need to revisit Harries et al and look at what it really says.

LOL
Happy we have the Greenhouse Effect Monk...  aren't you?
If we didn't you'd be a popsicle long ago.

BTW weather and climate on Earth is much more complicated than just a gas or two. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

If anybody with real knowledge and understanding of AGW etc can think of other subtopics or links etc then please post them in this thread.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 9^th, 2017 at 9:43pm:

If anybody with real knowledge and understanding of AGW etc can think of other subtopics or links etc then please post them in this thread.

That would be a first. ;D ;D ;D

Clearly Lees has nothing to contribute but fear, ignorance and boorishness.

But anyone else feel free to suggest additions.

Tell us about how spectronomy shows CO2 is causing AGW. Tell us about Harries et al 2001 paper,

If anybody with real, detailed knowledge and understanding of AGW etc can think of other subtopics or links etc then please post them in this thread.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 9^th, 2017 at 11:29am:

Glass and other materials used for greenhouse walls do not transmit infrared radiation

Actually incorrect. It depends on the property of the glass.

http://www.koppglass.com/blog/optical-properties-of-glass-how-light-and-glass-interact/

Other url's abound.

If anybody with real, detailed knowledge and understanding of AGW etc can think of other subtopics or links etc then please post them in this thread. Any sensible suggestions welcome.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 9^th, 2017 at 11:29am:

Glass and other materials used for greenhouse walls do not transmit infrared radiation, so the infrared cannot escape via radiative transfer. As the structure is not open to the atmosphere, heat also cannot escape via convection, so the temperature inside the greenhouse rises. This is known as the "greenhouse effect".[14][15

You do understand wiki can not be relied upon? It can be helpful, but you need to check sources; if any.

Note the part I quote. There is no attribution to the claim that green house materials can't pass IR. That makes it suspect. It is merely an assertion without proof.

Note that there is attribution for Greenhouse Effect. 14,15, which are -
A Dictionary of Physics (6 ed.), Oxford University Press, 2009, ISBN 9780199233991: "greenhouse effect"
A Dictionary of Chemistry (6 ed.), edited by John Daintith, Publisher: Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN 9780199204632: "greenhouse effect"

It would be a waste of our time Monk...
I made this simple and you don't even understand it... ;D ;D ;D

Grendel wrote on Jul 9^th, 2017 at 3:15pm:

LOL Happy we have the Greenhouse Effect Monk...  aren't you? If we didn't you'd be a popsicle long ago. BTW weather and climate on Earth is much more complicated than just a gas or two. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2017/07/Figure5x.png
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Figure 5. The figure shows departures from average in cumulate freezing degree days, extending from July 1 for a given year through July 1 of the next year, along with the range, 15th through 85th percentile and 30th to 70th percentile values over the base period 1981 through 2010.

Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
High-resolution image

Cumulative Freezing Degree Days (FDD) is a simple measure of how cold it has been and for how long. Cumulative FDD is the sum of daily mean temperatures below zero from some start date. Here we start on July 1. Cumulative FDD is related to ice thickness because, on average, years with longer periods of temperatures below freezing will have more ice growth. A simple empirical model that has been used by scientists relates ice thickness to the square root of cumulative FDD.

Anomalies (departures from the average) in cumulative FDD illustrate the coldness of a given period relative to the long-term average (1981 to 2010). Figure 5 shows that most of the period from July 2016 to July 2017 was extremely mild and was milder (less cold) than both 2006 to 2007 and 2011 to 2012. September of both 2007 and 2012 ended up with very low September sea ice extent. This is consistent with below-average ice thickness seen in the PIOMAS data. Although conditions cooled in May and June, this likely had little impact on ice thickness. This is because ice in the Arctic reaches its maximum thickness earlier in the season during March or April. As noted earlier, ice retreated at a fast rate throughout June. This is likely linked to a thinner than average ice cover as seen in the PIOMAS analysis.

Now link it to AGW.

lee wrote on Jul 10^th, 2017 at 2:34pm:

Now link it to AGW.

Can you make me?

TheFunPolice wrote on Jul 10^th, 2017 at 2:42pm:

lee wrote on Jul 10th, 2017 at 2:34pm: Now link it to AGW. Can you make me?

Nope. But it would makes sense to link to GHE/AGW.

But sense is not something we expect from you.

Spectroscopy and common sense shows the warming has anthropogenic causes.

What if everyone is wrong and we have still switched to clean renewable energy 

(i.e. RE will give us clear skies, clean air and lower electricity costs)

• No more black lung

• Fewer deaths from coal mining (still need coking/metallurgical coale I assume)

• Fewer deaths due respiratory problems:
     http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/06/28/534594373/u-s-air-pollution-still-kills-thousands-every-year-study-concludes?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=environment

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

Spectroscopy and common sense shows the warming has anthropogenic causes.

No they don't.
No proof has yet been forwarded to prove the AGW  theory and the alarmist conclusions are correct in any way.
There is no concensus.
The models are wrong.
Correlation does not equal causation.
The inconvenient truth and Gore have been inconveniently wrong and proven so.
Scientists have falsified and corrupted the process.

Is there any correlation between CO2 and temperature?

(1).....On a small time scale (NO), (11,000 years)

Showing from 200 to 11000 years ago, the subsequent graph is based on ice core data, readily visible in files hosted on the servers of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):GISP 2 and EPICA Dome C

Graph-1
http://i45.tinypic.com/snic0j.gif

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

(2).....On a medium time scale YES???, (450,000 years)

(NO) , It appears so because of the scale we are zoomed out at.

WARNING ! This is the scale that most global warming sites use to scare the unsuspecting.

Over the past few hundred thousand years of ice core data, a “medium” time scale in this sense, CO2 superficially appears to change in step with temperature if a graph is so zoomed out as to not show sub-millennial time
scales well

Graph-2
http://i49.tinypic.com/s5k0nn.gif

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

A record of temperature and atmospheric CO2 over the past 400,000 years is preserved in the Vostok Ice Core and is shown in the figure on the right.

It can be seen that there have been a series of large fluctuations in temperature (the Ice Ages), accompanied by large changes in atmospheric CO2.

It is thought that these large temperature fluctuations are triggered by Milankovitch cycles - variations in the earth's orbit that change the amount of energy from the sun that reaches us.

However, on their own, these cycles are not enough to explain the changes in temperature.

The full explanation seems to be that the small change in temperature caused by the changing orbit are amplified by natural processes on earth. These cause CO2 to be released from the oceans and the biosphere, causing an increased greenhouse effect.

This is described more fully in this article from the New Scientist (see also Shackleton 2000). For more details on the timing of changes in CO2 and temperature, click on the figure.

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm#100,000years

(3).....On a long time scale (NO) , (millions of years)

Graph-3
http://i45.tinypic.com/vf8b5l.jpg

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

(4).....Lately
http://i42.tinypic.com/10wnz8z.jpg


http://i65.tinypic.com/vyld92.jpg


http://i68.tinypic.com/qssivs.jpg

http://i63.tinypic.com/hskznq.jpg

http://i68.tinypic.com/4u6vl3.jpg

Was in the Barossa today. Visited this great bookshop, left $100 there.

On to Saltram winery. Lunch—including one of their incredible deserts. oooooohhhhh so good! Waittress admitted she had to ration herself severely with those luscious deserts.

Couldn’t leave without buying some wine—its against the law in SA!!!

Some Mamre Brook Riesling—from above the Barossa Valley floor.

The valley floor is getting too hot (how since AGW doesn’t exist according to some wise dickheads here I dunno, yes I do know, AGW is REAL) and some riesling/semillon/sauvignon blanc vines were pulled and Fiano vines planted. Fiano is an Italian grape, can grow in hot climatic conditions and produce a must that has sugar, fruit and balancing acidity.

Two years ago at an Open Day at Saltram (only for Club 1 members like me) we were given some Fiano wine to drink—I wasn’t impressed at all. This year at the 4 course degustation lunch (part of the Open Day) one course had fiano as the wine. Bewdifool!

So as well as the Riesling I got a couple bottles Fiano. Reckon it will be nice.

The moral of this story? The man on the land damn well knows AGW is hitting him hard! Wheat farmers in many areas will already have had to switch to more heat tolerant varieties and some can see a time that wheat can no longer be grown in their region—just like in the panic screed UF posted.

Anyway, ordered over $200 worth of wine and paid $120—40% discount on wine for Club 1 members!

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 10^th, 2017 at 6:17pm:

The valley floor is getting too hot (how since AGW doesn’t exist according to some wise dickheads here I dunno, yes I do know, AGW is REAL)

Got any stats to prove it? ;)

Consequences of AGW

:
:
:

• Agriculture/Horticulture
  – https://www.wineselectors.com.au/selector-magazine/wine/how-climate-change-is-changing-our-wine

Will need to shift to alternative crops as the globe keeps warming. . .maybe grow lentils not wheat?

Quote:

http://pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/237890/VIT_024_GBM_April_2014_FINAL_LR_SARDI_LENTILS.pdf

  (Lentils did well in warm winters.)

I was going to work up the outline I have posted here and post the completed work here.

Stuff that, I will work it up on my board and make it a blog post and publicise it on Twitter.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 10^th, 2017 at 10:08pm:

Consequences of AGW • Agriculture/Horticulture   – https://www.wineselectors.com.au/selector-magazine/wine/how-climate-change-is-changing-our-wine

Oh dear
so you find it ok to ignore all the scientists that state that warming is good for the planet and plantlife? :D :D :D :D :D

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 11^th, 2017 at 9:56am:

I was going to work up the outline I have posted here and post the completed work here. Stuff that, I will work it up on my board and make it a blog post and publicise it on Twitter.

Why bother...
Only twits use twitter.
140 characters of useless blather.
You just totally ignored all the stuff Ajax was kind enough to post for you. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Ajax wrote on Jul 10^th, 2017 at 6:09pm:

Is there any correlation between CO2 and temperature? (1).....On a small time scale (NO), (11,000 years) Showing from 200 to 11000 years ago, the subsequent graph is based on ice core data, readily visible in files hosted on the servers of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):GISP 2 and EPICA Dome C Graph-1 http://i45.tinypic.com/snic0j.gif http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/ (2).....On a medium time scale YES???, (450,000 years) (NO) , It appears so because of the scale we are zoomed out at. WARNING ! This is the scale that most global warming sites use to scare the unsuspecting. Over the past few hundred thousand years of ice core data, a “medium” time scale in this sense, CO2 superficially appears to change in step with temperature if a graph is so zoomed out as to not show sub-millennial time scales well Graph-2 http://i49.tinypic.com/s5k0nn.gif http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/ A record of temperature and atmospheric CO2 over the past 400,000 years is preserved in the Vostok Ice Core and is shown in the figure on the right. It can be seen that there have been a series of large fluctuations in temperature (the Ice Ages), accompanied by large changes in atmospheric CO2. It is thought that these large temperature fluctuations are triggered by Milankovitch cycles - variations in the earth's orbit that change the amount of energy from the sun that reaches us. However, on their own, these cycles are not enough to explain the changes in temperature. The full explanation seems to be that the small change in temperature caused by the changing orbit are amplified by natural processes on earth. These cause CO2 to be released from the oceans and the biosphere, causing an increased greenhouse effect. This is described more fully in this article from the New Scientist (see also Shackleton 2000). For more details on the timing of changes in CO2 and temperature, click on the figure. http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm#100,000years (3).....On a long time scale (NO) , (millions of years) Graph-3 http://i45.tinypic.com/vf8b5l.jpg [url]http://s155.n46.n171.n68.static.myhostcenter.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf[/urll] (4).....Lately http://i42.tinypic.com/10wnz8z.jpg http://i65.tinypic.com/vyld92.jpg http://i68.tinypic.com/qssivs.jpg http://i63.tinypic.com/hskznq.jpg

Correlation does not imply causation. Nobody ever said “because more heat and more CO2 therefor we are hot because of more CO2.”

But we have known CO2 is a greenhouse gas since 1865 or so.

When we use spectroscopy—we find the CO2 in the atmosphere is acting like a greenhouse gas! Just like it does in the lab!

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 11^th, 2017 at 10:23am:

Correlation does not imply causation. Nobody ever said “because more heat and more CO2 therefor we are hot because of more CO2.” But we have known CO2 is a greenhouse gas since 1865 or so. When we use spectroscopy—we find the CO2 in the atmosphere is acting like a greenhouse gas! Just like it does in the lab!

You idiot.

They've been saying gee its hotter... oh look there is more CO2 therefore it must be CO2 which is causing the heat.

Hate to tell you...  but the Earth is not a bell-jar and climate and atmosphere are much more complicated.

:D :D :D :D :D

No, spectroscopy shows that the GHGs in the atmosphere are blocking IR from escaping into space. This causes the heating we are clearly getting.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 11^th, 2017 at 10:44am:

No, spectroscopy shows that the GHGs in the atmosphere are blocking IR from escaping into space. This causes the heating we are clearly getting.

Still ignoring the incoming IR? How sad.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 10^th, 2017 at 10:08pm:

Consequences of AGW : : : • Agriculture/Horticulture   – https://www.wineselectors.com.au/selector-magazine/wine/how-climate-change-is-changing-our-wine

Oh. I was thinking statistics. You know temperature for the region etc? ;)

Here you go:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/index.shtml#tabs=Data-&-network

Nuriootpa has a weather station, didn’t see one for Angaston or Tanunda, the other two main towns. You will need a good spreadsheet program to handle the data, or a database. Suggest you load max & min temps, convert to monthly averages. Plot them on a chart—will show an increase. Doubt you have the ability. Just look at temperature series charts, Barossa is just NE of Adelaide, have increased in temperature.

You will find vignerons everywhere having to adapt to warming conditions.

You can’t win, can you Lees, no matter how you deflect, bullshit and obfuscate.

I will let you know how well the Fiano was received at Fridays dinner.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 11^th, 2017 at 9:45pm:

Nuriootpa has a weather station,

Yes. It only opened in 1996.

Kapunda is only 16.2K away and opened in 1861. Its highest maximum temperatures are Jan 9, 1939 - 45.4; Feb 1, 1943 - 43.9; Dec 19, 1957 - 42.8

Station Number 023307

Glad to be of help.

Kapunda is not in the Barossa, it is higher, different subclimate.

Nuri records go back to 1957 in the BuMet records.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 12^th, 2017 at 12:09am:

Kapunda is not in the Barossa, it is higher, different subclimate. Nuri records go back to 1957 in the BuMet records.

You do realise there are two Nuriootpa stations?


    Site name:  NURIOOTPA COMPARISON
    Site number:  023321
    Latitude:  34.48 °S   Longitude:  139.00 °E
    Elevation:  274 m
    Commenced:  1952  Status: Closed 01 Mar 1999 
    Latest available data:  28 Feb 1999



    Site name:  NURIOOTPA PIRSA
    Site number:  023373
    Latitude:  34.48 °S   Longitude:  139.01 °E
    Elevation:  275 m
    Commenced:  1996  Status: Open 
    Latest available data:  06 Jul 2017

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_023321.shtml

Were there, wow!

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

Were there, wow!

Yeah. And of course you would just take the end temperature of one and connect it to the new one - a la  Michael E Mann. ;)

Can’t you sleep, Lees? Something worrying you? You are never online and speaking chit this late.

Quote:

Why the climate is more sensitive to carbon dioxide than weather records suggest One of the key questions about climate change is the strength of the greenhouse effect. In scientific terms this is described as “climate sensitivity”. It’s defined as the amount Earth’s average temperature will ultimately rise in response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Climate sensitivity has been hard to pin down accurately. Climate models give a range of 1.5-4.5℃ per doubling of CO₂, whereas historical weather observations suggest a smaller range of 1.5-3.0℃ per doubling of CO₂.

We have seen warming of 1.1°C since pre–industrial times, with CO2 concentrations having increased by over 40%.


Quote:

In a new study published in Science Advances, Cristian Proistosescu and Peter J. Huybers of Harvard University resolve this discrepancy, by showing that the models are likely to be right. According to their statistical analysis, historical weather observations reveal only a portion of the planet’s full response to rising CO₂ levels. The true climate sensitivity will only become manifest on a time scale of centuries, due to effects that researchers call “slow climate feedbacks”.

Slow climate feedbacks. And oh dear Lees won’t be happy—Bayesian inference  :)  .


Quote:

slow climate feedbacks, refers to the ultimate consequence of climate response – in other words, the final effects and environmental consequences that a given greenhouse gas concentration will deliver. These can include long-term climate feedback processes such as ice sheet disintegration with consequent changes in Earth’s surface reflection (albedo), changes to vegetation patterns, and the release of greenhouse gases such as methane from soils, tundra or ocean sediments. These processes can take place on time scales of centuries or more. As such they can only be predicted using climate models based on prehistoric data and paleoclimate evidence.

We know methane is starting to be released from thawing Arctic and Antarctic tundras, but nitrous oxide might be an even bigger cause of these long term climate feedback processes. As sea ice and land based ice sheets melt darker ocean and rocks are exposed. Unlike ice and snow which are white and so reflect a lot of sunlight back into space water and rocks are dark and absorb sunlight and so heat up. This is albedo change. This is why warming is happening twice as fast at the poles as anywhere else on the globe.


Quote:

On the other hand, when greenhouse gas forcing rises at a rate as high as 2–3 parts per million (ppm) of CO₂ per year, as is the case during the past decade or so, the rate of slow feedback processes may be accelerated.

Oh good! So we might get some extra warming from these so–called “slow” longer term feedbacks sooner. Wonderful!


Quote:

A study led by climatologist James Hansen concluded that climate sensitivity is about 3℃ for a doubling of CO₂ when considering only short-term feedbacks. However, it’s potentially as high as 6℃ when considering a final equilibrium involving much of the West and East Antarctic ice melting, if and when global greenhouse levels transcend the 500-700ppm CO₂ range.

We are above 400ppm already, allowing for methane we are at about 450ppm CO2 equivalent, not long to go to get to 500ppm and idiots want coal mining and burning to be sped up  :D :D :D And Boobhead thinks, based on a liar’s tales that we are in an ice age.  :D


Quote:

Prehistoric climate records for the Holocene (10,000-250 years ago), the end of the last ice age roughly 11,700 years ago, and earlier periods such as the Eemian (around 115,000-130,000 years ago) suggest equilibrium climate sensitivities as high as 7.1-8.7℃. So far we have experienced about 1.1℃ of average global warming since the Industrial Revolution. Over this time atmospheric CO₂ levels have risen from 280ppm to 410ppm – and the equivalent of more than 450ppm after factoring in the effects of all the other greenhouse gases besides CO₂.

Time for a picture, some peoples’ heads are steaming (assuming they managed to read this far.)

https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/176856/width754/file-20170705-21578-1tl26ps.jpg


Quote:

Climate change is unlikely to proceed in a linear way. Instead, there is a range of potential thresholds, tipping points, and points of no return that can be crossed during either warming or transient short-lived cooling pauses followed by further warming. The prehistoric records of the cycles between ice ages, namely intervening warmer “interglacial” periods, reveal several such events, such as the big freeze that suddenly took hold about 12,900 years ago, and the abrupt thaw about 8,200 years ago. In the prehistoric record, sudden freezing events (called “stadial events”) consistently follow peak interglacial temperatures. Such events could include the collapse of the Atlantic Mid-Ocean Circulation (AMOC), with consequent widespread freezing associated with influx of extensive ice melt from the Greenland and other polar ice sheets. The influx of cold ice-melt water would abort the warm salt-rich AMOC, leading to regional cooling such as is recorded following each temperature peak during previous interglacial periods.

Cont’d

Quote:

Over the past few years cold water pools south of Greenland have indicated such cooling of the North Atlantic Ocean. The current rate of global warming could potentially trigger the AMOC to collapse. A collapse of the AMOC, which climate “sceptics” would no doubt welcome as “evidence of global cooling”, would represent a highly disruptive transient event that would damage agriculture, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere. Because of the cumulative build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere such a cool pause is bound to be followed by resumed heating, consistent with IPCC projections.

I have expressed concern the “Atlantic Conveyer” might be stopped causing problems for England and Western Europe which are at quite high altitudes, made very habitable by the warmth brought by the Gulf Stream aka Atlantic Conveyor.

There are global maps of temperatures showing such cold spots south of Greenland. Greenland has been losing bulk ice for some decades and this cold, fresh meltwater could interfere and stop the warm, very saline Gulf Stream—called the AMOC in the reference article.


Quote:

Humanity’s release of greenhouse gases is unprecedented in speed and scale. But if we look far enough back in time we can get some clues as to what to expect. Around 56 million years ago, Earth experienced warming by 5-8℃ lasting several millennia, after a sudden release of methane-triggered feedbacks that caused the CO₂ level rise to around 1,800ppm. Yet even that sudden rise of CO₂ levels was lower by a large factor than the current CO₂ rise rate of 2-3ppm per year. At this rate, unprecedented in Earth’s recorded history of the past 65 million years (with the exception of the consequences of asteroid impacts), the climate may be entering truly uncharted territory.

https://theconversation.com/why-the-climate-is-more-sensitive-to-carbon-dioxide-than-weather-records-suggest-80463

The abstract of the study discussed in the Conversation:

Quote:

The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report widened the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) range from 2° to 4.5°C to an updated range of 1.5° to 4.5°C in order to account for the lack of consensus between estimates based on models and historical observations. The historical ECS estimates range from 1.5° to 3°C and are derived assuming a linear radiative response to warming. A Bayesian methodology applied to 24 models, however, documents curvature in the radiative response to warming from an evolving contribution of interannual to centennial modes of radiative response. Centennial modes display stronger amplifying feedbacks and ultimately contribute 28 to 68% (90% credible interval) of equilibrium warming, yet they comprise only 1 to 7% of current warming. Accounting for these unresolved centennial contributions brings historical records into agreement with model-derived ECS estimates.

.

.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 11^th, 2017 at 9:45pm:

Here you go: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/index.shtml#tabs=Data-&-network Nuriootpa has a weather station, didn’t see one for Angaston or Tanunda, the other two main towns. You will need a good spreadsheet program to handle the data, or a database. Suggest you load max & min temps, convert to monthly averages. Plot them on a chart—will show an increase. Doubt you have the ability. Just look at temperature series charts, Barossa is just NE of Adelaide, have increased in temperature. You will find vignerons everywhere having to adapt to warming conditions. You can’t win, can you Lees, no matter how you deflect, bullshit and obfuscate. I will let you know how well the Fiano was received at Fridays dinner.

Love your dot points Monk they make more sense than most of your posts.
You do realise of course that Australia once had an inland sea right?
It aint there no more...  weather changes, climate changes... we live on a dynamic planet.  The Inland sea didn't just disappear in the 90s you know. :D :D :D

http://images.smh.com.au/2013/11/07/4902380/gal-melt4-940x628.jpg

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 12^th, 2017 at 12:09am:

Kapunda is not in the Barossa, it is higher, different subclimate.

Site name:  KAPUNDA
Site number:  023307
Latitude:  34.34 °S   Longitude:  138.92 °E
Elevation:  245 m

Site name:  NURIOOTPA PIRSA
Site number:  023373
Latitude:  34.48 °S   Longitude:  139.01 °E
Elevation:  275 m

OOPS.

"The birth place of Old Kapunda Distillery is nestled amongst the lush plains that border The Barossa Valley, one of Australia’s premier wine regions."

http://www.chateautanunda.com/barossa-small-winemakers/old-kapunda-distillery

Of course BoM homogenises out to 259Km, so 17Km shouldn't be beyond their capabilities. ;)

Grendel wrote on Jul 11^th, 2017 at 10:28am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 10:23am: Correlation does not imply causation. Nobody ever said “because more heat and more CO2 therefor we are hot because of more CO2.” But we have known CO2 is a greenhouse gas since 1865 or so. When we use spectroscopy—we find the CO2 in the atmosphere is acting like a greenhouse gas! Just like it does in the lab! You idiot. They've been saying gee its hotter... oh look there is more CO2 therefore it must be CO2 which is causing the heat. Hate to tell you...  but the Earth is not a bell-jar and climate and atmosphere are much more complicated. :D :D :D :D :D

Who exactly is 'they'.

:D

Bit of a con artist aren't you buddy  ;)

lee wrote on Jul 11^th, 2017 at 1:05pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 10:44am: No, spectroscopy shows that the GHGs in the atmosphere are blocking IR from escaping into space. This causes the heating we are clearly getting. Still ignoring the incoming IR? How sad.

Lee is a total Internet joke!

TheFunPolice wrote on Jul 13^th, 2017 at 3:59pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 10:28am: Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 10:23am: Correlation does not imply causation. Nobody ever said “because more heat and more CO2 therefor we are hot because of more CO2.” But we have known CO2 is a greenhouse gas since 1865 or so. When we use spectroscopy—we find the CO2 in the atmosphere is acting like a greenhouse gas! Just like it does in the lab! You idiot. They've been saying gee its hotter... oh look there is more CO2 therefore it must be CO2 which is causing the heat. Hate to tell you...  but the Earth is not a bell-jar and climate and atmosphere are much more complicated. :D :D :D :D :D Who exactly is 'they'. :D Bit of a con artist aren't you buddy  ;)

LOL
Wouldn't it be better if you knew what people were talking about before you made yourself look totally dumb?
As mark twain said...
It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

CO2 and the other GHGs in the atmosphere block IR photons from escaping the surface and so warm the globe.

Nothing to do with correlation.

The greenhouse effect of CO2 was known like 150 years ago, shown in the lab and the AGW effect predicted in the late 1800s.

Nothing to do with correlation.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 13^th, 2017 at 7:58pm:

CO2 and the other GHGs in the atmosphere block IR photons from escaping the surface and so warm the globe. Nothing to do with correlation. The greenhouse effect of CO2 was known like 150 years ago, shown in the lab and the AGW effect predicted in the late 1800s. Nothing to do with correlation.

Ooh....  so greenhouse gases warm the globe eh?
Really?
Thanks for that, I'm guessing that's why they are called Greenhouse gases.
Did you miss the bit where I told you how they work and why?
The AGW theory is based on correlation of a few observable events.  But unfortunately the conclusions drawn are wrong.  So the theory has as yet to be proven.
feel free to be the first...  you will get worldwide publicity and hey maybe even a Nobel prize. :D :D :D

AGW happens because greenhouse gas molecules absorb IR photons, blocking them from escaping to space.

That is a very simple explanation, suitable for the simple idiots that think they know anything.

I have explained the greenhouse effect before and I have a wearying certainty I will have to explain it again and again and again before it thinks into the really thick skulls and really tiny brains of some that post here.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 13^th, 2017 at 8:56pm:

AGW happens because greenhouse gas molecules absorb IR photons, blocking them from escaping to space. That is a very simple explanation, suitable for the simple idiots that think they know anything. I have explained the greenhouse effect before and I have a wearying certainty I will have to explain it again and again and again before it thinks into the really thick skulls and really tiny brains of some that post here.

So Jovial why are nights when we have frosts - clear nights with no clouds?

Isn't it water vapor in clouds that stops the heat escaping from infra red light?


Therefore - clouds of water vapor are the greatest predictors of warming.

Therefore you're wrong.

Yes, Bobby, water vapor, H2O is a greenhouse gas. You don’t see it—colorless.

Unlike carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (and some other minor GHGs) water vapor does not just accumulate in the atmosphere: it gets condensed eventually and comes down as rain, hail or snow. So climate scientists call H2O a greenhouse effect reinforcer. the more CO2 etc in the atmosphere the more water vapor is present for longer.

Water vapor leaves just a narrow window for IR to escape, CO2 etc close that window further.

So, hopefully you now have some idea of what is happening.


Pause or ice age??

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 13^th, 2017 at 9:06pm:

Unlike carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (and some other minor GHGs) water vapor does not just accumulate in the atmosphere: it gets condensed eventually and comes down as rain, hail or snow.

And doesn't get replenished? We are screwed. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 13^th, 2017 at 8:58pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 13th, 2017 at 8:51pm: Well if you'd stop posting boring repetitive crap that might be helpful monk. 2x His panic over Climate Change / Global Warming has reached heights of hysteria rarely witnessed between this forum's pages. Frankly, I think he needs to flush all his anxieties out of his arse if he wants to save himself from having a nervous breakdown.

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4301/35726161092_392f425d42_b.jpg




Hi Herbert - that is so funny - but sadly true.
Jovial needs to see a doctor.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 13^th, 2017 at 8:56pm:

That is a very simple explanation

By a very simple person. ;)

How is that natural variability theory ( ;D ) of yours going, Loser Lees? Must have something to show the world?


Not?

lee wrote on Jul 13^th, 2017 at 9:11pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 13th, 2017 at 8:56pm: That is a very simple explanation By a very simple person. ;)

Jovial is very old - he has dementia.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 13^th, 2017 at 9:13pm:

Jovial is very old - he has dementia.

And I suspect drinks to excess given some of his ramblings.

lee wrote on Jul 13^th, 2017 at 9:15pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 13th, 2017 at 9:13pm: Jovial is very old - he has dementia. And I suspect drinks to excess given some of his ramblings.

He should really be put into a an old persons home.
This sort of exchange is no good for his heart.

Loser Lees has no idea about climate or hypothesis testing. A boorish clown.

Boobhead is a gullible idiot who believes any snake oil salesman that calls around.

None of you can argue a case and defend it.

The globe is warming and any cold we were supposed to get we won’t get, due to AGW.

The breaking off of part of the Larsen C ice shelf could well lead to the breakup of the rest of the shelf, meaning glaciers that currently end at the iceshelf will then end at the warming seas and accelerate so Antarctica loses more and more ice just like Greenland is doing.

You are a bunch of losers scared of what is happening so you pretend everything is rosy or that we are moving into an ice age.

Cowards all and dim as a 20W incandescent globe.

No pause and no ice age. Just more and more GHG molecules blocking more and more photons of IR. Getting hotter.

M0re ons and cowards. Fools!

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 13^th, 2017 at 9:24pm:

The breaking off of part of the Larsen C ice shelf could well lead to the breakup of the rest of the shelf,

Your crystal ball is out of warranty. New one required.


Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 13^th, 2017 at 9:24pm:

meaning glaciers that currently end at the iceshelf

Glaciers end at an iceshelf then do what? Wait around for all eternity or calve?


Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 13^th, 2017 at 9:24pm:

will then end at the warming seas

You mean the warm from sub-sea volcanoes? Didn't the iceshelf end at the warming seas?


Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 13^th, 2017 at 9:24pm:

and accelerate so Antarctica loses more and more ice just like Greenland is doing.

You probably need one of those new digital crystal balls to take care of the brain strain.


Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 13^th, 2017 at 9:24pm:

You are a bunch of losers scared of what is happening so you pretend everything is rosy or that we are moving into an ice age.

Nope. Waiting on your proof. No point getting scared over a minimal warming.


Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 13^th, 2017 at 9:24pm:

M0re ons and cowards. Fools!

Ah well. Go and preach to the converted. Your bullshit won't wash here.

The Larsen C ice shelf break up will lead to much more rapid iceloss from Antarctica. If you had the intellectual curiosity of a dead ant you might have done a bit of searching about it.

But that might have involved you having to learn and maybe seeing that AGW is happening, and you can’t have that, can you Lees? That would be the stuff of nightmares to you.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 13^th, 2017 at 10:47pm:

The Larsen C ice shelf break up will lead to much more rapid iceloss from Antarctica.

That's an assertion. Got anything to back it up?

Sure, I posted a link to an article on the ABC website that you should be able to understand after a couple of goes, or you can read the longer article posted in Relationships.

I point you to the Larsen A & B ice shelves not reforming and the glaciers there accelerating. Now, the Antarctic Peninsula ice fields are not huge, which is why I suggest you numbnuts search for “Thwaites glacier.” If THAT goes. . .

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 14^th, 2017 at 11:07am:

Sure, I posted a link to an article on the website that you should be able to understand after a couple of goes

Did that article, Peer-reviewed? say it could increase or will increase? We know your comprehension isn't great.

Seeing as Antarctica is a polar desert, low water vapour, so not able to mask the CO2 signal, and CO2 is around 400 ppm, please show us the increased night time temperature from Antarctica. IF the CO2 is causing any warming.

Don’t worry, other more advanced articles will be posted to that thread in Relationships.

For now just remember: both air and water temperatures at Larsen C were rather warmer than “normal” and the Larsen C iceshelf had thinned by METRES!

Now I invite your “expert, scientific” mind to search for “Thwaites glacier” and read what scientists fear might happen there.

AGW just got a bit pointier!

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 14^th, 2017 at 11:25am:

For now just remember: both air and water temperatures at Larsen C were rather warmer than “normal”

Were the Larsen C air temperatures above or below zero?

I notice you didn't respond to the night time air temperatures for the Antarctic.

The air thinned the iceshelf by metres, it was that warm. the warmer waters under the shelf thinned the shelf by about a metre.

You could find this out by reading the ABC website article or the longer one I posted in Relationships.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 14^th, 2017 at 12:20pm:

You could find this out by reading the ABC website article

""If Larsen C now starts to retreat significantly and eventually collapses, then we will see another contribution to sea level rise," he added.

"Big icebergs break off Antarctica naturally, meaning scientists are not linking the rift to manmade climate change."

""In the ensuing months and years, the ice shelf could either gradually regrow, or may suffer further calving events which may eventually lead to collapse — opinions in the scientific community are divided," Professor Luckman said.

"Our models say it will be less stable, but any future collapse remains years or decades away."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-12/huge-iceberg-breaks-away-from-antarctica-larsen-c-shelf/8703238

Certainly a large lack of "wills" there.

JM, Just a failure to communicate.

Just more Bluff, Bluster and Bullshit from JM.

And the breakup of Larsen C was thought, in 2015, to be decades away.

That bit of the ABC article you quoted above confirmed everything I said. Nice of you.

Now, be real daring and read up about the Thwaites glacier.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 14^th, 2017 at 3:10pm:

And the breakup of Larsen C was thought, in 2015, to be decades away.

Which just goes to show what climate scientists don't know. ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 14^th, 2017 at 3:10pm:

That bit of the ABC article you quoted above confirmed everything I said. Nice of you.

Except you turned uncertainties into certainties. So, no, didn't confirm your view at all.

Meanwhile, according to the New York Times, China is doing its bit for climate change -

"As Beijing Joins Climate Fight, Chinese Companies Build Coal Plants

When China halted plans for more than 100 new coal-fired power plants this year, even as President Trump vowed to “bring back coal” in America, the contrast seemed to confirm Beijing’s new role as a leader in the fight against climate change.

But new data on the world’s biggest developers of coal-fired power plants paints a very different picture: China’s energy companies will make up nearly half of the new coal generation expected to go online in the next decade.

These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin. Many of the plants are in China, but by capacity, roughly a fifth of these new coal power stations are in other countries.

Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent.

The fleet of new coal plants would make it virtually impossible to meet the goals set in the Paris climate accord, which aims to keep the increase in global temperatures from preindustrial levels below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/climate/china-energy-companies-coal-plants-climate-change.html

dated - JULY 1, 2017

Always good to see you posting articles which demonstrate your comprehension of AGW Lee, shame they never seem to penetrate your consciousnesses.

Pho Huc wrote on Jul 16^th, 2017 at 12:57pm:

Always good to see you posting articles which demonstrate your comprehension of AGW Lee, shame they never seem to penetrate your consciousnesses.

Good comeback. You have been away so long. Did the first recorded sailing voyage of the Arctic, before it was possible, according to the graph you posted, penetrate your consciousness? ;)

Another post on AGW—the Greenhouse effect—has been made in the Relationships board, Larsen C ice shelf thread. You can discuss it here amongst yourselves while I work on a third post.



7.13
7.32

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 19^th, 2017 at 7:43pm:

Another post on AGW—the Greenhouse effect—has been made in the Relationships board, Larsen C ice shelf thread. You can discuss it here amongst yourselves while I work on a third post. 7.13 7.32

No one cares.... :D :D :D

lee wrote on Jul 14^th, 2017 at 3:20pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 14th, 2017 at 3:10pm: And the breakup of Larsen C was thought, in 2015, to be decades away. Which just goes to show what climate scientists don't know. ;) Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 14th, 2017 at 3:10pm: That bit of the ABC article you quoted above confirmed everything I said. Nice of you. Except you turned uncertainties into certainties. So, no, didn't confirm your view at all.

Lee uses circular logic to trick kids  ;D

Go business acumen, I mean, crapper net  ;D ;D ;D ;D

  Lee uses circular logic to trick kids  ;D

Go business acumen, I mean, crapper net  ;D ;D ;D ;D


Lee uses circular logic to trick kids  ;D

Go business acumen, I mean, crapper net  ;D ;D ;D ;D

  Lee uses circular logic to trick kids  ;D

Go business acumen, I mean, crapper net  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Lee uses circular logic to trick kids  ;D

Go business acumen, I mean, crapper net  ;D ;D ;D ;D

  Lee uses circular logic to trick kids  ;D

Go business acumen, I mean, crapper net  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Lee uses circular logic to trick kids  ;D

Go business acumen, I mean, crapper net  ;D ;D ;D ;D

  Lee uses circular logic to trick kids  ;D

Go business acumen, I mean, crapper net  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Grendel wrote on Jul 19^th, 2017 at 8:34pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 19th, 2017 at 7:43pm: Another post on AGW—the Greenhouse effect—has been made in the Relationships board, Larsen C ice shelf thread. You can discuss it here amongst yourselves while I work on a third post. 7.13 7.32 No one cares.... :D :D :D

grendel knows nothing  :o

130 views—someone cares  ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 20^th, 2017 at 3:41pm:

130 views—someone cares  ;)

Only views eh...  no one cares.

Grendel wrote on Jul 20^th, 2017 at 8:53pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 20th, 2017 at 3:41pm: 130 views—someone cares  ;) Only views eh...  no one cares.

Of course they do: what, you think they care about crapper net more?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 14^th, 2017 at 3:10pm:

And the breakup of Larsen C was thought, in 2015, to be decades away. That bit of the ABC article you quoted above confirmed everything I said. Nice of you. Now, be real daring and read up about the Thwaites glacier.

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

LOL you really are a fool aren't you.
There is no schedule, no clock and no way to estimate accurately the event. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Grendel wrote on Jul 20^th, 2017 at 8:53pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 20th, 2017 at 3:41pm: 130 views—someone cares  ;) Only views eh...  no one cares.

Grendel wrote on Jul 20^th, 2017 at 9:03pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 14th, 2017 at 3:10pm: And the breakup of Larsen C was thought, in 2015, to be decades away. That bit of the ABC article you quoted above confirmed everything I said. Nice of you. Now, be real daring and read up about the Thwaites glacier. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D LOL you really are a fool aren't you. There is no schedule, no clock and no way to estimate accurately the event. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Grendel knows nothing!

;D

Grendel wrote on Jul 20^th, 2017 at 9:04pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 20th, 2017 at 8:53pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 20th, 2017 at 3:41pm: 130 views—someone cares  ;) Only views eh...  no one cares.

The thread is locked, what did you expect?  :D

Keep your eye on that thread tho either one big post or, more likely, two posts on an aspect of AGW that is going to kick our arse, hard, will be added over the next few days.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 20^th, 2017 at 9:21pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 20th, 2017 at 9:04pm: Grendel wrote on Jul 20th, 2017 at 8:53pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 20th, 2017 at 3:41pm: 130 views—someone cares  ;) Only views eh...  no one cares. The thread is locked, what did you expect?  :D Keep your eye on that thread tho either one big post or, more likely, two posts on an aspect of AGW that is going to kick our arse, hard!

LOL
You idiot that is to be expected...  you cant handle debate.
People look see how useless the topic is then go away. Never to look at it ever again.  Some may go back occasionally to see if the idiot who locked it has unlocked it of course. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Haven't been there, why would I bother, its like YOUR SEWER...  no point going there.
Here is where debate takes place Monkeyboy. :D :D :D

Is it. When do you start debating? Just curious.

I don’t mind debate but I am tired of good, well–supported posts being buried under an avalanche of nitpicking, bad science, obfuscation, deflection and bullshit generally. THAT is what I don’t like.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 20^th, 2017 at 11:08pm:

Is it. When do you start debating? Just curious. I don’t mind debate but I am tired of good, well–supported posts being buried under an avalanche of nitpicking, bad science, obfuscation, deflection and bullshit generally. THAT is what I don’t like.

I guess your problem is YOU are so used to doing the later, you cant recognise good debate and seldom bother to read it. :D :D :D :D :D

So—refute the greenhouse effect theory.

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

So—refute the greenhouse effect theory.

See.... 
YOU are an idiot.
My first post or 1 of them explained the Greenhouse effect and what GHGs do you fool.

Why would I argue against myself and the natural phenomenon that allows life on Earth? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You really do need to start reading what people post.  Or bugger off. :D :D :D

Grendel wrote on Jul 9^th, 2017 at 3:15pm:

LOL Happy we have the Greenhouse Effect Monk...  aren't you? If we didn't you'd be a popsicle long ago. BTW weather and climate on Earth is much more complicated than just a gas or two. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Care to refute any of that??????????? :D

Yes, I am aware that without any GHGs in the atmosphere the world would be much colder. We have surpassed that stage, however, and are now warming. You seem, as far as I can tell from your almost illiterate rants, to disagree about the warming. I have provided evidence (see the second post in the Larsen C thread in Relationships) of that warming.

Can you refute the warming from AGW?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 21^st, 2017 at 10:19am:

Yes, I am aware that without any GHGs in the atmosphere the world would be much colder. We have surpassed that stage, however, and are now warming. You seem, as far as I can tell from your almost illiterate rants, to disagree about the warming. I have provided evidence (see the second post in the Larsen C thread in Relationships) of that warming. Can you refute the warming from AGW?

LOL
Did I mention YOu are an idiot?

SO you now recant what you said about me eh.
No apology as per usual, and no ability to refute what I actually have said.  Goodo.
You may be able to learn after all.

I have stated many times that the planet is dynamic Monk.  What don't you understand about that?
I have stated that there has been cooling and warming?  What don't you understand about that?
I have explained about GHGs and how our atmosphere allows and sustains life.  What don't you understand about that?

If I do all these things why would I refute the laws of nature?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 20^th, 2017 at 9:21pm:

The thread is locked, what did you expect?

Well. That is one way to stifle debate. You in your little echo chamber going "I'm so good". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Can be discussed here.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 21^st, 2017 at 2:10pm:

Can be discussed here.

Well write it here. I am not jumping through hoops to satisfy your ego.

lee wrote on Jul 21^st, 2017 at 3:07pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 21st, 2017 at 2:10pm: Can be discussed here. Well write it here. I am not jumping through hoops to satisfy your ego.

Lee demands answers for he represents captains you see  ;D

I like where it is, no trouble to read it in Relationships. Couple–three more posts coming reasonably soon.

Running away again I see Monk.
tsk, tsk, tsk, oh dearie dear me... as bwian would say.

Refute or acknowledge.

or bugger off...

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

Running away again I see Monk. tsk, tsk, tsk, oh dearie dear me... as bwian would say. Refute or acknowledge. or bugger off...

Grendel knows nothing but strangling the kids with pithy circular language: did you learn that trick at boarding school or something mr nice daddy  ::) ???

roach is best just ignored.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 21^st, 2017 at 5:22pm:

roach is best just ignored.

I keep forgetting, sorry  :o  :D :D

Grendel wrote on Jul 21^st, 2017 at 10:16am:

Grendel wrote on Jul 9th, 2017 at 3:15pm: LOL Happy we have the Greenhouse Effect Monk...  aren't you? If we didn't you'd be a popsicle long ago. BTW weather and climate on Earth is much more complicated than just a gas or two. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Care to refute any of that??????????? :D

You could just runaway again Monk. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I have already said we need some GHGs to raise the black body temperature of the earth.

But GHGs have gone way beyond that. The world is warming.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 7:04am:

I have already said we need some GHGs to raise the black body temperature of the earth. But GHGs have gone way beyond that. The world is warming.

The world has always cooled and warmed...  its been much cooler and much warmer...  you need to stop being an alarmist.

Ajax, deforestation means terrestrial carbon sinks are being removed, boosting AGW and likely doing other harm like removal of habitat etc.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 2:25pm:

Ajax, deforestation means terrestrial carbon sinks are being removed, boosting AGW and likely doing other harm like removal of habitat etc.

EXACTLY........................!!!

Why aren't you guys making the same noise about this....!

I'll tell you why because your overlords the oligarchy make money from deforestation.

Deforestation should be right up there on top of your list.

If you're that concerned about the environment.

Why don't you make some noise as to STOP it..........!!!

Oh stop with the bullshit Ajax. Anyone interested in AGW or the environment more generally hates deforestation as well as pollution other than carbon.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 2:41pm:

Oh stop with the bullshit Ajax. Anyone interested in AGW or the environment more generally hates deforestation as well as pollution other than carbon.

If you're that concerned about the environment then deforestation should be right up there on the list of battles that you have to endure to make the Earth a better place.

It shouldn't be just something that you hate.....................!!!

Where is your voice on this....???

If you like I will add deforestation to the list of topics to be discussed.

You can kickstart it if you like.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 2:41pm:

Oh stop with the bullshit Ajax. Anyone interested in AGW or the environment more generally hates deforestation as well as pollution other than carbon.

AJAX  makes a very valid point...
CO2 isn't a pollutants BTW its a plant food, put simply we breath it out, they breath it in, kinda symbiotic don'tcha think.

Instead of wasting Trillions we should be planting more CO2 collectors and correcting the imbalance.

More sensible than expecting us to all go back to the stone age.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 3:05pm:

If you like I will add deforestation to the list of topics to be discussed. You can kickstart it if you like.

And who made you the Environment Forum head-honcho?

Greenhouse effect.

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

We see the decrease in black body temperature measured in the IR spectrum We see the decrease in temperature due to an increased amount of heat being retained at the surface of the globe.

At every GHG spectral line we see the drop in black body temperature.

How does the greenhouse effect work?

Visible and UV light from the sun hits the earth, some gets reflected most hits the surface and warms it and the surface emits infrared. As the IR photon heads out to space it might be absorbed by a molecule of a GHG (any molecule with three or more atoms, hence CO2, H2O, O3, N2O, CH4 etc) exciting that molecule: it spins and vibrates more rapidly. It cannot hang on the photon for long so emits the photon. It could re-emit it downwards as likely as it re-emits it upwards. The photon could be absorbed–re-emitted by more than one GHG molecule.

Any IR that returns to the surface warms it: the molecules, water or rock hit by the photon vibrate more quickly.

The measurement of IR on the surface in Alaska and Montana showed that there was more IR reaching the surface, more radiative forcing, when the concentration of CO2 was highest.

Bingo....
change topic....  post a graph, toss in some jargon and gobledygook...

Works everytime right Monk ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Well, this thread is called “The Greenhouse Effect” but had no actual discussion of it.

A deforestation thread will be started, never fear.

Grendel wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 3:35pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 2:41pm: Oh stop with the bullshit Ajax. Anyone interested in AGW or the environment more generally hates deforestation as well as pollution other than carbon. AJAX  makes a very valid point... CO2 isn't a pollutants BTW its a plant food, put simply we breath it out, they breath it in, kinda symbiotic don'tcha think. Instead of wasting Trillions we should be planting more CO2 collectors and correcting the imbalance. More sensible than expecting us to all go back to the stone age.

You are a unit  ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 2:24pm:

Well, this thread is called “The Greenhouse Effect” but had no actual discussion of it. A deforestation thread will be started, never fear.

Apparently deforestation causes 11% of AGW!

Well, it reduces carbon sinks so more CO2 stays in the atmosphere.

By polluting the seas we are also killing carbon sinks there.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 2:31pm:

Well, it reduces carbon sinks so more CO2 stays in the atmosphere. By polluting the seas we are also killing carbon sinks there.

Yeh, so I suppose they add all that up and say it's equivalent to taking all the cars and trucks off the road.... I don't think they mentioned airplanes so I'm obviously not all over the numbers in infinite detail!

Anyway: electricity generation is still the biggest part of the problem.... how many trees did dial-tones want to plant again- hilarious.... like crapper net they just stopped talking about it!

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 1:51pm:

Greenhouse effect.

I looked at the Harries et al paper. They have assumed IR is constant. They have ignored UHI. So the graph will actually show increased emissions somewhere along its plot.

Guess what? The only two available slots are CO2 and CH4, if you care to look at the graph. Remember those two slots are only representative of CO2 and CH4 based on wavenumber. What frequency or frequencies  (1/f) are representative of UHI?

They measured IR. They found less IR left the globe at the frequencies of the GHGs.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 2:46pm:

They measured IR. They found less IR left the globe at the frequencies of the GHGs.

very good. now address the question.

That is the greenhouse effect that is warming the globe!

That is the subject of this thread.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 2:54pm:

That is the greenhouse effect that is warming the globe! That is the subject of this thread.

Your the one posted the graph saying it supports your contention.
BTW- did you notice there is no IR band shown for water vapour?

lee wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 3:00pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 2:54pm: That is the greenhouse effect that is warming the globe! That is the subject of this thread. Your the one posted the graph saying it supports your contention. BTW- did you notice there is no IR band shown for water vapour?

That is because they removed the effect of water vapor, Lees? Did you not see that mentioned? Maybe try reading articles posted?

Not just me said the graph showed the Greenhouse Effect, Harries et al said so too!

We are heating the globe by emitting GHGs. Simple as that.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 2:31pm:

Well, it reduces carbon sinks so more CO2 stays in the atmosphere. By polluting the seas we are also killing carbon sinks there.

It?

Please clarify....  "it"

Deforestation, roach.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 2:54pm:

That is the greenhouse effect that is warming the globe! That is the subject of this thread.

I'm pretty sure we all agree there's a Greenhouse Effect. :D

So what are you going on about?

Some of us have even explained to you how it works. :D

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 3:11pm:

Deforestation, roach.

Oh is that right Monkeyboy...
hard to tell without you stating exactly what you are on about.

Glad you agree that trees/plants feed on CO2.
Therefore you must agree that protecting and growing more trees/plants is a good way of reducing atmospheric CO2.

But you spend as has been pointed out no time discussing this  or the loss of forests etc.

Then again, a mature forest does not absorb net carbon and often has a plume of methane above it (read this ages ago, don’t have a link) the new forests need to be managed.

Wildfires are a hazard these days and with the lengthening wild fire seasons management will need to be intense.

To really remove CO2 from the atmosphere, bamboo is much faster growing.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 3:03pm:

That is because they removed the effect of water vapor, Lees?

Harries et al  2008 paper -

" The paper presents a review of the far-infrared (FIR) properties of the Earth's atmosphere and their role in climate. These properties have been relatively poorly understood, and it is one of the purposes of this review to demonstrate that in recent years we have made great strides in improving this understanding. Seen from space, the Earth is a cool object, with an effective emitting temperature of about 255 K. This contrasts with a global mean surface temperature of ∼288 K and is due primarily to strong absorption of outgoing longwave energy by water vapor, carbon dioxide, and clouds (especially ice). A large fraction of this absorption occurs in the FIR, and so the Earth is effectively a FIR planet. The FIR is important in a number of key climate processes, for example, the water vapor and cloud feedbacks (especially ice clouds). "

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007RG000233/full

"The simulations shown in Fig. 1b and c were calculated as follows. Profiles   of   atmospheric   temperature   and   water   vapour   were extracted covering the same region and three-month time periods from  the  NCEP  (National  Centers  for  Environmental  Prediction, Washington) reanalysis project"

Harries et al 2001.

Now the NCEP reanalysis project - Kalnay et al states -

"Output variables are classified into four classes, depending on the degree to which they are influenced by the observations and/or the model. For example, "C" variables (such as precipitation and surface fluxes) are completely determined by the model during the data assimilation and should be used with caution"

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996BAMS...77..437K

No mention of ice, or water vapo(u)r.

Such certitude.

Of course not water vapor, it fluctuates too much.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 3:29pm:

Of course not water vapor, it fluctuates too much.

Really....  how so.
It is always around 95% of the atmosphere.

Oh wait, you think its not there because you cant see it ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 3:20pm:

Then again, a mature forest does not absorb net carbon and often has a plume of methane above it (read this ages ago, don’t have a link) the new forests need to be managed. Wildfires are a hazard these days and with the lengthening wild fire seasons management will need to be intense. To really remove CO2 from the atmosphere, bamboo is much faster growing.

Bamboo is a plant....  what's your issue.

BTW read a scientific article a few years ago...  lawns/grass takes in more CO2 than trees. ::)

I have no issue with bamboo, I want bamboo to be planted big time. Plant, harvest, turn into flooring or whatever—pretty permanent sort of uses.

I plan to build a strawbale house—lock up carbon.

Grendel wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 3:36pm:

Bamboo is a plant....  what's your issue. BTW read a scientific article a few years ago...  lawns/grass takes in more CO2 than trees. ::)

Which plants store more carbon in Australia: forests or grasses?

Since carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas, one strategy that can partially combat global warming and climate change is to increase the amount of carbon stored in plants.  By increasing the amount of plant life on earth, or altering it to plant types that store the most carbon, more carbon dioxide may be pulled out of the air and stored for a period of time.

Scientists call anything that removes carbon from the atmosphere a ‘sink’.  In order to be effective in combating climate change, the sink must be large and the carbon must stay in the sink.  So what is important for climate change is not the amount of carbon exchanged between the atmosphere and plants, but how much carbon stays in the total forest and total grassland ‘sinks’.

Australia has 149 million hectares of forest.  Of this, 147 million hectares is native forest, dominated by eucalypt (79%) and acacia (7%), and 1.82 million hectares is in plantations[i]. Grassland covers around 440 million hectares of land in Australia[ii].

The size of the difference in the total carbon storage between grasslands and woodlands depends not just on the amount of land covered by the plants, but on the capacity of the individual ecosystems to store carbon, and the depth to which the carbon sink is tested.   The sinks can be the plant material above ground, below ground (roots), and soil that is enriched in carbon by dead plant material.

Based on data from typical perennial grasslands and mature forests in Australia, forests are typically more than 10 times as effective as grasslands at storing carbon on a hectare per hectare basis.

source: http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2009/12/which-plants-store-more-carbon-in-australia-forests-or-grasses/

Which plants store more carbon in Australia: forests or grasses?

Since carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas, one strategy that can partially combat global warming and climate change is to increase the amount of carbon stored in plants.  By increasing the amount of plant life on earth, or altering it to plant types that store the most carbon, more carbon dioxide may be pulled out of the air and stored for a period of time.

Scientists call anything that removes carbon from the atmosphere a ‘sink’.  In order to be effective in combating climate change, the sink must be large and the carbon must stay in the sink.  So what is important for climate change is not the amount of carbon exchanged between the atmosphere and plants, but how much carbon stays in the total forest and total grassland ‘sinks’.

Australia has 149 million hectares of forest.  Of this, 147 million hectares is native forest, dominated by eucalypt (79%) and acacia (7%), and 1.82 million hectares is in plantations[i]. Grassland covers around 440 million hectares of land in Australia[ii].

The size of the difference in the total carbon storage between grasslands and woodlands depends not just on the amount of land covered by the plants, but on the capacity of the individual ecosystems to store carbon, and the depth to which the carbon sink is tested.   The sinks can be the plant material above ground, below ground (roots), and soil that is enriched in carbon by dead plant material.

Based on data from typical perennial grasslands and mature forests in Australia, forests are typically more than 10 times as effective as grasslands at storing carbon on a hectare per hectare basis.

source: http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2009/12/which-plants-store-more-carbon-in-australia-forests-or-grasses/



Which plants store more carbon in Australia: forests or grasses?

Since carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas, one strategy that can partially combat global warming and climate change is to increase the amount of carbon stored in plants.  By increasing the amount of plant life on earth, or altering it to plant types that store the most carbon, more carbon dioxide may be pulled out of the air and stored for a period of time.

Scientists call anything that removes carbon from the atmosphere a ‘sink’.  In order to be effective in combating climate change, the sink must be large and the carbon must stay in the sink.  So what is important for climate change is not the amount of carbon exchanged between the atmosphere and plants, but how much carbon stays in the total forest and total grassland ‘sinks’.

Australia has 149 million hectares of forest.  Of this, 147 million hectares is native forest, dominated by eucalypt (79%) and acacia (7%), and 1.82 million hectares is in plantations[i]. Grassland covers around 440 million hectares of land in Australia[ii].

The size of the difference in the total carbon storage between grasslands and woodlands depends not just on the amount of land covered by the plants, but on the capacity of the individual ecosystems to store carbon, and the depth to which the carbon sink is tested.   The sinks can be the plant material above ground, below ground (roots), and soil that is enriched in carbon by dead plant material.

Based on data from typical perennial grasslands and mature forests in Australia, forests are typically more than 10 times as effectiv....

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 3:42pm:

I have no issue with bamboo, I want bamboo to be planted big time. Plant, harvest, turn into flooring or whatever—pretty permanent sort of uses. I plan to build a strawbale house—lock up carbon.

Ideas are good  ;)

And how do you use grasses? Strawbale house (or shed or barn or. . .) or cane furniture is about the only way. Bamboo is very fast growing, can be turned into flooring etc.

I know: haysheds made of hay  ;D

Hey now you get it!

What about a woolshed made of wool (insulation?)

Wooden houses? (more common elsewhere)

That kinda thing!

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 5:27pm:

Hey now you get it! What about a woolshed made of wool (insulation?) Wooden houses? (more common elsewhere) That kinda thing!

Ideas are good!

Applications of ideas are, ...potentially   :o, even better!

I will build a strawbale house.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 5:49pm:

I will build a strawbale house.

Um, ...okeley dokely  ;D

Have the block of land, know the builder and have been in touch. It will happen DRAH.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 5:58pm:

Have the block of land, know the builder and have been in touch. It will happen DRAH.

Sounds like someone elses fun !

Standard of living becomes an expectation that is hard to change: the whole climate change deal does need those willing enough like you to try different things but the masses simply want the hollywood lifestyle of comfortable debt.

Comfortable debt sells...

When the summers just get hotter, when the sea level just keeps rising they will get the idea.

I think life is just so tough these days due to Lib mismanagement that the daily slog is all most can concentrate on. But reality does tend to impose itself.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 6:12pm:

When the summers just get hotter, when the sea level just keeps rising they will get the idea. I think life is just so tough these days due to Lib mismanagement that the daily slog is all most can concentrate on. But reality does tend to impose itself.

Honestly that's the most succinct load of crap you've ever posted.

Grendel wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 6:29pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 6:12pm: When the summers just get hotter, when the sea level just keeps rising they will get the idea. I think life is just so tough these days due to Lib mismanagement that the daily slog is all most can concentrate on. But reality does tend to impose itself. Honestly that's the most succinct load of crap you've ever posted.

The lib voter gave us crapper net: they are clearly not of a high acumen, let alone of the business variety!

Another paper - the pause is real.

Just how does CO2 do that? Warming, pausing?

"Existing studies of the recent warming hiatus over land are primarily based on the average of daily minimum and maximum temperatures (T2). This study compared regional warming rates of mean temperature based on T2 and T24 calculated from hourly observations available from 1998 to 2013. Both T2 and T24 show that the warming hiatus over land is apparent in the mid-latitudes of North America and Eurasia, especially in cold seasons, which is closely associated with the negative North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Arctic Oscillation (AO) and cold air propagation by the Arctic-original northerly wind anomaly into mid-latitudes. "

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31789

2016 is the hottest recorded year, 2017 second hottest so far.

No pause, just a noisy weather record.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 2:48pm:

2016 is the hottest recorded year, 2017 second hottest so far.

Oh no 1997 from NOAA lost again. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
3ºF of "noise". ;D ;D ;D ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 2:48pm:

2016 is the hottest recorded year, 2017 second hottest so far. No pause, just a noisy weather record.

Ah no
Only alarmists in denial have your problem.

The pause/hiatus etc is real.

Quote:

The odds are good that 2017 will stay in second place through the end of the year, and it is even more likely that it will remain in at least the top three hottest years. NOAA released its global temperature data for June on Tuesday, and ranked June as the third warmest in its records. The four warmest Junes in its records have all happened in the past four years. (NASA, which released its June numbers on Friday, ranked June as the fourth hottest. The two agencies handle the data slightly differently, which can lead to small differences in their rankings, though they strongly agree on recent warming.)

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

Oh. The Grist. I thought you only quoted science magazines. And they can foretell the future.

To two decimal places? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quoting science reports.

What is all this crap about “a pause” oh no, what is this crap about, ta da TEH PAUSE!

So 1998 was a hellacious El Nino year, 1999 as expected was nowhere near as hot as 1998.

But we have passed 1998, 2016 was the hottest year, this year the second hottest.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 3:18pm:

TEH PAUSE

Is that like teh hee?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 3:18pm:

what is this crap about, ta da TEH PAUSE!

"Existing studies of the  recent warming hiatus". AKA the "pause"

Pause is past, temps hotter than ever before.

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/temp-vs-coal-consumption.png

2002 to 2014 the trend was....  DOWN

You expect weather and climate to be ever smoothly trending???

Close your eyes Monk....  like you do whenever this graph is shown...

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/clip_image002_thumb.png

Wattsup is a denialist website that is often wrong.

You should stick to NASA, NOAA, MetOffice (UK), BuMet, CSIRO etc.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 3:40pm:

You expect weather and climate to be ever smoothly trending???

No but YOU ignore those facts and appear to think and believe it will always trend upwards regardless of facts and history. :D

Grendel wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 3:46pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 3:40pm: You expect weather and climate to be ever smoothly trending??? No but YOU ignore those facts and appear to think and believe it will always trend upwards regardless of facts and history. :D

I'll repeat the same question I ask everyone who produces that graph grendel, what does it actually show?

E.g. what is the y axis?

Did you see what I said about noisy weather record?

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/slowdown-infographic1.jpg

http://www.desmog.uk/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/gwpf%20january%202017%20temperature%20error%20graph_0.jpg

Found a hadcrut graph for 2015-2017 and it certainly doesn't show that this years temps will be another high or record high.

Unfortunately cant post it due to some glitch.

But I found this article instead.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/06/bombshell-study-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-government-climate-data/

Bombshell study: Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Government Climate Data


Quote:

A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.” “Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.

Quote:

In fact, almost all the surface temperature warming adjustments cool past temperatures and warm more current records, increasing the warming trend, according to the study’s authors.

lee and grendel think they are con artists because they can make their kids cry  ;D

"Dad, ...why did you vote for crapper-net and pretend you got rich with paper profits  :'(???"

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 3:46pm:

Wattsup is a denialist website that is often wrong. You should stick to NASA, NOAA, MetOffice (UK), BuMet, CSIRO etc.

LOL
Don't be goober all your life. :D :D :D :D :D

Grendel wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 4:09pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 3:46pm: Wattsup is a denialist website that is often wrong. You should stick to NASA, NOAA, MetOffice (UK), BuMet, CSIRO etc. LOL Don't be goober all your life. :D :D :D :D :D

Grendel knows nothing!

;)

Next time he will quote that renowned climatologist JoNova  ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 4:26pm:

Next time he will quote that renowned climatologist JoNova  ;)

You could learn a lot from that site.
She's not a climatologist BTW.
But many experts do have articles there.
You should try listening to an honest expert for a change.

Neither Mann or Hansen fill the bill.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 3:46pm:

Wattsup is a denialist website that is often wrong.

One of these days you might want to post your  proof, or not. Without proof it is just a meaningless assertion.
Like a lot of what you post. ;)

lee wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 4:59pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 3:46pm: Wattsup is a denialist website that is often wrong. One of these days you might want to post your  proof, or not. Without proof it is just a meaningless assertion. Like a lot of what you post. ;)

Why don't you try and disprove the allegation  ;D

The fake conservatives love trying to dish out the homework but only ever succeeded in making their little kids cry and wives laugh at them when they leave the room......  :D

LOL
Lobotomy Brother no 2....

Monk needs to start posting facts for a change I'm still waiting for quotes to back up his assertions and facts to back up his opinions.

Grendel wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 5:04pm:

LOL Lobotomy Brother no 2.... Monk needs to start posting facts for a change I'm still waiting for quotes to back up his assertions and facts to back up his opinions.

Grendel voted for crapper net, Grendel voted for crapper net,.. hey why did Grendel vote for crapper net and when will he start posting facts on why he voted for crapper net ?

Tendency for warmer winters is increasing

A new study published this week in Geophysical Research Letters by Robert Graham at the Norwegian Polar Institute shows that warm winters in the Arctic are becoming more frequent and lasting for longer periods of time than they used to. Warm events were defined by when the air temperatures rose above -10 degrees Celsius (14 degrees  Fahrenheit). While this is still well below the freezing point, it is 20 degrees Celsius (36 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average. The last two winters have seen temperatures near the North Pole rising to 0 degrees Celsius. While an earlier study showed that winter 2015/2016 was the warmest recorded at that time, the winter of 2016/2017 was even warmer.

TheFunPolice wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 5:02pm:

Why don't you try and disprove the allegation

Not my allegation, not my problem.

Maybe you would like to stand in for him. I'm sure he would appreciate it. ;)

TheFunPolice wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 5:07pm:

Tendency for warmer winters is increasing A new study published this week

Link please. ;)

Grendel wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 5:04pm:

LOL Lobotomy Brother no 2.... Monk needs to start posting facts for a change I'm still waiting for quotes to back up his assertions and facts to back up his opinions.

Why should he?  When you are challenged for a source, you rudely tell the challenger to do their own homework, or that you have already posted the source.

Eat your own back at ye, Grendel.

Yeah, bit of googling and he would have it. Way he addresses me I feel no need to do his homework for him.

lee wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 5:09pm:

Link please.

Don't bother. Found it.

"Despite a thin network of observation sites, winter time temperatures above −5°C were directly observed approximately once every 3 years in the central Arctic Ocean between 1954 and 2010. "

Oh a thin network and then extrapolate outwards. ;)

lee wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 5:09pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 5:07pm: Tendency for warmer winters is increasing A new study published this week Link please. ;)

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Talking about Greenland now on ABC Tv early news.

lee wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 5:16pm:

lee wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 5:09pm: Link please. Don't bother. Found it. "Despite a thin network of observation sites, winter time temperatures above −5°C were directly observed approximately once every 3 years in the central Arctic Ocean between 1954 and 2010. " Oh a thin network and then extrapolate outwards. ;)

Are you sure you found it  ::) I noticed you didn't post a link  :D

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 5:52pm:

Talking about Greenland now on ABC Tv early news.

There is no quantified debate in the mainstream media: that means it all adds up to disinformation!

TheFunPolice wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 5:52pm:

Are you sure you found it  Roll Eyes I noticed you didn't post a link  Cheesy

I'm sure.

Sorry -

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL073395/abstract

You mean that one? ;)

Aussie wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 5:09pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 5:04pm: LOL Lobotomy Brother no 2.... Monk needs to start posting facts for a change I'm still waiting for quotes to back up his assertions and facts to back up his opinions. Why should he?  When you are challenged for a source, you rudely tell the challenger to do their own homework, or that you have already posted the source. Eat your own back at ye, Grendel.

Actually that is hardly ever true except with people like Aussie because he expects people to spoon feed him all the time and is a lazy sod.
Usually I post lots of information.
Also if I have recently posted stuff and people ignored it I'll tell them to go look too....
but usually I do post information depending how long it takes me to get around to it.
Monk on the otherhand has made claims about people without proof.
he needs to man up and post a quote.
he cant
he won't.
because he's a liar.
I don't need to go back and read Ice Age, I've already read it.
he needs to post the truth.

Thank you, I am not a liar! Booby is always going on about his stupid videos being “Evidence” and if you are such a computer expert as you claim to be you can find it soon enough. So

roach . . . .Fetch!

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 6:19pm:

Thank you, I am not a liar! Booby is always going on about his stupid videos being “Evidence” and if you are such a computer expert as you claim to be you can find it soon enough. So roach . . . .[]Fetch![/size]

MONK...  LIAR!!!
Now post a quote to back up your claim or admit you are a liar.

Go away roach.

Just post a quote to back your claim up.
Or admit to lying and verballing...

I have noted your attempt to move the goalposts ;D ;D ;D

Go away roach.

Sorry folks, blame Monk...


Grendel wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 6:28pm:

Just post a quote to back your claim up. Or admit to lying and verballing... I have noted your attempt to move the goalposts ;D ;D ;D

Go away roach.

Grendel wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 6:32pm:

Sorry folks, blame Monk... Grendel wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:28pm: Just post a quote to back your claim up. Or admit to lying and verballing... I have noted your attempt to move the goalposts ;D ;D ;D

go away roach

yawn....  not wearing me out Monkeyboy...

I can do this as long as you can.


Grendel wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 7:15pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:32pm: Sorry folks, blame Monk... Grendel wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:28pm: Just post a quote to back your claim up. Or admit to lying and verballing... I have noted your attempt to move the goalposts ;D ;D ;D

Time for you to admit you lied, because you cant provide a quote that doesn't exist.

You made it all up in your head as per usual...  is that right? ;D

go away roach.

Gas molecules made of three or more atoms are “greenhouse gases” that are partially opaque to infrared radiation. IR has a wavelength a bit longer than light. We know the band of visible light can be subdivided into 7 sub-bands corresponding to the colors red, orange, yellow. . .violet and IR also stretches out over a band of wavelengths.

Radiation can be thought of as little packets of electromagnetic energy called a photon, or you can think of it as a ray but I will use the term photon. Now I will just use CO2 but CH4 and N2O etc works the same way. Let us write CO2 as OCO and the electric charge (density in the electron cloud) is distributed between the CO and the OC dipoles.

In the Relationships board, LarsenC thread the second post describes all this in more detail. Imagine an OCO molecule floating around when it absorbs (gets hit by) a photon at the OC or CO dipole. The OCO molecule is “excited” or made more energetic, spinning/vibrating at a more rapid rate but it cannot hold on to the energy and re-emits the photon a fraction of a second after absorbing it. By this time the dipole that re-emits the photon may be facing any direction and the IR photon can be re-emitted as likely downwards as upwards.

The photon may be absorbed by another and another molecule of one of the GHGs present in the atmosphere. Whatever IR got re-emitted downwards reaches the surface of the globe, strikes a molecule on the surface which is excited but being a solid or liquid strikes adjacent molecules and the energy of the photon is absorbed. The surface just got heated by the amount of the energy of that photon.

Now, you are thinking “this is rubbish, don’t believe it!” but studies of the IR spectrum from the ground show it receives more IR over time while studies from satellites show less IR reaching satellites over time. Over time more and more GHGs are present in the atmosphere, IR photons are absorbed/emitted more and more and more and more IR is absorbed by the surface.

Look at the Harries diagram. It shows that over a period of time less and less IR reaches as high as the satellite (the brightness temperature or blackbody temperature measured as IR brightness) and it even shows the two bands, the OC and the CO of CO2.

Watervapor, which we can write as H–O–H, is a three atom gaseous molecule and so, yup, is a GHG. It is usually called a reinforcer because, unlike CO2, CH4 etc its concentration varies as evaporation-precipitation (rain etc)–evaporation etc. CH4 is relatively shortlived but is much more constant than H2O, taking decades before it is oxidised to other compounds.

The theory and observation fits very well. Only Booby might say the global temperatures are declining but we know they are not. If 2018 is an El Nino year god knows what temperatures we see.

Oh dear. Repetition. Are you trying to convince yourself?

Diagram of the terrestrial study:

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

Abstract:

Quote:

The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing1, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth’s radiation field from pre-industrial and present-day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual-mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 ± 0.19 W m−2 (ref. 2). However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2. Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra3 together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations4. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m−2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation5, 6, 7. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

Now convert to Kelvin.

lee wrote on Jul 27^th, 2017 at 9:41pm:

Now convert to Kelvin.

Instructions from the fake conservatives  ::) ...what did daddy do to poor lees?

lee wrote on Jul 27^th, 2017 at 7:56pm:

Oh dear. Repetition. Are you trying to convince yourself?

Funny how many times lee uses the phrase 'oh dear' now I come to think about it  ;D

TheFunPolice wrote on Jul 28^th, 2017 at 4:10pm:

lee wrote on Jul 27th, 2017 at 7:56pm: Oh dear. Repetition. Are you trying to convince yourself? Funny how many times lee uses the phrase 'oh dear' now I come to think about it  ;D

Oh dear. Now DRAH thinks. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Grendel wrote on Jul 27^th, 2017 at 7:23pm:

yawn....  not wearing me out Monkeyboy... I can do this as long as you can. Grendel wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 7:15pm: Grendel wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:32pm: Sorry folks, blame Monk... Grendel wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:28pm: Just post a quote to back your claim up. Or admit to lying and verballing... I have noted your attempt to move the goalposts ;D ;D ;D Time for you to admit you lied, because you cant provide a quote that doesn't exist. You made it all up in your head as per usual...  is that right? ;D

Stilll waiting Monk.
Perhaps you'd like to apologise for verballing Bobby instead eh?

lee wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 6:01pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 5:52pm: Are you sure you found it  Roll Eyes I noticed you didn't post a link  Cheesy I'm sure. Sorry - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL073395/abstract You mean that one? ;)

Quote:

During the last three winter seasons, extreme warming events were observed over sea ice in the central Arctic Ocean. Each of these warming events were associated with temperatures close to or above 0°C, which lasted for between 1 and 3 days. Typically temperatures in the Arctic at this time of year are below −30°C. Here we study past temperature observations in the Arctic to investigate how common winter warming events are. We use time temperature observations from expeditions such as Fram (1893–1896) and manned Soviet North Pole drifting ice stations from 1937 to 1991. These historic temperature records show that winter warming events have been observed over most of the Arctic Ocean. Despite a thin network of observation sites, winter time temperatures above −5°C were directly observed approximately once every 3 years in the central Arctic Ocean between 1954 and 2010. Winter warming events are associated with storm systems originating in either the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans. Twice as many warming events originate from the Atlantic Ocean compared with the Pacific. These storms often penetrate across the North Pole. While observations of winter warming events date back to 1896, we find an increasing number of winter warming events in recent years.

Just so. And we now see such storms as they happen via observations in weather satellites. In 2016 there was a huge storm that started in the north Atlantic and reached into the Arctic circle. This storm deposited a heavier than usual snowfall on Greenland that might be affecting the melt now.

LOL
You don't read anything anyone posts do you?

I already covered Greenland...  you failed to learn anthing from the expert opinions and facts?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 31^st, 2017 at 1:49pm:

While observations of winter warming events date back to 1896,

You do know there was very little in the way of Arctic measuring before about 1920?


Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 31^st, 2017 at 1:49pm:

We use time temperature observations from expeditions such as Fram (1893–1896)

"Nansen took his ship Fram to the New Siberian Islands in the eastern Arctic Ocean, froze her into the pack ice, and waited for the drift to carry her towards the pole. Impatient with the slow speed and erratic character of the drift, after 18 months Nansen and a chosen companion, Hjalmar Johansen, left the ship with a team of dogs and sledges and made for the pole. They did not reach it, but they achieved a record Farthest North latitude of 86°13.6′N before a long retreat over ice and water to reach safety in Franz Josef Land. Meanwhile, Fram continued to drift westward, finally emerging in the North Atlantic Ocean."

source: wiki.

Drifting. Not in any one place. How good is the data?


Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 31^st, 2017 at 1:49pm:

and manned Soviet North Pole drifting ice stations from 1937 to 1991.

So they only missed 40 years of data. Not a problem, just homogenise it. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 31^st, 2017 at 1:49pm:

Just so. And we now see such storms as they happen via observations in weather satellites.

Yep. Much more data. 2012 storm broke up Arctic Ice. Before satellites we would probably have never noticed.
Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 31^st, 2017 at 1:49pm:

This storm deposited a heavier than usual snowfall on Greenland that might be affecting the melt now.

Oh dear.

Grendel wrote on Jul 31^st, 2017 at 3:29pm:

LOL You don't read anything anyone posts do you? I already covered Greenland...  you failed to learn anthing from the expert opinions and facts?

The things I do for you Monk....

2012-2013

http://i.stack.imgur.com/6nGVR.jpg

2012 was a year of record melt, Arctic sea ice and Greenland land ice alike.

2013 saw a recovery from the huge 2012 melt. I do keep talking about the noisy weather record, don’t I?

Over the longer term, the ice extent is decreasing.

See the longer term picture here:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice.php

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 31^st, 2017 at 11:08pm:

2012 was a year of record melt, Arctic sea ice and Greenland land ice alike. 2013 saw a recovery from the huge 2012 melt. I do keep talking about the noisy weather record, don’t I? Over the longer term, the ice extent is decreasing. See the longer term picture here: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice.php

Oh dear. "Over the longer term" means from 1979. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 31^st, 2017 at 11:08pm:

2012 was a year of record melt, Arctic sea ice and Greenland land ice alike.

You mean that storm induced damage? A natural event caused all that melt? Oh Dear.

Natural? We have seen AGW sees more and more storms reaching into the Arctic Ocean.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 12:59pm:

Natural? We have seen AGW sees more and more storms reaching into the Arctic Ocean.

Got a reference for that?  ;)

You don't mean that study with a start of "Despite a thin network"?  Despite a thin network the results are robust?

From the Abstract -
"There is a positive trend in the overall duration of winter warming events for both the NP region (4.25 days/decade) and PCA (1.16 days/decade), due to an increased number of events of longer duration."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL073395/abstract

I wonder what the error bars are on that? 4days/ decade? Less than half a day a year. Sounds more like a statistical feast. :D

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 31^st, 2017 at 11:08pm:

2013 saw a recovery from the huge 2012 melt. I do keep talking about the noisy weather record, don’t I?

You mean you keep failing to address reality Monk.
2014 still ever increasing Ice too...

yes the Ice pack waxes and wanes and oh yes Monk it decreases in Summer in particular.

Just some points YOU NEVER admit to or point out. :D :D :D :D