There is a huge risk of positive feedback causing further temperature rises.

It's already happening with the melting of subarctic peat and warmer seas causing release of methane from hydrates in the sea.

Bobby will be apoplectic when he sees this claim.

Between global warming and plastic pollution of the sea, the earth is doomed.

The current Northern Hemisphere heat waves are a portent of what is to come.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/400647-study-warns-of-looming-potential-for-runaway-global-warming


Quote:

Study warns of looming potential for runaway global warming BY MAX GREENWOOD - 08/06/18 07:56 PM EDT A new study out Monday warns of the possibility of out-of-control global warming if humans fail to band together to fight the worst effects of climate change. The analysis, conducted by researchers at the Australian National University and the Stockholm Resilience Center, among other institutions, outlines the potential for a "threshold" that, if crossed, would lead to runaway warming patterns and the advent of a "Hothouse Earth." If such a threshold is crossed, the study warns, global average temperatures could climb as much as 8 degrees Fahrenheit above current temperatures and sea levels could rise 30 to 200 feet. "Crossing the threshold would lead to a much higher global average temperature than any interglacial in the past 1.2 million years and to sea levels significantly higher than at any time in the Holocene," the study says. The report is based on a review of past research of thresholds for climate change, according to USA Today. Even if every country that signed on to the Paris climate agreement meets its obligations under the pact and limits the global temperature increase to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, runaway global warming could still be a threat, the newspaper reports. ...

I think we should put you on suicide watch.

salad in wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 1:25pm:

I think we should put you on suicide watch.

Who is 'we'?

Who cares??? Global warming. Overpopulation....
We cook.....we cook.
The only way to fix it.....kill all humans. Feel free to kick things off.

Captain Caveman wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 3:02pm:

Who cares??? Global warming. Overpopulation.... We cook.....we cook. The only way to fix it.....kill all humans. Feel free to kick things off.

and un4 shoots more hot air into the atmosphere 

all over this nice clean forum....tsk tsk.


shouldnt this be in environment MK11 relationships.... monks second home...? :)

Yeah we've heard all the alarmist crap before.... 

Captain Caveman wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 3:02pm:

Who cares??? Global warming. Overpopulation.... We cook.....we cook. The only way to fix it.....kill all humans. Feel free to kick things off.

Lol, so extremism is the only answer to extremism is it?

You're a lunatic buddy  ;)

Grendel wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 3:45pm:

Yeah we've heard all the alarmist crap before....

Don't go telling us markets are free now will ya buddy!

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 1:10pm:

There is a huge risk of positive feedback causing further temperature rises. It's already happening with the melting of subarctic peat and warmer seas causing release of methane from hydrates in the sea. Bobby will be apoplectic when he sees this claim. Between global warming and plastic pollution of the sea, the earth is doomed. The current Northern Hemisphere heat waves are a portent of what is to come. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/400647-study-warns-of-looming-potential-for-runaway-global-warming Quote: Study warns of looming potential for runaway global warming BY MAX GREENWOOD - 08/06/18 07:56 PM EDT A new study out Monday warns of the possibility of out-of-control global warming if humans fail to band together to fight the worst effects of climate change. The analysis, conducted by researchers at the Australian National University and the Stockholm Resilience Center, among other institutions, outlines the potential for a "threshold" that, if crossed, would lead to runaway warming patterns and the advent of a "Hothouse Earth." If such a threshold is crossed, the study warns, global average temperatures could climb as much as 8 degrees Fahrenheit above current temperatures and sea levels could rise 30 to 200 feet. "Crossing the threshold would lead to a much higher global average temperature than any interglacial in the past 1.2 million years and to sea levels significantly higher than at any time in the Holocene," the study says. The report is based on a review of past research of thresholds for climate change, according to USA Today. Even if every country that signed on to the Paris climate agreement meets its obligations under the pact and limits the global temperature increase to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, runaway global warming could still be a threat, the newspaper reports. ...

Absolute rubbish.
We've already entered the grand solar minimum.
What happened in Portugal is a one off event.
What about the record cold events all over the world
in the last 2 years?

Bobby. wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 4:33pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 7th, 2018 at 1:10pm: There is a huge risk of positive feedback causing further temperature rises. It's already happening with the melting of subarctic peat and warmer seas causing release of methane from hydrates in the sea. Bobby will be apoplectic when he sees this claim. Between global warming and plastic pollution of the sea, the earth is doomed. The current Northern Hemisphere heat waves are a portent of what is to come. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/400647-study-warns-of-looming-potential-for-runaway-global-warming Quote: Study warns of looming potential for runaway global warming BY MAX GREENWOOD - 08/06/18 07:56 PM EDT A new study out Monday warns of the possibility of out-of-control global warming if humans fail to band together to fight the worst effects of climate change. The analysis, conducted by researchers at the Australian National University and the Stockholm Resilience Center, among other institutions, outlines the potential for a "threshold" that, if crossed, would lead to runaway warming patterns and the advent of a "Hothouse Earth." If such a threshold is crossed, the study warns, global average temperatures could climb as much as 8 degrees Fahrenheit above current temperatures and sea levels could rise 30 to 200 feet. "Crossing the threshold would lead to a much higher global average temperature than any interglacial in the past 1.2 million years and to sea levels significantly higher than at any time in the Holocene," the study says. The report is based on a review of past research of thresholds for climate change, according to USA Today. Even if every country that signed on to the Paris climate agreement meets its obligations under the pact and limits the global temperature increase to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, runaway global warming could still be a threat, the newspaper reports. ... Absolute rubbish. We've already entered the grand solar minimum. What happened in Portugal is a one off event. What about the record cold events all over the world in the last 2 years?

Prove it!

;D

There wasn't any runaway global warming during the Holocene Climactic Optimum, which was warmer than now.

The Anthropocene is not valid epoch. It was a proposed epoch and  didn't make it.

Poor Will Steffen alarmist extraordinaire.

lee wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 4:41pm:

There wasn't any runaway global warming during the Holocene Climactic Optimum, which was warmer than now. The Anthropocene is not valid epoch. It was a proposed epoch and  didn't make it. Poor Will Steffen alarmist extraordinaire.

Rates of change: this has been discussed for over ten years on this forum now!

This warming is anthropogenic and the rate of warming is too fast for plants and animals to adapt. They can migrate/colonise areas of higher altitudes or latitudes but that can only go so far.

With the permafrost thawing and both poles melting and sea level rise accelerating it is beyond dispute that the globe is warming.

Only questions are how to reduce emissions, how to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, how to adapt and how to mitigate.

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 4:42pm:

Rates of change: this has been discussed for over ten years on this forum now!

Yes. It varies doesn't it?

We had similar rates of change before.

And we had the hiatus.

"Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:
Period      Length      Trend
(Degrees C per decade)      Significance
1860-1880      21      0.163      Yes      
1910-1940      31      0.15      Yes
1975-1998      24      0.166      Yes
1975-2009      35      0.161      Yes"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

Professor Phil Jones Director Climate Research Unit .

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 4:48pm:

This warming is anthropogenic and the rate of warming is too fast for plants and animals to adapt. They can migrate/colonise areas of higher altitudes or latitudes but that can only go so far. With the permafrost thawing and both poles melting and sea level rise accelerating it is beyond dispute that the globe is warming. Only questions are how to reduce emissions, how to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, how to adapt and how to mitigate.

Hi Monk,
Have you been listening to your snake oil salesman - Al Gore?

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 1:30pm:

salad in wrote on Aug 7th, 2018 at 1:25pm: I think we should put you on suicide watch. Who is 'we'?

Tomato, Onion lettuce etc ?

Bobby. wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 7:10pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7th, 2018 at 4:48pm: This warming is anthropogenic and the rate of warming is too fast for plants and animals to adapt. They can migrate/colonise areas of higher altitudes or latitudes but that can only go so far. With the permafrost thawing and both poles melting and sea level rise accelerating it is beyond dispute that the globe is warming. Only questions are how to reduce emissions, how to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, how to adapt and how to mitigate. Hi Monk, Have you been listening to your snake oil salesman - Al Gore?

I have never listened, watched or read anything by Al Gore. The one sucked in by snake oil sellers is you.

lee wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 4:41pm:

There wasn't any runaway global warming during the Holocene Climactic Optimum, which was warmer than now. The Anthropocene is not valid epoch. It was a proposed epoch and  didn't make it. Poor Will Steffen alarmist extraordinaire.

runaway global warming during the Holocene Climactic Optimum, which was warmer than now.


Guess that you would expect an impact when the planets Orbit changes ? Funny that while you are correct that it fails to support your argument in any way.

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 1:10pm:

There is a huge risk of positive feedback causing further temperature rises. It's already happening with the melting of subarctic peat and warmer seas causing release of methane from hydrates in the sea. Bobby will be apoplectic when he sees this claim. Between global warming and plastic pollution of the sea, the earth is doomed. The current Northern Hemisphere heat waves are a portent of what is to come. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/400647-study-warns-of-looming-potential-for-runaway-global-warming Quote: Study warns of looming potential for runaway global warming BY MAX GREENWOOD - 08/06/18 07:56 PM EDT A new study out Monday warns of the possibility of out-of-control global warming if humans fail to band together to fight the worst effects of climate change. The analysis, conducted by researchers at the Australian National University and the Stockholm Resilience Center, among other institutions, outlines the potential for a "threshold" that, if crossed, would lead to runaway warming patterns and the advent of a "Hothouse Earth." If such a threshold is crossed, the study warns, global average temperatures could climb as much as 8 degrees Fahrenheit above current temperatures and sea levels could rise 30 to 200 feet. "Crossing the threshold would lead to a much higher global average temperature than any interglacial in the past 1.2 million years and to sea levels significantly higher than at any time in the Holocene," the study says. The report is based on a review of past research of thresholds for climate change, according to USA Today. Even if every country that signed on to the Paris climate agreement meets its obligations under the pact and limits the global temperature increase to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, runaway global warming could still be a threat, the newspaper reports. ...

The worst is yet to come but the deniers will always make excuses so they can continue to trade their fake printed dollar bills at any cost :(

Dnarever wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 7:23pm:

Guess that you would expect an impact when the planets Orbit changes ? Funny that while you are correct that it fails to support your argument in any way.

ok Go back further. Tell me when, if ever, we have had runaway global warming.  We have had millions of years of orbital changes.

If we ever had runaway global warming all water would have been driven off. There would be none now.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 7:23pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 7th, 2018 at 7:10pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7th, 2018 at 4:48pm: This warming is anthropogenic and the rate of warming is too fast for plants and animals to adapt. They can migrate/colonise areas of higher altitudes or latitudes but that can only go so far. With the permafrost thawing and both poles melting and sea level rise accelerating it is beyond dispute that the globe is warming. Only questions are how to reduce emissions, how to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, how to adapt and how to mitigate. Hi Monk, Have you been listening to your snake oil salesman - Al Gore? I have never listened, watched or read anything by Al Gore. The one sucked in by snake oil sellers is you.

And yet your whole message could be more or less plagiarised from one of his books.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51xwCjrgXBL._SX415_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

You KNOW you are bullshitting, right?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 8:22pm:

You KNOW you are bullshitting, right?

Come on Monk -
one of his books is but a click away at Amazon.
You can read your hero's words.

https://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Crisis-Global-Warming/dp/0670062723

THIS looks like runaway warming:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DiqQoMQX4AElDvN.jpg

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 8:22pm:

You KNOW you are bullshitting, right?

"Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, was yesterday criticised by a high court judge who highlighted what he said were "nine scientific errors" in the film.

Mr Justice Barton yesterday said that while the film was "broadly accurate" in its presentation of climate change, he identified nine significant errors in the film, some of which, he said, had arisen in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration" to support the former US vice-president's views on climate change."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/oct/11/climatechange

From the garudian, so it must be true.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 8:26pm:

THIS looks like runaway warming: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DiqQoMQX4AElDvN.jpg

The grand solar minimum started in 2017 -
that's when it really got going.
We still have to through the next 5 years for the full effect.
Tassie will get very cold.
Poor Monk -
You'll have to stay at Aussie's place in winter.

lee wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 8:10pm:

Dnarever wrote on Aug 7th, 2018 at 7:23pm: Guess that you would expect an impact when the planets Orbit changes ? Funny that while you are correct that it fails to support your argument in any way. ok Go back further. Tell me when, if ever, we have had runaway global warming.  We have had millions of years of orbital changes. If we ever had runaway global warming all water would have been driven off. There would be none now.

There very likely would have been runaway components in some of the change episodes maybe even most of them. All it really means in it will take a number of cycles before a new point of balance is found. Something like a feedback loop and sometimes it can be because the result of one increase will drive an increase in the cause of the increase driving another round of increase again till a balance is reached.

Or as in this case driven by external factors.

A planet shift or orbit change is a one off though drastic there will be a correction. In the current case increasing CO2 can drive change but it isn't a one off the levels keep increasing driving more change.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 8:26pm:

THIS looks like runaway warming: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DiqQoMQX4AElDvN.jpg

So what did we say earlier? About 1,000 zetajoules per 1ºC?

30 zetajoules divided by 1,000 = 0.03ºC. Oh no. We're DOOMED. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 4:30pm:

Grendel wrote on Aug 7th, 2018 at 3:45pm: Yeah we've heard all the alarmist crap before....  Don't go telling us markets are free now will ya buddy!

I'm not a Freemarketeer and have no idea what you are on about?

Dnarever wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 8:31pm:

There very likely would have been runaway components in some of the change episodes maybe even most of them. All it really means in it will take a number of cycles before a new point of balance is found. Something like a feedback loop and sometimes it can be because the result of one increase will drive an increase in the cause of the increase driving another round of increase again till a balance is reached.

A positive feedback can't become a negative feedback. Runaway global warming would continue to destruction.


Dnarever wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 8:31pm:

In the current case increasing CO2 can drive change but it isn't a one off the levels keep increasing driving more change.

Didn't you get the memo? It is water that drives climate. CO2 not worth a spit into the wind.

Water is a condensing GHG. CO2 is a non–condensing GHG.

CO2 is the basic control knob for global climate.

We see the heat content of the oceans zooming up. That means more warm water reaching the poles and that means more ice gets melted exposing dark rock and ice—positive feedback. The high numbers of huge wildfires—another positive feedback.

lee wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 8:32pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7th, 2018 at 8:26pm: THIS looks like runaway warming: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DiqQoMQX4AElDvN.jpg So what did we say earlier? About 1,000 zetajoules per 1ºC? 30 zetajoules divided by 1,000 = 0.03ºC. Oh no. We're DOOMED. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

It's like the sea level rise -
people like Al Gore were talking about meters but in actual fact
it's almost unmeasurable - just a few mm.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 8:45pm:

CO2 is the basic control knob for global climate.

"Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change"

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

Now you do understand there cannot be two MAJOR players in climate?


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 8:45pm:

We see the heat content of the oceans zooming up.

0.03ºC in 55 years? Zooming? ;D ;D ;D ;D


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 8:45pm:

That means more warm water reaching the poles and that means more ice gets melted exposing dark rock and ice—positive feedback.

0.03ºC increase melts Arctic waters at about -2.0ºC? Truly delusional.


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 8:45pm:

The high numbers of huge wildfires—another positive feedback.

That have never happened before? What was it you quoted 11 wildfires in the Arctic? About 1 fire per 1.3 million sq km's. ;D ;D ;D ;D

We are talking about a huge increase in ocean heat content. That will lead to icemelt, already is. Fires get bigger due to AGW.

There is nothing to limit the CO2 content of the atmosphere but our willingness to change. 3000 years of coal—if we don’t change our energy source away from fossil fuels we will be mining coal no matter how deep it is.

Petroleum could be used as a feedstock to chemical industry.

Tell you of a positive feedback that is really scary: the heat that melts 1cc of 0°C ice to 1cc of 0°C water will heat that 1cc of 0°C water to 80°C.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 9:05pm:

We are talking about a huge increase in ocean heat content

yes. 3 one hundredths of a degree. Now what are the error bars on that?


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 9:05pm:

That will lead to icemelt, already is.

Link?


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 9:05pm:

Fires get bigger due to AGW.

Link?


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 9:05pm:

There is nothing to limit the CO2 content of the atmosphere but our willingness to change. 3000 years of coal—if we don’t change our energy source away from fossil fuels we will be mining coal no matter how deep it is.

Except a lot of it is actually under the ocean.  But I am sure a man of your intellect can come up with the mining strategy and engineer it. ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 9:05pm:

Petroleum could be used as a feedstock to chemical industry.

yay. make more plastics. ;D ;D ;D ;D

If the plastics are for long term use and recyclable then why not?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 9:10pm:

Tell you of a positive feedback that is really scary: the heat that melts 1cc of 0.°C ice to 1cc of 0°C water will heat that 1cc of 0°C water to 80°C.

Yeah and if the water is at -2.0ºC? it would need to get to about -1.69ºC to melt Arctic water. On current rates that would be 7 times 55 years.

We get oil from under the ocean.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 9:17pm:

If the plastics are for long term use why not?

Wasn't it you posted about the Great Pacific Plastics Gyre?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 9:18pm:

We get oil from under the ocean.

Yes. Drill a hole. Liquid flows out. Are you going to liquify or sublimate the coal?

We see the heat content of then ocean zooming. Of course ice is going to be melted. Then we get the positive feedback.

Warm waters are already melting Antarctic ice so as the ocean heat content increases we will see more and more ice melted. Same as in the Arctic, especially the Pacific side.

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 4:28pm:

Captain Caveman wrote on Aug 7th, 2018 at 3:02pm: Who cares??? Global warming. Overpopulation.... We cook.....we cook. The only way to fix it.....kill all humans. Feel free to kick things off. Lol, so extremism is the only answer to extremism is it? You're a lunatic buddy  ;)

Oh...cut the bullshit ffs!

How the bloody hell do you suppose we stop human pollution? Give me a real answer instead of this renewable energy crap.
Over 6 bil people, and increasing, will eventually fook the planet.
The planet is heating up....what are you gonna do??? SFA is what. Your gov doesn't care...your people don't care. And all the while knowing that all you're ever doing is spending billions on bullshit. Billions you don't have. Billions borrowed from the one thing fuking this world more than global warming. Yet you'll deny it and keep trolling around like the lost sheep you are.

Captain Caveman wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 9:23pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 7th, 2018 at 4:28pm: Captain Caveman wrote on Aug 7th, 2018 at 3:02pm: Who cares??? Global warming. Overpopulation.... We cook.....we cook. The only way to fix it.....kill all humans. Feel free to kick things off. Lol, so extremism is the only answer to extremism is it? You're a lunatic buddy  ;) Oh...cut the bullshit ffs! How the bloody hell do you suppose we stop human pollution? Give me a real answer instead of this renewable energy crap. Over 6 bil people, and increasing, will eventually fook the planet. The planet is heating up....what are you gonna do??? SFA is what. Your gov doesn't care...your people don't care. And all the while knowing that all you're ever doing is spending billions on bullshit. Billions you don't have. Billions borrowed from the one thing fuking this world more than global warming. Yet you'll deny it and keep trolling around like the lost sheep you are.

The more we delay taking action the bigger the cost in lives and dollars will be to finally take the real action.

Renewable energy has parts to play and I am not against the use of nuclear energy.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 9:22pm:

We see the heat content of then ocean zooming. Of course ice is going to be melted. Then we get the positive feedback.

0.03ºC will take 385 Years at current rates. Except if we go into cooling.


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 9:22pm:

Warm waters are already melting Antarctic ice so as the ocean heat content increases we will see more and more ice melted. Same as in the Arctic, especially the Pacific side.

Oh you mean where they have the underwater volcanoes? That is natural not CO2 caused. ;)

lee wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 8:56pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7th, 2018 at 8:45pm: CO2 is the basic control knob for global climate. "Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change" https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html Now you do understand there cannot be two MAJOR players in climate?

lee loves to play semantic games

from his own link


Quote:

the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

bit of an own goal by lee  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

So the role of water vapor is an amplifier.
Which makes a lot of sense because water vapor can't increase temperatures by itself. It falls out as rain.

The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 10:00pm:

lee loves to play semantic games from his own link Quote: the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. bit of an own goal by lee

Yes. So tell me how many MAJOR sources of AGW are there?  There can only be one MAJOR source. A major component is over 50%, what does leave? Less than 50% for CO2, at most? oh how sad.

Then of course we need to look at the logarithmic effect of CO2 on supposed AGW.
The logarithmic effect is mostly below 200ppm. As it get higher the effect gets less and less.

Water? A linear effect.

Which effect is the major cause of warming?


The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 10:00pm:

Which makes a lot of sense because water vapor can't increase temperatures by itself. It falls out as rain.

Oh dear. Someone who thinks when it rains it all falls. That there is no wwater vaour left in the sky, that it is not constantly replenished.

Makes sense? ;D ;D ;D ;D

A MAJOR component can be 10%. Not the same as ONLY component. Land use change is not a major component, just a little bit player.

Anyway, world is warming and there are plenty of positive feedbacks at work and more to come. What, if anything we can do about it is the question.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 10:10pm:

A MAJOR component can be 10%. Not the same as ONLY component. Anyway, world is warming and there are plenty of positive feedbacks at work and more to come. What, if anything we can do about it is the question.

What about the negative feedback of the gulf stream?

the warmer it gets the more the gulf stream switches off
& the colder Europe gets.

With the AMOC slowed Britain & West Europe will see cold winters snapping into hot summers with hardly any spring.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 10:10pm:

A MAJOR component can be 10%. Not the same as ONLY component.

True. If the MAJOR component only accounts for 10%, all the others must be less than 10%. So are you saying CO2 only has an 8% effect on climate? ;)

A major component can be 10%.

The subject is—how do we prevent runaway global warming?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 10:23pm:

A major component can be 10%. The subject is—how do we prevent runaway global warming?

How do we achieve this mythical runaway global warming? From a climate model? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

https://data.whicdn.com/images/89232126/original.gif

That's RUNAWAY - not runway........ shees.... warming model -

https://i.imgur.com/i86ckE3.gif

RUNAWAY, you idiot, Igor..... not runway.... DUH!!

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 10:23pm:

A major component can be 10%. The subject is—how do we prevent runaway global warming?

i think if you looked at the range of global temps at this very moment in time, we would have a range from -30 to about 47.

so if sydney , for example, heats up by 2 or 3 degrees, its not like everyone drops dead.

and heating should provide more evaporation, more rainfall, maybe even more farming land.

now we may need to relocate the coastline a few kilometres , but places like, say , the gold coast are knocking down the waterfront and rebuilding it every 50 years anyway.
so we just rebuild it 2 kms to the west.

i think the noble hard workimg capitalist (like myself) just sees it as more work to be done, but so what?
arent the lefties always complaining there isnt enough jobs to go around.

i have seen water rises of 10 m every decade and those water rises occured in a 24 hour period.
it was a lot of hard work, but it gives you the steeley reslove of someone who has "gone thru that".

if a bunch of inner city greens are going to have to spend a little less time pontificating at their local coffee club and get off their shiney bums because the water rises by 1 metre over 50 years....well....FFS...if you cant cope with that and if you cant cope with a hot day , you suck!!!!

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 9:29pm:

Captain Caveman wrote on Aug 7th, 2018 at 9:23pm: TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 7th, 2018 at 4:28pm: Captain Caveman wrote on Aug 7th, 2018 at 3:02pm: Who cares??? Global warming. Overpopulation.... We cook.....we cook. The only way to fix it.....kill all humans. Feel free to kick things off. Lol, so extremism is the only answer to extremism is it? You're a lunatic buddy  ;) Oh...cut the bullshit ffs! How the bloody hell do you suppose we stop human pollution? Give me a real answer instead of this renewable energy crap. Over 6 bil people, and increasing, will eventually fook the planet. The planet is heating up....what are you gonna do??? SFA is what. Your gov doesn't care...your people don't care. And all the while knowing that all you're ever doing is spending billions on bullshit. Billions you don't have. Billions borrowed from the one thing fuking this world more than global warming. Yet you'll deny it and keep trolling around like the lost sheep you are. The more we delay taking action the bigger the cost in lives and dollars will be to finally take the real action. Renewable energy has parts to play and I am not against the use of nuclear energy.

How can we be sure this isn't the agenda of the money owners?

Nuclear is the way to go when population sizes are what they are today.

I try not to think in terms of conspiracy theory—madness lies at the other side of that. Some billionaires are buying land in NZ, guess they think that is the best place to be as the world keeps warming. Some seek refuge in madness—e.g. Booby and his ice age idiocy—a GSM will cool things temporarily by 0.3°C until AGW catches up the trivial bit of cooling and starts warming the planet again.

Personally, I am moving to Tasmania partly to get away from the increasingly hot and humid Adelaide summers and to get away from the increasing traffic.

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 1:30pm:

salad in wrote on Aug 7th, 2018 at 1:25pm: I think we should put you on suicide watch. Who is 'we'?

'We' is me and my team. To join us you must love copper (Cu).

Quote:

A different and more realistic point of view on this debate that has become more political than scientific. The other side of the Global Warming Debate. Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology. Sounds pretty learned/credible, don't you think? These are his extensive credentials: Born      12        February 1946 Residence      Australia Nationality      Australian Fields      Earth Science, Geology, Mining Engineering Institutions      University of New England, University of Newcastle, University of Melbourne, University of Adelaide Alma mater      University of New South Wales, Macquarie University Thesis      The pipe deposits of tungsten- molybdenum-bismuth in eastern Australia (1976) Notable awards      Eureka Prize (1995, 2002), Centenary Medal(2003), Clarke Medal (2004) Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From? Professor Ian Plimer's book in a brief summary: PLIMER : "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland. Since its first spewing of volcanic ash, it has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you. Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it's that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life. I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs.....well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days ! The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY. I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over One year - think about it. And now we have Hawaii Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of natural solar and cosmic activity , and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change. And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the wild fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year. Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the BOGUS 'human-caused' climate-change scenario. Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention 'Global Warming' anymore, but just 'Climate Change . It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming advocates got caught with their pants down. And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you by your government, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure.    But, hey, go give the world a hug and have a nice day

;)

Plimer talks nonsense and I bet he didn’t write the book that bears his name.

Man emits more CO2 than all the volcanoes on the globe. He can’t explain why the globe is warming. This is the hottest La Nina year, 2017 was the hottest non-El Nino year, the Arctic is melting and so is the Antarctic. None of this explained by Plimer!

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 10:42am:

Plimer talks nonsense and I bet he didn’t write the book that bears his name. Man emits more CO2 than all the volcanoes on the globe. He can’t explain why the globe is warming. This is the hottest La Nina year, 2017 was the hottest non-El Nino year, the Arctic is melting and so is the Antarctic. None of this explained by Plimer!

Of course ... & your AGW/Climate Change references are all 100% bonafide science by sources of impeccable refute that are solely driven by social/global concern & not a financial agenda? 

Man Bear Pig.  ;D

Plimer talks nonsense and I doubt he wrote the book that bears his name. I read and post scientific papers.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 11:38am:

Plimer talks nonsense and I doubt he wrote the book that bears his name. I read and post scientific papers.

You know this because you were his ghost-writer? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

yep. Scientific papers like Skep Sci, Bloomberg, Scientific American. ;)

There is a multitude of positive feedback causes which will exacerbate climate warming.

The question at this time is: are we too late? Is the positive feedback irreversible?

Is Bobby's anus a bigger factor in global warming than his tiny mind?

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


Quote:

Some observed and potential effects of global warming are positive feedbacks, which contribute directly to further global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report states that "Anthropogenic warming could lead to some effects that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change."[6] Carbon cycle feedbacks There have been predictions, and some evidence, that global warming might cause loss of carbon from terrestrial ecosystems, leading to an increase of atmospheric CO2 levels. Several climate models indicate that global warming through the 21st century could be accelerated by the response of the terrestrial carbon cycle to such warming.[7] All 11 models in the C4MIP study found that a larger fraction of anthropogenic CO2 will stay airborne if climate change is accounted for. By the end of the twenty-first century, this additional CO2 varied between 20 and 200 ppm for the two extreme models, the majority of the models lying between 50 and 100 ppm. The higher CO2 levels led to an additional climate warming ranging between 0.1° and 1.5 °C. However, there was still a large uncertainty on the magnitude of these sensitivities. Eight models attributed most of the changes to the land, while three attributed it to the ocean.[8] The strongest feedbacks in these cases are due to increased respiration of carbon from soils throughout the high latitude boreal forests of the Northern Hemisphere. One model in particular (HadCM3) indicates a secondary carbon cycle feedback due to the loss of much of the Amazon Rainforest in response to significantly reduced precipitation over tropical South America.[9] While models disagree on the strength of any terrestrial carbon cycle feedback, they each suggest any such feedback would accelerate global warming. Observations show that soils in the U.K have been losing carbon at the rate of four million tonnes a year for the past 25 years[10] according to a paper in Nature by Bellamy et al. in September 2005, who note that these results are unlikely to be explained by land use changes. Results such as this rely on a dense sampling network and thus are not available on a global scale. Extrapolating to all of the United Kingdom, they estimate annual losses of 13 million tons per year. This is as much as the annual reductions in carbon dioxide emissions achieved by the UK under the Kyoto Treaty (12.7 million tons of carbon per year).[11] It has also been suggested (by Chris Freeman) that the release of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) from peat bogs into water courses (from which it would in turn enter the atmosphere) constitutes a positive feedback for global warming. The carbon currently stored in peatlands (390–455 gigatonnes, one-third of the total land-based carbon store) is over half the amount of carbon already in the atmosphere.[12] DOC levels in water courses are observably rising; Freeman's hypothesis is that, not elevated temperatures, but elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 are responsible, through stimulation of primary productivity.[13][14] Tree deaths are believed to be increasing as a result of climate change, which is a positive feedback effect.[15] Arctic methane release Warming is also the triggering variable for the release of carbon (potentially as methane) in the arctic.[16] Methane released from thawing permafrost such as the frozen peat bogs in Siberia, and from methane clathrate on the sea floor, creates a positive feedback.[17][18] Methane release from melting permafrost peat bogs Wikinews has related news: Scientists warn thawing Siberia may trigger global meltdown Western Siberia is the world's largest peat bog, a one million square kilometer region of permafrost peat bog that was formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. The melting of its permafrost is likely to lead to the release, over decades, of large quantities of methane. As much as 70,000 million tonnes of methane, an extremely effective greenhouse gas, might be released over the next few decades, creating an additional source of greenhouse gas emissions.[19] Similar melting has been observed in eastern Siberia.[20] Lawrence et al. (2008) suggest that a rapid melting of Arctic sea ice may start a feedback loop that rapidly melts Arctic permafrost, triggering further warming. ...

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 12:12pm:

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

Oh, No. We have been threatened by Wiki? ;D ;D ;D ;D

So tell me. When we had global warming in the past and the Arctic melted - what happened to the methane then?

The Arctic was sailed in 1879. That wasn't AGW^TM.

"A new study published this week in the journal Nature suggests, however, that the last ice age transition to a warmer climate some 11,500 years ago did not include massive methane flux from marine sediments or the tundra. Instead, the likely source of rising levels of atmospheric methane was from tropical wetlands, authors of the new study say."

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-methane-tundra-ocean-floor-didnt.html#jCp

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 11:38am:

Plimer talks nonsense and I doubt he wrote the book that bears his name. I read and post scientific papers.

BS

Gnads....

Man Bear Pig..... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I liked that ;)

It is definite that the tundra is thawing out—clearly the globe is warming up.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 3:57pm:

It is definite that the tundra is thawing out—clearly the globe is warming up.

And it has never happened before? ;)

Has it happened before when we had cities, roads, railway lines, communications lines?

If it happened to Neanderthal man who cares? They just found another cave. Can we find another New York as easily? What about thousands of square kilometres of new agricultural land?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 3:57pm:

It is definite that the tundra is thawing out—clearly the globe is warming up.

If the globe was actually warming up there would be higher temps everywhere no record cold temps etc...

Maybe MBP you'd like to try again.  Or wait another 30 years and maybe just maybe your alarmism might be more realistic. ::)

Tundra....  where was it located during the ice Age?  hmmmm?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NAfuRukHxBE/UhXbUpNFolI/AAAAAAAACVU/kNCGcgcrnwM/s1600/17-ice-age.jpg

Feel free to pin the tail on the map MBP.

Grendel wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 5:21pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8th, 2018 at 3:57pm: It is definite that the tundra is thawing out—clearly the globe is warming up. If the globe was actually warming up there would be higher temps everywhere no record cold temps etc... Maybe MBP you'd like to try again.  Or wait another 30 years and maybe just maybe your alarmism might be more realistic. ::)

No, we would see what we are seeing now: the temperature distribution moved slightly to the warm side but some (less but some) cold events happening. There are very few cold records broken but many hot records broken.

There are higher temperatures everywhere bar the East Antarctic Plateau.

Both poles losing net ice. Tundra thawing out.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 5:11pm:

Can we find another New York as easily?

New York is under the tundra?
Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 5:11pm:

What about thousands of square kilometres of new agricultural land?

Just think. IF the tundra thaws that will give us more agricultural land.

"Russian permafrost expert slaps down AGW

In the video a German journalist travels to Siberia and speaks with Russian permafrost expert Michali Grigoryev on the state of the permafrost (2007). Grigoryev shows the journalist a rare baby mammoth uncovered from the ice, and adds that such finds are becoming more and more frequent today. “Because of climate change”, the journalist asks at the 0:48 mark? Grigoryev answers:

    No, you are wrong. The permafrost is not melting. There is no man-made climate change.”

The journalist then quotes the Russian scientist:

   " Indeed above at the surface it has gotten warmer, but that’s just part of a normal cycle. The permafrost is rock hard, And that is how it is going to stay. There’s no talk of thawing.” "

"At the 1:24 mark, the scientist says:

    "The cyclic warming is coming to an end. It is going to get colder soon. The climate depends on the sun and the oceans. Three factors have coincided and have warmed the climate, but in 8 to 15 years, it’s going to be colder again.” "


http://notrickszone.com/2012/11/19/russian-arctic-scientist-permafrost-changes-due-to-natural-factors-its-going-to-be-colder/

Gee those Russian scientists must be real dumb. You better write to them quick and point out the error of their ways.

notrickszone, only the most respected, most scientific sources for you, eh?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 5:49pm:

notrickszone, only the most respected, most scientific sources for you, eh?

So did you read up on Michali Grigoryev? Or just decide to shoot the messenger. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I read you scientific sources where they claim 3mm SLR using satellite altimeters that have an accuracy  of 34mm.

Or perhaps you would like this study? -

"Relative to the past 2,000 years1,2, the Arctic region has warmed significantly over the past few decades. However, the evolution of Arctic temperatures during the rest of the Holocene is less clear. Proxy reconstructions, suggest a long-term cooling trend throughout the mid- to late Holocene3,4,5, whereas climate model simulations show only minor changes or even warming6,7,8. Here we present a record of the oxygen isotope composition of permafrost ice wedges from the Lena River Delta in the Siberian Arctic. The isotope values, which reflect winter season temperatures, became progressively more enriched over the past 7,000 years, reaching unprecedented levels in the past five decades. This warming trend during the mid- to late Holocene is in opposition to the cooling seen in other proxy records3,5,9. However, most of these existing proxy records are biased towards summer temperatures."

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2349

Bugger. only warming for 7,000 years.

Quote:

Study warns of looming potential for runaway global warming BY MAX GREENWOOD - 08/06/18 07:56 PM EDT A new study out Monday warns of the possibility of out-of-control global warming if humans fail to band together to fight the worst effects of climate change. The analysis, conducted by researchers at the Australian National University and the Stockholm Resilience Center, among other institutions, outlines the potential for a "threshold" that, if crossed, would lead to runaway warming patterns and the advent of a "Hothouse Earth." If such a threshold is crossed, the study warns, global average temperatures could climb as much as 8 degrees Fahrenheit above current temperatures and sea levels could rise 30 to 200 feet. "Crossing the threshold would lead to a much higher global average temperature than any interglacial in the past 1.2 million years and to sea levels significantly higher than at any time in the Holocene," the study says. The report is based on a review of past research of thresholds for climate change, according to USA Today. Even if every country that signed on to the Paris climate agreement meets its obligations under the pact and limits the global temperature increase to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, runaway global warming could still be a threat, the newspaper reports. ...

If dangerous perhapses could be taken seriously....
And the prediction of "30 to 200 feet" tells me they are guessing wildly.

Frank wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 6:35pm:

And the prediction of "30 to 200 feet" tells me they are guessing wildly.

Seeing as there is no data in the paper merely assumption that is correct. They don't even quote any Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP's).

The uneducated never do understand the uncertainty scientists use in their language—doesn’t mean they are not confident of their results and conclusions.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 7:05pm:

The uneducated never do understand the uncertainty scientists use in their language—doesn’t mean they are not confident of their results and conclusions.

yes. So much easier to be confident of your results and conclusions when you don't use data.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 7:05pm:

The uneducated never do understand the uncertainty scientists use in their language—doesn’t mean they are not confident of their results and conclusions.

More attempted arse covering bs.

So you are uneducated too?

You prefer Nostradamus to scientific prediction?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 7:16pm:

So you are uneducated too? You prefer Nostradamus to scientific prediction?

You use scientific prediction with no data? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

That would make you NostraDumbArse.

;D ;D ;D

In one.

Doesn’t matter how much data is used as a basis for prediction, if you make a prediction Lees calls you “Nostradumbarse” which, in his mind, excuses his lack of education.

Both poles are melting, permafrost is thawing—clearly the globe is warming.

Both poles (Greenland and Antarctica) melting, sea level rise is accelerating—predicting more sea level rise is a very sure bet. How much of a rise—bit less certain.

All this properly expressed.

Will this affect you? If you are 60+, not too much, I suppose, unless you are a farmer, live surrounded by bush or on the very coast. Will it affect your kids and grand kids? You betcha bippy!

But take the coward’s way out, like Lees and Booby are doing, pretend everything is fine. A man does not take the cowardly way.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 7:54pm:

Both poles are melting, permafrost is thawing—clearly the globe is warming.

You ignore the paper on increase in ice mass in Antarctica AGAIN. Permafrost is reported to have been warming for 7,000 years. That is way before AGW.


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 7:54pm:

Both poles (Greenland and Antarctica) melting, sea level rise is accelerating—predicting more sea level rise is a very sure bet.

Yes. So you keep saying. Antarctic is not melting. Repetition won't make it so. SLR - based on satellite altimeters with errors 10 times the supposed accelerated rate.




Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 7:54pm:

All this properly expressed.

you mean like ocean temperatures in zeta-joules?

And yet other scientists disagree with you assessment. Why is that?


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 7:54pm:

Will this affect you? If you are 60+, not too much, I suppose, unless you are a farmer, live surrounded by bush or on the very coast. Will it affect your kids and grand kids? You betcha bippy!

Here we go off into the wild blue future. Making assumptions most climate scientists refute.


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 7:54pm:

But take the coward’s way out, like Lees and Booby are doing, pretend everything is fine.

No. Just not taking the alarmist approach.


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 7:54pm:

A man does not take the cowardly way.

A man does not talk up doom and gloom based on nothing more than computer models.

I posted a graph of oceanic heat content.

There are tons of data about AGW, SST, land temperatures, Jet Stream weakening and melting of polar ice.

No data?  ::)

BUT

forecasting climate, ocean heating, polar ice melting etc is difficult:

1. HM La Ninas, El Ninos, ENSO neutral years will there be?

2. What will the PDO, ADO, IDO (Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Ocean Decadal Oscillations) and the Arctic DO do over the forecast period?

3. Pattern of carbon pollution? Aerosols? Volcanic eruptions adding more aerosols? Impossible to predict volcanoes and volcanoes create bits of cooling by sending aerosols to top of atmosphere where they reflect some of the sunlight. What if some countries or a new RE technology was introduced? EVs becoming popular, what about hydrogen etc etc etc

4. The sun—it went a tiny bit quiet in the 1980s, when will it resume normal activity, bumping up the warming a bit? Bit of a wildcard, eh?

Most here would struggle to predict a race on the weekend, how would they go predicting a race to be held in 12 months time? What horses? You are the one predicting the race!

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 8:31pm:

I posted a graph of oceanic heat content.

Measured by the Argo buoys which are delineated in ºC.

"The temperatures in the Argo profiles are accurate to ± 0.002°C and pressures are accurate to ± 2.4dbar."

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/Data_FAQ.html

So why the need to convert to zeta-joules? What about losses in the conversion?


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 8:31pm:

There are tons of data about AGW, SST, land temperatures, Jet Stream weakening and melting of polar ice.

Nope. There may be tons of data. No warming can be specified as solely AGW. That is just your wishful thinking.


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 8:31pm:

No data?

Please provide the "data" for the paper under discussion. ;)

I posted ocean heat content.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 8:53pm:

I posted ocean heat content.

yes possum. How was it derived? ;)

For the purpose of this thread it showed increasing OHC.

"The OHCA calculations depend entirely on the timely delivery of in situ data from the Argo program, the Global Temperature and Salinity Profile Program (GTSPP), and the three tropical moored buoy array programs (TAO/TRITON in the Pacific, PIRATA in the Atlantic, and RAMA in the Indian) through the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL).  All three data streams are gathered in the NCEI archive.  "

https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/sds/cdr/CDRs/Ocean_Heat_Content/AlgorithmDescription_01B-41.pdf

So we know Argo uses ºC. I'll let you look at the others, but I suspect they also use ºC to keep systems simple.

But you can check that out.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 8:59pm:

For the purpose of this thread it showed increasing OHC.

ooh obfuscation. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Nope. Just keeping the thread on topic.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 9:08pm:

Nope. Just keeping the thread on topic.

Keep telling yourself that.


lee wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 8:48pm:

Please provide the "data" for the paper under discussion.

no response and that is germane to the topic. ;)

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 1:10pm:

There is a huge risk of positive feedback causing further temperature rises. It's already happening with the melting of subarctic peat and warmer seas causing release of methane from hydrates in the sea. Bobby will be apoplectic when he sees this claim. Between global warming and plastic pollution of the sea, the earth is doomed. The current Northern Hemisphere heat waves are a portent of what is to come. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/400647-study-warns-of-looming-potential-for-runaway-global-warming Quote: Study warns of looming potential for runaway global warming BY MAX GREENWOOD - 08/06/18 07:56 PM EDT A new study out Monday warns of the possibility of out-of-control global warming if humans fail to band together to fight the worst effects of climate change. The analysis, conducted by researchers at the Australian National University and the Stockholm Resilience Center, among other institutions, outlines the potential for a "threshold" that, if crossed, would lead to runaway warming patterns and the advent of a "Hothouse Earth." If such a threshold is crossed, the study warns, global average temperatures could climb as much as 8 degrees Fahrenheit above current temperatures and sea levels could rise 30 to 200 feet. "Crossing the threshold would lead to a much higher global average temperature than any interglacial in the past 1.2 million years and to sea levels significantly higher than at any time in the Holocene," the study says. The report is based on a review of past research of thresholds for climate change, according to USA Today. Even if every country that signed on to the Paris climate agreement meets its obligations under the pact and limits the global temperature increase to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, runaway global warming could still be a threat, the newspaper reports. ...

The OP.

MAN BEAR PIG...

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 5:44pm:

Grendel wrote on Aug 8th, 2018 at 5:21pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8th, 2018 at 3:57pm: It is definite that the tundra is thawing out—clearly the globe is warming up. If the globe was actually warming up there would be higher temps everywhere no record cold temps etc... Maybe MBP you'd like to try again.  Or wait another 30 years and maybe just maybe your alarmism might be more realistic. ::) No, we would see what we are seeing now: the temperature distribution moved slightly to the warm side but some (less but some) cold events happening. There are very few cold records broken but many hot records broken. There are higher temperatures everywhere bar the East Antarctic Plateau. Both poles losing net ice. Tundra thawing out.

Do you understand English?
Do you know what Global means?
Do you know what warming is?

You need to stop lying to yourself and everyone else here... Man Bear Pig... ::)

Poor roach, like Lees scared of AGW.

Permafrost is thawing out. Tell me how this is not due to warming.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 10:33pm:

Poor roach, like Lees scared of AGW. Permafrost is thawing out. Tell me how this is not due to warming.

Still tilting at reality Monk?
https://orig00.deviantart.net/8334/f/2017/112/e/e/haw_haw_haw__by_sbolton123-darvnp6.png
Oh dear... 

Grendel wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 10:10pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8th, 2018 at 5:44pm: Grendel wrote on Aug 8th, 2018 at 5:21pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8th, 2018 at 3:57pm: It is definite that the tundra is thawing out—clearly the globe is warming up. If the globe was actually warming up there would be higher temps everywhere no record cold temps etc... Maybe MBP you'd like to try again.  Or wait another 30 years and maybe just maybe your alarmism might be more realistic. ::) No, we would see what we are seeing now: the temperature distribution moved slightly to the warm side but some (less but some) cold events happening. There are very few cold records broken but many hot records broken. There are higher temperatures everywhere bar the East Antarctic Plateau. Both poles losing net ice. Tundra thawing out. Do you understand English? Do you know what Global means? Do you know what warming is? You need to stop lying to yourself and everyone else here... Man Bear Pig... ::)

http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/picture/damasta79/ManBearPig.png

oh dear...

So roach has abandoned the argument. Permafrost thawing out everywhere IS a pretty good indicator the globe is warming.

So is ice melting at both poles.

So is the huge heatwave affecting most of the globe.

So, how close is the tipping point? We are at 1.2°C warming. 2°C is a tipping point setting in train irreversible changes, positive feedbacks.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 10:06am:

Permafrost thawing out everywhere IS a pretty good indicator the globe is warming.

Now all you have to show is permafrost thawing out EVERYWHERE. ;)

From the link below -

"It's been colder than average in:

Parts of southern Europe including Spain and Portugal,parts of northern Siberia in Russia and and the southernmost part of South America. "

I guess they don't have permafrost there.


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 10:06am:

So is ice melting at both poles.

From what I hear it is not melting in Antarctica. A recent paper blamed CO2 for lowering temperatures. You never mention that. ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 10:06am:

So is the huge heatwave affecting most of the globe.

Except of course the entire southern hemisphere. ;D ;D

And of course from the BBC -

"Reality Check: Mapping the global heatwave"

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/4F71/production/_102673302_climate_change_world_v2_640-nc.png

Except of course they don't define "heatwave", merely show average anomalies which is a completely different kettle of fish.  Warmer is not a heatwave.

"The countries where it has been much warmer than average"

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44936622

Extreme weather events as predicted by AGW theory is right on track ! The oil economy has screwed our planet ! No one is immune :(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U09qq_zuCDg&t=30s

Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 11:37am:

Extreme weather events as predicted by AGW theory is right on track !

Of course they are. /sarc

More cyclones/hurricanes? Nope.

More droughts? Nope

More floods? Nope

More land burnt out by wildfires? Nope (although wildfires are not a weather event, they may be started by lightning)

More damage to property dollar wise? yes. Things are more expensive, it costs more to replace.

This shock 122ºF? when was it or will it hit? is it like the 50ºC colour bar BoM added a few years ago, amidst much hype? Only for it not to be needed? Oh dear.

lee wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 11:41am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 9th, 2018 at 11:37am: Extreme weather events as predicted by AGW theory is right on track ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U09qq_zuCDg&t=30s Of course they are. more cyclones/hurricanes? Nope. More droughts? Nope More floods? Nope More land burnt out by wildfires? Nope More damage to property dollar wise? yes. Things are more expensive, it costs more to replace.

You are a complete moreon and nobody takes any notice of your LNP denialist agenda. How to get a Uni degree in science without going to Uni ? Just signup with the LNP and all of a sudden you are a complete expert :D LOL

Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 11:45am:

You are a complete moreon and nobody takes any notice of your LNP denialist agenda. How to get a Uni degree in science without going to Uni ? Just signup with the LNP and all of a sudden you are a complete expert

Is that how you did it?

So using your supposed superior knowledge which increased extreme weather events have been shown to be due to AGW?

The youtube is from 4 days ago. Did it get to 122ºF? if not why not? Predictions of future events are only good if they come true.

lee wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 11:50am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 9th, 2018 at 11:45am: You are a complete moreon and nobody takes any notice of your LNP denialist agenda. How to get a Uni degree in science without going to Uni ? Just signup with the LNP and all of a sudden you are a complete expert Is that how you did it? So using your supposed superior knowledge which increased extreme weather events have been shown to be due to AGW? The youtube is from 4 days ago. Did it get to 122ºF? if not why not? Predictions of future events are only good if they come true.

What are you talking about ? 14 inches of snow after a 95 degree heatwave !! That kind of suggests an extreme weather event wouldn't you say ?

And you can't predict a single random event. You can only predict its likelyhood of occurring. Go back to high school mathematics and do a course in probability and statistics. You obviously have difficulty with random events and the law of averages.

Denizen lee is a paid propagandist.

Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 12:08pm:

What are you talking about ?

You are the one posting a youtube of a supposed 122ºF temperature. You tell us.


Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 12:08pm:

14 inches of snow after a 95 degree heatwave !! That kind of suggests an extreme weather event wouldn't you say ?

Oh you mean a weather event. These things have obviously never happened before. /sarc  The thing is are these events increasing?


Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 12:08pm:

You can only predict its likelyhood of occurring.

So what was the likelihood of the 122ºF? Did they give it?


Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 12:08pm:

You obviously have difficulty with random events and the law of averages.

Random events are by definition random. You can't use the law of averages on random. See the Gambler's Fallacy.

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 12:10pm:

Denizen lee is a paid propagandist.

Tell "Evil Oil" my cheque hasn't arrived. ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 1:28pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 9th, 2018 at 12:10pm: Denizen lee is a paid propagandist. Tell "Evil Oil" my cheque hasn't arrived. ;D ;D ;D

Its performance-related. Global warming has degraded your performance.

You desperately need to cool off by thinking of icebergs like The Mechanic and Bobby do.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 10:06am:

So roach has abandoned the argument. Permafrost thawing out everywhere IS a pretty good indicator the globe is warming. So is ice melting at both poles. So is the huge heatwave affecting most of the globe. So, how close is the tipping point? We are at 1.2°C warming. 2°C is a tipping point setting in train irreversible changes, positive feedbacks.

Some of us have a life outside of this site dopey and have responsibilities to look after their parents and others.

Now...  permafrost is not a global phenomenon dopey.

There is no tipping point that is a myth spread by alarmists.

Grendel wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 5:44pm:

There is no tipping point that is a myth spread by alarmists.

And that 2ºC was dreamt up by, of all people, an economist. ;D ;D ;D

True, permafrost thawing is not global. It tends to happen where there is permafrost  ::)

Both Russia and Alaska–Canada are facing problems because the permafrost is thawing. Buildings tilting/cracking due to uneven thawing, mudslides blocking roads and rivers etc. The northernmost town in the world is probably abandoned by now, made unlivable by thawing permafrost and polar bears.

Somewhere in a thread in the Dubyne MRB or the Relationship MRB is a hilarious story of a guy offering a service of chilling the permafrost under buildings to keep it from thawing. In the southern hemisphere the permafrost is thawing too.

Anyone have a credible reason why the permafrost is thawing out that does not involve global warming?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 5:57pm:

The northernmost town in the world is probably abandoned by now, made unlivable by thawing permafrost and polar bears.

You mean Alert, Nunavut?

Strange they have a current 7 day forecast.

I guess they forgot to tell the poor poley bears.

And the Inuit actually hunt polar bears.

But perhaps you meant Ny-Alesund a research base.


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 5:57pm:

Anyone have a credible reason why the permafrost is thawing out that does not involve global warming?

Natural warming.

let's see...  where to begin today.

The ABC, Monk, Kevin, Tony J, Tim and Malcolm believe in AGW.  They all blame AGW for the DROUGHT we are now in.

But...

Warmist ideologues always jump on any warm period of weather or natural climate disaster...

This drought is just like many past droughts.  We live in a land of drought and flooding rains people...  FACT.  It's all rather cyclical...  FACT.

The science of Meterology says NSW rainfall over the last century shows that the first half of the last century had mor dryspells than the latter half.  There is no evidence as yet showing that global warming is producing more droughts.  Check the records.

The BOM's records show that these days we are getting more rain in Australia not less.  Poor Tim.

The BOM last year agreed that "nationally averaged rainfall was 8% above average".

The gov-funded National Climate Change  Adaption Research facility  admitted that "in Eastern Australia, that up to 2030, natural variability is expected to continue dominating any rainfall trends".

How about ours harvests?
"Our wheat harvests over the past decade have consistently been well above the average for the past 60 years".
Harvests are bigger not smaller.

World grain crops have also set records over the last decade.  Even the UN IPCC concedes... "there is not enough evidence to support more than low confidence in a global scale trend in drought"and we know how biased they are... :D :D :D

We have had worse droughts last century.

The GB Reef...

Health is returning to the reef after recent bleachings.
The Reef and Rainforest centre says a cooler Summer in Qld's North has helped in this.
Tourism Operators have reported improvements at high profile dive sites.

lee wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 6:03pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 9th, 2018 at 5:57pm: The northernmost town in the world is probably abandoned by now, made unlivable by thawing permafrost and polar bears. You mean Alert, Nunavut? Strange they have a current 7 day forecast. I guess they forgot to tell the poor poley bears. And the Inuit actually hunt polar bears. Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 9th, 2018 at 5:57pm: Anyone have a credible reason why the permafrost is thawing out that does not involve global warming? Natural warming.

Nope.

Natural warming—from what cause? Still sticking to 1.5% land use change?  :)

Roach wisely—but tellingly—avoids answering my question.

Unless you want to posit two collars, one around each pole, you have to admit it is global warming.

The sun went a little bit quiet in the 1980s so it is not the sun doing the warming.

So—what is causing the warming? H2O, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs even SO2.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 6:11pm:

Natural warming—from what cause? Still sticking to 1.5% land use change?

Oh dear. JM confuses one element of AGW with natural variability. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Grendel wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 6:09pm:

This drought is just like many past droughts ...

… aside from being the most severe in recorded history, so far - and it's still got quite a while to go

buzzanddidj wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 6:28pm:

… aside from being the most severe in recorded history, so far - and it's still got quite a while to go

Got a reference for that?

nope. Just asking you—you said that land use change is the reason the globe is warming. Really—that is at least no more idiotic than Booby’s ice age nonsense. Not less idiotic either.

lee wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 6:30pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Aug 9th, 2018 at 6:28pm: … aside from being the most severe in recorded history, so far - and it's still got quite a while to go Got a reference for that?

Ask the BOM

I really find it a total waste of energy - responding to your Andrew Bolt style, right wing school of climate change  denial rhetoric



I'm with the scientists - not the tabloid bloggers

buzzanddidj wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 6:37pm:

Ask the BOM

http://www.bom.gov.au/tmp/cc/rain.nsw.0112.57947.png



buzzanddidj wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 6:37pm:

I'm with the scientists - not the tabloid bloggers

So tell us where you got the information. It can't be that hard; can it?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 6:16pm:

Roach wisely—but tellingly—avoids answering my question. Unless you want to posit two collars, one around each pole, you have to admit it is global warming. The sun went a little bit quiet in the 1980s so it is not the sun doing the warming. So—what is causing the warming? H2O, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs even SO2.

Did you answer my question Monkey boy?
Nope.
Did you actually ask me one requiring a sensible answer?
No...

Here let me help you Global means encompassing the whole Earth. :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ::)

Oh and what is causing the warming?
The Sun...  Sunshine... ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
No Sun no warmth ya know. :D

{Sigh} the sun went a little bit quiet in the 1980s. Despite that the globe has warmed 0.5°C since 1990.

Not the sun!

CO2 etc.

Perhaps we could look at the US and see what Man Bear Pig is up to there eh?

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/california_drought_timeline.png

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 6:51pm:

{Sigh} the sun went a little bit quiet in the 1980s. Despite that the globe has warmed 0.5°C since 1990. Not the sun! CO2 etc.

oh and other warming periods, apparently sans CO2? Or were they all due to orbital deficiencies? ;)

BTW- you haven't given us the data on the headline post yet.

buzzanddidj wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 6:37pm:

Ask the BOM

Or perhaps you prefer the rainfall anomalies.

http://www.bom.gov.au/tmp/cc/rranom.nsw.0112.62982.png

This thread was moved by Set -  7.21 pm 9th August 2018.

I appreciate that because environment chat keeps going to the wrong boards.

OK - I've got a theory -

what has caused all the terrible droughts?

Maybe less heat over the oceans has made less moisture,
therefore less clouds -
& no rain.