Deleted because of GMod interference.

---

Deleted due to GMod interference.

the satellites can't see through clouds. ;)

lee wrote on May 26^th, 2020 at 3:12pm:

the satellites can't see through clouds. ;)

Infrared?
Microwave?
Radar?

Captain Nemo wrote on May 26^th, 2020 at 3:25pm:

Infrared? Microwave? Radar?

Seeing how as Monk likes to post about infrared, I will let you decide. ;)

Anthropogenic Global Climate Change - or whatever it is called now - is a load ignorant, media and social justice generated drivel.

Carbon is a girl’s best friend
The Australian Press Council has joined the cancel culture club
Ian Plimer
https://spectatorau.imgix.net/content/uploads/2020/08/cover_8-aug_post.jpg
As a result of an activist campaign, the Australian Press Council took exception to my article in the Australian on 22 November, 2019. They claimed that my statement that there ‘are no carbon emissions. If there were, we could not see because most carbon is black. Such terms are deliberately misleading, as are many claims’ was false.

Journalists in the Press Council should know basic English and the difference between an element (carbon) and a compound (carbon dioxide). This is elementary schoolkid’s science. For the Press Council to claim that this is factually incorrect shows breathtaking ignorance. There are eight forms (allotropes) of carbon, one of them (diamond) is not black which is why the word ‘most’ was used. I was showing that to call the odourless, colourless. tasteless gas that is the food of life as ‘carbon emissions’ is Orwellian.

The Press Council objected to the use of ‘fraudulent’ in my statement about ‘fraudulent changing of weather records’. It is clear that the council is not aware of the widely publicised fraudulent expunging of the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age by Michael Mann and failed court cases initiated by Mann. They are clearly not aware of the admission of fraud in the Climategate emails.

The Press Council wrote ‘The Council considers that the statement concerning the Bureau of Meteorology fraudulently changing weather records is one of fact and implies an element of dishonesty or deception on its part’. I made absolutely no reference whatsoever to the Bureau of Meteorology. I have been verballed. When can I expect an apology?

It was claimed that my statement ‘unsubstantiated claims polar ice is melting’ was wrong. Polar ice concurrently melts, grows and moves and polar ice includes terrestrial ice and sea ice. Changes in polar ice are due to a diversity of reasons and my point was that we only hear from activists who claim that polar ice is melting due to human-induced global warming. We don’t hear that glaciers move due to recrystallisation, that many glaciers are growing or that there are more that 150 volcanoes and areas of hot rocks beneath the Antarctic ice.

The Press Council claimed that my statement ‘the ignoring of data that shows Pacific islands and the Maldives are growing rather than being inundated’ was false. There is a huge amount of scientific literature based on aerial photographs and satellite images showing that atolls are increasing in area. A ten-second Google search would have shown peer-reviewed publications supporting this statement. Why was this not done? Or maybe the Press Council has become yet another activist institution?

As soon as the words carbon footprint, emissions, pollution, and decarbonisation, climate emergency, extreme weather, unprecedented and extinction are used, I know I am being conned by ignorant activists, populist scaremongering, politicians and rent seekers.

Pollution by plastics, sulphur and nitrogen gases, particulates and chemicals occurs in developing countries. That’s real pollution. The major pollution in the West is the polluting of minds about the role of CO2. There are no carbon emissions. If there were, we would not be able to see because most carbon is black. Such terms are deliberately misleading, as are many claims. But then again, we should be used to this after the hysteria about the Great Barrier Reef. We’ve had reefs on Earth for 3,500 million years. They came and went many times, thriving when water was warmer and there was an elevated CO2 content of the atmosphere. Reefs need CO2; it’s their basic food.

It has never been shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. Climate models have been around 30 years. They have all failed. Balloon and satellite measurements show a disconnect from climate model predictions. We emit a trace atmospheric gas called carbon dioxide at a time in planetary history of low atmospheric carbon dioxide. Earth’s climate dances to rhythms every day, every season and on far larger lunar, oceanic, solar, orbital, galactic and tectonic cycles. Climate change is normal and continual. When cycles overlap, climate change can be rapid and large. Sporadic events such as supernovas and volcanic eruptions can also change climate. The main greenhouse gas is water vapour. It is the only gas in air that can evaporate, humidify and condense into clouds that precipitate rain, hail and snow. Earth is unevenly heated. Oceans hold most of the planet’s surface heat, not the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide is plant food. It is neither a pollutant nor a toxin. Without carbon dioxide, all life on Earth would die. Plants convert carbon dioxide, water and sunlight during photosynthesis into sugars, cellulose, fruit, vegetables and grains, which animal life uses as food. Marine organisms also take up and use carbon dioxide. Plants need almost three times today’s carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere to thrive. For decades horticulturalists have pumped carbon dioxide into glasshouses to increase yields. The fossil record shows that a thriving and diversification of plant and animal life occured every time the atmosphere had a very high carbon dioxide content. In the past, warming has never been a threat to life on Earth. Why should it be now? When there is a low atmospheric carbon dioxide content, especially during very cold times, life struggles.

For the past 500 million years, the atmospheric carbon dioxide content has been decreasing and if we halved today’s atmospheric carbon dioxide content, all life would die. This carbon dioxide has been removed into the oceans and is sequestered into coral, shells, limey sediments and muds and on the land into coals, muds, soils and vegetation.

In our lifetime, there has been no correlation between CO2 emissions and temperature. Geology shows us again there is no correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature. Each of the six major past ice ages began when the atmospheric CO2 content was far higher than at present. The idea that a slight increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to unstoppable global warming is demonstrably wrong.

In the past decade China has increased its CO2 emissions by 53 per cent, 12 times Australia’s total output of 1.3 per cent of the global total. The grasslands, forests, farms and continental shelves of Australia absorb far more carbon dioxide than we emit. The attack on emissions of the gas of life is an irrational attack on industry, our modern way of life, freedoms and prosperity. It has nothing to do with the environment.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/08/carbon-is-a-girls-best-friend/

What are the chances or possibly that the whole Climate Change storey has been hijacked by China?

While they are still burning coal and making money selling dodgy renewable hardware to the rest of the world

While they use cheap coal and can undercut other vountries that are using expensive renewables
Plausible?

Even if temps are rising due to other reasons

Quote:

In January 1859, Tyndall began studying the radiative properties of various gases. Part of his experimentation included the construction of the first ratio spectrophotometer, which he used to measure the absorptive powers of gases such as water vapor, "carbonic acid" (now known as carbon dioxide), ozone, and hydrocarbons. Among his most important discoveries were the vast differences in the abilities of "perfectly colorless and invisible gases and vapors" to absorb and transmit radiant heat. He noted that oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen are almost transparent to radiant heat while other gases are quite opaque. Tyndall's experiments also showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation, and that even in small quantities, these gases absorb much more strongly than the atmosphere itself.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Tyndall

You might want to look up:

Eunice Foote
Black body radiation

If it is not CO2 causing the warming (and the extra water vapor the warmth from the CO2 causes to evaporate from oceans) then it can only be the sun. OOPS!

---

Poor JM jumping straight to his 3 card trick.

TSI back to 1880 with a accuracy of 0.1 w/m²? ;D ;D ;D ;D

Global Temperature back to 1880 with a 0.1C accuracy? ;D ;D ;D ;D

Global Temperatures today with an accuracy of 0.001C? ;D ;D ;D ;D

Remember what Phil Jones, CRU, said?

"Email 2729

    The issue Ray alludes to is that in addition to the issue
    of many more drifters providing measurements over the last
    5-10 years, the measurements are coming in from places where
    we didn't have much ship data in the past. For much of the SH
    between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is
    very little ship data there. [Phil Jones]"


You do know spectrometers can't see through clouds don't you? How do you reckon that impacts your CO2 spectrometer readings from space? 8-)

You do know the earth is not a black body? ::)

"Context. There is no consensus on the amplitude of historical solar forcing. The estimated magnitude of the total solar irradiance (TSI) difference between the Maunder minimum and the present time ranges from 0.1 to 6 W m−2 making the simulation of the past and future climate uncertain."

https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2018/07/aa31199-17/aa31199-17.html

July 2018

Thanks Lee,

Monk doesn't know.

Solar output down, global temperature up.

Permafrost thawing out.

Arctic ice that was 10 metres thick last century, 5m thick for the first part of this century, now 2m is the thickest ice there is.

This despite solar insulation north of 66°N decreasing—the Milankovitch cycle.

And we have known from the 1850s that CO2, H2O and CH4 are opaque to IR.

The earth-atmosphere does act as a blackbody. Solar radiation hits the planet, the planet emits IR which when it reaches space will cool the globe.

CO2 is opaque to IR. . . can you fill in the blanks Bobby? You are the Southern Hemisphere expert according to Dubyne! Of course, he didn’t mean that, he was just patting you on the head so you keep donating and watching his monetised videos.

Try anyway.

CO2 is opaque to IR so . . . . ?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 13^th, 2020 at 5:59pm:

Solar output down, global temperature up.

Only in your fevered imagination. ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 13^th, 2020 at 5:59pm:

Permafrost thawing out.

And this has never happened before? ;D ;D ;D


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 13^th, 2020 at 5:59pm:

Arctic ice that was 10 metres thick last century, 5m thick for the first part of this century, now 2m is the thickest ice there is.

Arctic ice is still there well after the 2013 timeline.

You mean those ships passing through the Arctic don't need those ice breaker keels? ;D ;D ;D ;D

"The Russian icebreaker Kapitan Dranitsyn has been stuck for days in unexpectedly thick Arctic sea ice. She was on her way to support the MOSAiC expedition –a crew of “climate change experts” aboard the Polarstern who intentionally marooned themselves near the North Pole at a cost of $158 million to document an Arctic Winter (see full article here)— but now requires assistance herself, and a THIRD icebreaker, the Admiral Makarov, departed from Murmansk on March 3."

https://electroverse.net/yet-another-icebreaker-finds-itself-stuck-in-unexpectedly-thick-arctic-ice/

Well into the melt season.


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 13^th, 2020 at 5:59pm:

And we have known from the 1850s that CO2, H2O and CH4 are opaque to IR.

And yet you still tried to peddle the story of the spectrometry of the CO² from space. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Why not?

We know the effect of CO2 on the IR spectrum looking down and we know it looking up. Clouds do not block all the IR reaching space, just the part in the H2O part of the IR spectrum, not the CO2 or CH4 or N2O or O3 or CFC part of the spectrum.

Are you Bobby, lee? Is Bobby your sock?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 13^th, 2020 at 6:18pm:

The earth-atmosphere does act as a blackbody. Solar radiation hits the planet, the planet emits IR which when it reaches space will cool the globe.

It is not a black body; it does not have an emissivity of 1.

Arctic Ice

http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/sea/CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN.png

Wow. I see some yellow in there. Over 3 metres this late in the season. ;)

Hardly any 3m ice Bobby lee. Thanks for confirming my point.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 13^th, 2020 at 6:30pm:

We know the effect of CO2 on the IR spectrum looking down and we know it looking up. Clouds do not block all the IR reaching space, just the part in the H2O part of the IR spectrum, not the CO2 or CH4 or N2O or O3 or CFC part of the spectrum.

But they overlap petal.


"The infrared absorption spectrum of atmospheric greenhouse gases is very complex. In some regions absorption frequencies of various greenhouse gases overlap, so the contributions of each component do not add linearly. Radiation at a particular frequency can be absorbed by either water vapour or CO2. The concentration of water vapour is dependent on temperature and varies greatly by both latitude and altitude. Also, water changes from a liquid to a gas with heat energy for the latent heat of evaporation required for the transformation."

https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/CO2_Versus_Water.html


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 13^th, 2020 at 6:30pm:

Are you Bobby, lee? Is Bobby your sock?

Poor petal. He just gets so confused. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 13^th, 2020 at 6:38pm:

Hardly any 3m ice Bobby lee. Thanks for confirming my point.

I didn't petal. You said "now 2m is the thickest ice there is" and you do know there is a 100mm cm difference?

But enlighten us on when it was 10 metres thick?

You don’t know when Arctic sea ice was 10m thick?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 13^th, 2020 at 6:56pm:

You don’t know when Arctic sea ice was 10m thick?

No petal. You?

But -

"I received the following reply from Julienne Stroeve (reproduced with permission):

“ … using passive microwave data it is very easy to tell the difference between ice and water as the dielectric constant differs quite a bit and this is reflected in large differences in the microwave emission. The main advantage of using passive microwave is that it can see the ice even if it’s cloudy or dark. There is a problem however in summer when melt ponds form on the ice since the sea ice algorithms then underestimate how much ice there really is (they think it’s open water). That’s one reason why we focus on extent rather than true ice area for the NSIDC sea ice news and analysis web site."

"The Early Twentieth-Century Warming in the Arctic—A Possible Mechanism by LENNART BENGTSSON, VLADIMIR A. SEMENOV, OLA M. JOHANNESSEN [link].  Excerpt:

The Arctic 1920–40 warming is one of the most puzzling climate anomalies of the twentieth century. Over some 15 yr the Arctic warmed by 1.78C and remained warm for more than a decade. This is a warming in the region comparable in magnitude to what is to be expected as a consequence of anthropogenic climate change in the next several decades. A gradual cooling commenced in the late 1940s bringing the temperature back to much lower values, although not as cold as before the warming started. …this warming was associated with and presumably initiated by a major increase in the westerly to southwesterly wind north of Norway leading to enhanced atmospheric and ocean heat transport from the comparatively warm North Atlantic Current through the passage between northern Norway and Spitsbergen into the Barents Sea….the increased winds were not related to the NAO, which in fact weakened during the 1920s and remained weak for the whole period of the warm Arctic anomaly. …the process behind the warming was most likely reduced sea ice cover, mainly in the Barents Sea. This is not an unexpected finding because of the climatic effect of sea ice in comparison with that of an open sea but is intriguing since previously available sea ice data (Chapman and Walsh 1993) did not indicate a reduced sea ice cover in the 1930s and 1940s. However, as we have shown here recent sea ice datasets [Johannessen et al. (2004) give a detailed presentation] actually showed a retreat in this period

The following extracts come from Johanssen et al 2004 [link]:

“The global gridded SAT data set (Jones et al., 1999) used most extensively for studies of climate variability has major gaps in the northern high latitudes, in particular over the ice-covered Arctic Ocean and some surrounding land areas.” "

"http://geology.com/articles/northwest-passage.shtml

"In 1957, three United States Coast Guard Cutters, Storis, Bramble and SPAR became the first ships to cross the Northwest Passage along a deep draft route. They covered the 4,500 miles of semi-charted water in 64 days.


The first ship capable of carrying significant cargo to traverse the Passage was the SS Manhattan, a specially reinforced supertanker, in 1969. It was accompanied by the John A Macdonald, a Canadian icebreaker. This trip was taken to test the Northwest Passage as an alternative to building the Alaska Pipeline. At that time it was determined that the Northwest Passage was not economical and the Alaska Pipeline was built."

"This reference by Ahlmann and others concerning the rapidly warming arctic can be picked up on the occasion of a lecture he gave in 1952 as the principal address at the meeting of the Seventeenth International Geographical Congress in Washington, D. C. [link]"

"“The thickness of the ice forming annually in the North Polar Sea has diminished from an average of 365 centimeters at the time of Nansen’s Fram expedition of 1893-96 to 218 centimeters during the drift of the Russian icebreaker Sedov in 1937-40. The extent of drift ice in Arctic waters has also diminished considerably in the last decades.”"

[url]extracts: https://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/[/url]

147 cm that's impressive Global warming 1893 - 1940. ;)

According to Table 3 and Figure 11 of this study the Svalbard ice was thinner in 1955 than 2017.

"Thin Sea Ice, Thick Snow, and Widespread Negative Freeboard Observed During N‐ICE2015 North of Svalbard"

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JC012865

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/2cf09972-efbd-444b-86b0-fbd59e64fc3c/jgrc22694-fig-0011-m.png

lee wrote on Aug 13^th, 2020 at 7:19pm:

Jovial Monk wrote Yesterday at 4:56pm: You don’t know when Arctic sea ice was 10m thick? No petal. You?

Well it has been over 15 hours since that post and according to JM's timeline of 17 minutes it would appear he didn't know the answer to his own question. Poor petal. ;D ;D ;D ;D

It's getting warmer
It's getting harder to breath
The air is getting thinner

lee wrote on Aug 13^th, 2020 at 7:19pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 13th, 2020 at 6:56pm: You don’t know when Arctic sea ice was 10m thick? No petal. You? But - "I received the following reply from Julienne Stroeve (reproduced with permission): “ … using passive microwave data it is very easy to tell the difference between ice and water as the dielectric constant differs quite a bit and this is reflected in large differences in the microwave emission. The main advantage of using passive microwave is that it can see the ice even if it’s cloudy or dark. There is a problem however in summer when melt ponds form on the ice since the sea ice algorithms then underestimate how much ice there really is (they think it’s open water). That’s one reason why we focus on extent rather than true ice area for the NSIDC sea ice news and analysis web site." "The Early Twentieth-Century Warming in the Arctic—A Possible Mechanism by LENNART BENGTSSON, VLADIMIR A. SEMENOV, OLA M. JOHANNESSEN [link].  Excerpt: The Arctic 1920–40 warming is one of the most puzzling climate anomalies of the twentieth century. Over some 15 yr the Arctic warmed by 1.78C and remained warm for more than a decade. This is a warming in the region comparable in magnitude to what is to be expected as a consequence of anthropogenic climate change in the next several decades. A gradual cooling commenced in the late 1940s bringing the temperature back to much lower values, although not as cold as before the warming started. …this warming was associated with and presumably initiated by a major increase in the westerly to southwesterly wind north of Norway leading to enhanced atmospheric and ocean heat transport from the comparatively warm North Atlantic Current through the passage between northern Norway and Spitsbergen into the Barents Sea….the increased winds were not related to the NAO, which in fact weakened during the 1920s and remained weak for the whole period of the warm Arctic anomaly. …the process behind the warming was most likely reduced sea ice cover, mainly in the Barents Sea. This is not an unexpected finding because of the climatic effect of sea ice in comparison with that of an open sea but is intriguing since previously available sea ice data (Chapman and Walsh 1993) did not indicate a reduced sea ice cover in the 1930s and 1940s. However, as we have shown here recent sea ice datasets [Johannessen et al. (2004) give a detailed presentation] actually showed a retreat in this period The following extracts come from Johanssen et al 2004 [link]: “The global gridded SAT data set (Jones et al., 1999) used most extensively for studies of climate variability has major gaps in the northern high latitudes, in particular over the ice-covered Arctic Ocean and some surrounding land areas.” " "http://geology.com/articles/northwest-passage.shtml "In 1957, three United States Coast Guard Cutters, Storis, Bramble and SPAR became the first ships to cross the Northwest Passage along a deep draft route. They covered the 4,500 miles of semi-charted water in 64 days. The first ship capable of carrying significant cargo to traverse the Passage was the SS Manhattan, a specially reinforced supertanker, in 1969. It was accompanied by the John A Macdonald, a Canadian icebreaker. This trip was taken to test the Northwest Passage as an alternative to building the Alaska Pipeline. At that time it was determined that the Northwest Passage was not economical and the Alaska Pipeline was built." "This reference by Ahlmann and others concerning the rapidly warming arctic can be picked up on the occasion of a lecture he gave in 1952 as the principal address at the meeting of the Seventeenth International Geographical Congress in Washington, D. C. [link]" "“The thickness of the ice forming annually in the North Polar Sea has diminished from an average of 365 centimeters at the time of Nansen’s Fram expedition of 1893-96 to 218 centimeters during the drift of the Russian icebreaker Sedov in 1937-40. The extent of drift ice in Arctic waters has also diminished considerably in the last decades.”" [url]extracts: https://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/[/url] 147 cm that's impressive Global warming 1893 - 1940. ;)

GOLD................ 8-)

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 13^th, 2020 at 6:56pm:

You don’t know when Arctic sea ice was 10m thick?

I doubt it was ever that thick in the last 100 years.

Especially between 1920 & 1940.

September 1957 - arctic decreases by 40%

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

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

Just a though today we have filled our atmosphere with man made radiowaves, microwaves, lasers and whatever else.

Has anyone every asked the question ...?

How much heat do manmade waves produce in our atmosphere.

Ajax wrote on Aug 16^th, 2020 at 10:22am:

Just a though today we have filled our atmosphere with man made radiowaves, microwaves, lasers and whatever else. Has anyone every asked the question ...? How much heat do manmade waves produce in our atmosphere.

Considering that the Sun puts 1 kilowatt into every square meter
of the Earth then whatever we do is negligible.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 16^th, 2020 at 10:27am:

Ajax wrote on Aug 16th, 2020 at 10:22am: Just a though today we have filled our atmosphere with man made radiowaves, microwaves, lasers and whatever else. Has anyone every asked the question ...? How much heat do manmade waves produce in our atmosphere. Considering that the Sun puts 1 kilowatt into every square meter of the Earth then whatever we do is negligible.

No matter, all frequencies excite atomic particles which in the end produce some form of energy - including heat.

Saw a picture of earth as a tiny white dot in a huge sunbeam through space - taken from a Voyager up in front of our 'vertical' Solar Plane (above our Solar Plane). One of all the Planets possible to photo. Very small indeed.

We need to shave 5 billion of our near 8 billion population.
Too many people breathing and too few trees to replenish the C02 output. A nuke war or Virus might do the trick.