Australian Politics Forum - Global warming, the science and the consequences

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 11070
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #285 - Aug 12^th, 2017 at 12:15pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 12^th, 2017 at 9:30am:

A history of climate science:

https://skepticalscience.com/history-climate-science.html

Reading the comments, there is a book on the history of climate science:

The Discovery of Global Warming: Revised and Expanded Edition (New Histories of Science, Technology, and Medicine) 2nd Edition
by Spencer R. Weart (Author)

Reckon I will order that!

JV how can you quote skepticalscience when its founder was busted for fraudulent paper about the consensus.

Your reasoning for a scientist is faulty at best.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/cooks-97-scam-debunked/

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 51474 Gender:	Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences Reply #286 - Aug 12^th, 2017 at 6:49pm I just read the information the site provides, the papers it links to.
Back to top	OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now! Topics in the right MRB! IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21533 Gender:	Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences Reply #287 - Aug 12^th, 2017 at 9:01pm Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 12^th, 2017 at 6:49pm: I just read the information the site provides, the papers it links to. But that's a BLOG. According to you BLOGS are bad.
Back to top	IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 51474 Gender:	Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences Reply #288 - Aug 12^th, 2017 at 11:39pm It links to the scientific papers. From it, the Harries and the Feldman papers which really make it impossible to deny AGW. A blog just expressing a personal opinion—different kettle of fish. There are good ones and bad ones. Andrew Elder and John Menadue write pretty good blogs on politics.
Back to top	OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now! Topics in the right MRB! IP Logged

Grendel Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 28080 Gender:	Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences Reply #289 - Aug 13^th, 2017 at 11:11am John Menadue?
Back to top	IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21533 Gender:	Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences Reply #290 - Aug 13^th, 2017 at 12:22pm Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 12^th, 2017 at 11:39pm: It links to the scientific papers. You mean like Watts links to scientific papers, notrickszone links to scientific papers, etc?
Back to top	IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #291 - Aug 13^th, 2017 at 9:30pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 12^th, 2017 at 11:39pm:

It links to the scientific papers.

From it, the Harries and the Feldman papers which really make it impossible to deny AGW.

A blog just expressing a personal opinion—different kettle of fish. There are good ones and bad ones. Andrew Elder and John Menadue write pretty good blogs on politics.

But.... JONOVA or WUWT etc,etc,etc YOU IGNORE such things there. Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

Agnes

Gold Member

Offline

fish dinner

Posts: 6081
Bedford Park rnd

Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #292 - Aug 14^th, 2017 at 1:41pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 12^th, 2017 at 11:39pm:

It links to the scientific papers.

From it, the Harries and the Feldman papers which really make it impossible to deny AGW.

A blog just expressing a personal opinion—different kettle of fish. There are good ones and bad ones. Andrew Elder and John Menadue write pretty good blogs on politics.

you are unbanned from the tavern monk- i cant pm you so this is your pm

Back to top

x=^..^= x <o((((>< ~~~ x=^..^=x~~~x=^..^=x<o((((><~~~x=^..^=x

farewell to days of wild abandon and freedom in the adriatic

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #293 - Aug 15^th, 2017 at 3:12pm

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/11/dr-judith-curry-explains-the-reality-of-b...

Quote:

Dr. Judith Curry conducted an interview with YouTube which was published on August 9, 2017 where she clearly lays out the many flaws and failures of “consensus” climate science and how this highly politicalized scheme tremendously misleads policy makers regarding the need for government directed climate actions.

Etc, etc, etc.....

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk

Gold Member

Offline

Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male

Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #294 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 11:03am

Judith Curry

Cheesy

We know that GHGs—molecules with 3 or more atoms, 2 or more dipoles—can absorb IR radiation at specific frequencies then re-emit the IR along the other dipole. The re-emission can be downward as often as it is upwards.

Thus experiments by Harries using satellite spectrometers show less IR radiation heading to space while the Feldman measurements on the north slope of Alaska and another location show more IR radiation returning to the surface. This IR radiation blocked from leaving the atmosphere heats the surface.

The measurements of CO2 are so sensitive they show the yearly carbon cycle. The amounts of IR returned to the surface vary directly with the amount of CO2.

There really is no room to deny that AGW is real.

I am sure everybody here has touched a rock or a brick wall etc after a long hot day. The rock or the wall or whatever is still warm. In a solid object not made of metal heat cannot be conducted or convected away. The solid object, the surface of the earth, can only radiate excess heat away.

We cannot see a wall in the absence of visible light so the radiation is in the infrared band. In this band of EM radiation greenhouse gases like water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide can absorb and re-emit IR radiation at specific frequencies for each molecule, save water vapor and carbon dioxide have absorption bands that partly overlap.

Water vapor, when present in the atmosphere leaves but a small window in the IR band and the other GHGs close that window further. Our wall or rock or the surface of the earth cannot lose all the heat, some gets radiated back to the surface, heating it.

The result is the rise of temperatures we have seen since the Industrial Revolution, fossil fuel burning, took off.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 16^th, 2017 at 11:58am by Jovial Monk »

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21533
Gender: male

Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #295 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 12:23pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 11:03am:

The measurements of CO2 are so sensitive they show the yearly carbon cycle. The amounts of IR returned to the surface vary directly with the amount of CO2.

So explain the warming in previous periods, when it is postulated by you alarmists that CO2 was down to between 190 and 270pmm.

And you just hate Judith Curry because she was once on the board of Climate Alarmism Inc. Now she is merely a lukewarmer. That's why you resort to ad homs. Nothing but space between your ears.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 11:03am:

There really is no room to deny that AGW is real.

You're getting there. Now all you have to do is prove the AGW component. And its extent. Wink

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 11:03am:

I am sure everybody here has touched a rock or a brick wall etc after a long hot day. The rock or the wall or whatever is still warm. In a solid object not made of metal heat cannot be conducted or convected away. The solid object, the surface of the earth, can only radiate excess heat away.

You have discovered UHI. Hooray. Now how do you eliminate the UHI component from carparks, roadways, buildings?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 11:03am:

We cannot see a wall in the absence of visible light so the radiation is in the infrared band. In this band of EM radiation greenhouse gases like water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide can absorb and re-emit IR radiation at specific frequencies for each molecule, save water vapor and carbon dioxide have absorption bands that partly overlap.

Yep. And you notice Harries doesn't show water vapour? We just have to accept at face value that it is just outside the band they show. Grin

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 11:03am:

Water vapor, when present in the atmosphere

Breaking news. JM finds there are times that the atmosphere has no water vapour.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 11:03am:

The result is the rise of temperatures we have seen since the Industrial Revolution, fossil fuel burning, took off.

Pure speculation. But keep trying. Grin

So tell us with all this AGW how the Greenland Ice Sheet has expanded by about 500Gton. How some Karakoram glaciers are expanding.

Are you now trying to tell us AGW is not GLOBAL? Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk

Gold Member

Offline

Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male

Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #296 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 12:42pm

lee wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 12:23pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 11:03am:

The measurements of CO2 are so sensitive they show the yearly carbon cycle. The amounts of IR returned to the surface vary directly with the amount of CO2.

So explain the warming in previous periods, when it is postulated by you alarmists that CO2 was down to between 190 and 270pmm.

And I thought you were so keen on natural variation Wink

Orbital peturbations, lack of volcanic activity, solar cycle etc. As you know, the sun is relatively quiescent since the 1980s, imagine global temps when an active sun adds to AGW.

And you just hate Judith Curry because she was once on the board of Climate Alarmism Inc. Now she is merely a lukewarmer. That's why you resort to ad homs. Nothing but space between your ears.

Judy Curry talks bullshit.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 11:03am:

There really is no room to deny that AGW is real.

You're getting there. Now all you have to do is prove the AGW component. And its extent. Wink

I have described how AGW works, have shown the 46% of increase in atmospheric CO2 and that isotopic analysis shows that the extra CO2 is anthropogenic.

So AGW is proven.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 11:03am:

I am sure everybody here has touched a rock or a brick wall etc after a long hot day. The rock or the wall or whatever is still warm. In a solid object not made of metal heat cannot be conducted or convected away. The solid object, the surface of the earth, can only radiate excess heat away.

You have discovered UHI. Hooray. Now how do you eliminate the UHI component from carparks, roadways, buildings?

Not just UHI, I mentioned the surface of the earth. You really need to start reading.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 11:03am:

We cannot see a wall in the absence of visible light so the radiation is in the infrared band. In this band of EM radiation greenhouse gases like water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide can absorb and re-emit IR radiation at specific frequencies for each molecule, save water vapor and carbon dioxide have absorption bands that partly overlap.

Yep. And you notice Harries doesn't show water vapour? We just have to accept at face value that it is just outside the band they show. Grin

Water vapor, as you know, is a condensing GHG so studies remove the effect of water vapor to study the effect of the CO2, CH2, N2O and so on.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 11:03am:

Water vapor, when present in the atmosphere

Breaking news. JM finds there are times that the atmosphere has no water vapour.

Water vapor content of the atmosphere fluctuates, even you know that!
Even roach probably knows that.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 11:03am:

The result is the rise of temperatures we have seen since the Industrial Revolution, fossil fuel burning, took off.

Pure speculation. But keep trying. Grin

Since the warming is due to the extra CO2 we put in the air and CO2 is a greenhouse gas it is not speculation.

So tell us with all this AGW how the Greenland Ice Sheet has expanded by about 500Gton. How some Karakoram glaciers are expanding.

Are you now trying to tell us AGW is not GLOBAL? Wink

Depends how you define global. The global average temperature is increasing due to our burning of fossil fuels so it is AGW. The Greenland mass gain, assuming it is inclusive of all the ice lost at sea level would be due to higher precipitation.
Will that last? We will have to see I suppose.

Some glaciers, as I have said before, are increasing if they are at a high altitude or latitude and favorably oriented with respect to prevailing winds. As I have said many times, AGW causes more evaporation and consequent precipitation.

Back to top

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21533
Gender: male

Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #297 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 1:37pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 12:42pm:

Orbital peturbations, lack of volcanic activity, solar cycle etc. As you know, the sun is relatively quiescent since the 1980s, imagine global temps when an active sun adds to AGW.

So keen to deny the warming effects of visible light. Wink

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 12:42pm:

Judy Curry talks bullshit.

More ad homs. Wink

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 12:42pm:

I have described how AGW works, have shown the 46% of increase in atmospheric CO2 and that isotopic analysis shows that the extra CO2 is anthropogenic.

And yet you deny the CO2 emitted by plant life and the oceans. The CSIRO shows greening of the planet, more CO2. Wink

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 12:42pm:

So AGW is proven.

How much warming is due to CO2. The IPCC says since the 50's approximately 50%. Where did the rest come from? Or do you have a paper that refutes the IPCC, which they say uses peer-reviewed papers? Wink

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 12:42pm:

Not just UHI, I mentioned the surface of the earth. You really need to start reading.

The surface of the earth has always been there. It changes over time. Wetter, drier, desert, greening. You would need to extrapolate the data. Cheesy

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 12:42pm:

Water vapor, as you know, is a condensing GHG so studies remove the effect of water vapor to study the effect of the CO2, CH2, N2O and so on.

Then why are they so scared to show it? Wink

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 12:42pm:

Water vapor content of the atmosphere fluctuates, even you know that!

Yes. And now show the paper that shows it gets to zero. "When present in the atmosphere" means there are times it is NOT present in the atmosphere. Wink

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 12:42pm:

Since the warming is due to the extra CO2 we put in the air and CO2 is a greenhouse gas it is not speculation.

That whole piece is speculation. Wink

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 12:42pm:

Depends how you define global. The global average temperature is increasing due to our burning of fossil fuels so it is AGW. The Greenland mass gain, assuming it is inclusive of all the ice lost at sea level would be due to higher precipitation.
Will that last? We will have to see I suppose.

Some glaciers, as I have said before, are increasing if they are at a high altitude or latitude and favorably oriented with respect to prevailing winds. As I have said many times, AGW causes more evaporation and consequent precipitation.

So according to you GLOBAL is not necessarily global, but REGIONAL. So much for A
G
W.

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk

Gold Member

Offline

Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male

Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #298 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 1:53pm

lee wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 1:37pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 12:42pm:

Orbital peturbations, lack of volcanic activity, solar cycle etc. As you know, the sun is relatively quiescent since the 1980s, imagine global temps when an active sun adds to AGW.

So keen to deny the warming effects of visible light. Wink

That is why I talk about states of the sun so much Wink

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 12:42pm:

Judy Curry talks bullshit.

More ad homs. Wink

No, fact, she does talk bullshit.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 12:42pm:

I have described how AGW works, have shown the 46% of increase in atmospheric CO2 and that isotopic analysis shows that the extra CO2 is anthropogenic.

And yet you deny the CO2 emitted by plant life and the oceans. The CSIRO shows greening of the planet, more CO2. Wink

That is why I talk about the carbon cycle I guess Wink

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 12:42pm:

So AGW is proven.

How much warming is due to CO2. The IPCC says since the 50's approximately 50%. Where did the rest come from? Or do you have a paper that refutes the IPCC, which they say uses peer-reviewed papers? Wink

Since there is no especially heavy vulacanism, since there is no orbital perturbation and since the sun is quiescent I think the warming is 100%, more than that,
more like 110% because the warming is happening despite the sun being quiescent

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 12:42pm:

Not just UHI, I mentioned the surface of the earth. You really need to start reading.

The surface of the earth has always been there. It changes over time. Wetter, drier, desert, greening. You would need to extrapolate the data. Cheesy

I did not mention UHI, you did that. The surface of the earth heats up,
tries to lose its heat by radiation and increasingly is unable to do so due to GHGs, ergo, AGW!

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 12:42pm:

Water vapor, as you know, is a condensing GHG so studies remove the effect of water vapor to study the effect of the CO2, CH2, N2O and so on.

Then why are they so scared to show it? Wink

Because it varies due to evaporation–condensation–evaporation. I thought you knew that, guess you are dumber than I thought Wink

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 12:42pm:

Water vapor content of the atmosphere fluctuates, even you know that!

Yes. And now show the paper that shows it gets to zero. "When present in the atmosphere" means there are times it is NOT present in the atmosphere. Wink

Does it?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 12:42pm:

Since the warming is due to the extra CO2 we put in the air and CO2 is a greenhouse gas it is not speculation.

That whole piece is speculation. Wink

No, it is not. CO2 is a molecule with three atoms so is a GHG, we have put 46% more CO2 in the atmosphere, hence AGW.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 12:42pm:

Depends how you define global. The global average temperature is increasing due to our burning of fossil fuels so it is AGW. The Greenland mass gain, assuming it is inclusive of all the ice lost at sea level would be due to higher precipitation.
Will that last? We will have to see I suppose.

Some glaciers, as I have said before, are increasing if they are at a high altitude or latitude and favorably oriented with respect to prevailing winds. As I have said many times, AGW causes more evaporation and consequent precipitation.

So according to you GLOBAL is not necessarily global, but REGIONAL. So much for A
G
W.

If the global temperature increases it is global warming.

Back to top

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!

IP Logged

Jovial Monk

Gold Member

Offline

Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male

Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #299 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 4:43pm

Judith Curry

Cheesy

We know that GHGs—molecules with 3 or more atoms, 2 or more dipoles—can absorb IR radiation at specific frequencies then re-emit the IR along the other dipole. The re-emission can be downward as often as it is upwards.

Thus experiments by Harries using satellite spectrometers show less IR radiation heading to space while the Feldman measurements on the north slope of Alaska and another location show more IR radiation returning to the surface. This IR radiation blocked from leaving the atmosphere heats the surface.

The measurements of CO2 are so sensitive they show the yearly carbon cycle. The amounts of IR returned to the surface vary directly with the amount of CO2.

There really is no room to deny that AGW is real.

I am sure everybody here has touched a rock or a brick wall etc after a long hot day. The rock or the wall or whatever is still warm. In a solid object not made of metal heat cannot be conducted or convected away. The solid object, the surface of the earth, can only radiate excess heat away.

We cannot see a wall in the absence of visible light so the radiation is in the infrared band. In this band of EM radiation greenhouse gases like water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide can absorb and re-emit IR radiation at specific frequencies for each molecule, save water vapor and carbon dioxide have absorption bands that partly overlap.

Water vapor, when present in the atmosphere leaves but a small window in the IR band and the other GHGs close that window further. Our wall or rock or the surface of the earth cannot lose all the heat, some gets radiated back to the surface, heating it.

The result is the rise of temperatures we have seen since the Industrial Revolution, fossil fuel burning, took off.

Bringing this to the front again.

Back to top

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!

IP Logged