Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 30^th, 2017 at 12:13pm:


Too many home truths JV...............???

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 30^th, 2017 at 1:18pm:


By the looks of it only the ones that suit your purpose.

To be informed you must listen to both sides of the argument otherwise how can you come to a logical conclusion.................

I read the science.

Radiative forcings are causing the global warming that is being observed. We can see the forcings using spectrometry both terrestrial and satellite.

No other explanation has been advanced that explains the observed warming.

Not the sun, it has been relatively quiet for 50 years. The warming has happened while the sun has emitted less than normal radiation. That is something to think about!

No axial tilt or orbital perturbation has occurred.

It is not a matter of looking at “both sides” it is a matter of looking at evidence and on that basis the AGW theory is doing well. Plenty of scientists looking to disprove it, no real luck with that so far.

Booby thinks he (Dubyne that is) has put forward a theory of “cooling” but since the globe is warming that is nonsense. Dubyne bolsters his bullshit theory by lying about, exaggerating and cherrypicking cold. He has LIED about “record cold” and “record snow” “destroying crops” in Europe this month. I easily disproved this BS claim by looking at weather records and ag. sites.

At a time the worlds granaries were bulging at the seams Dubyne was lying about food shortages. A VERY warm winter (70°F) in Chicago and much of the midwest (and relevant parts of Canada,) usually deep in snow, no snow and spring temperatures midwinter. England—very mild winter.

Interesting thing is: I was alerted to these warm winter temps by comments to the Dubyne videos! Dubyne never, ever mentions warmer than usual temperatures, just lies about cold. Hmmm, the Australian Alps got a dusting of summer snow, not that unusual, and Dubyne reported that as “Tasmania, Victoria and New South Wales “blanketed by snow.” Wild exaggeration.

So much for Dubyne and cooling.

Attempts to show it is the sun doing the warming don’t get far, have to build in all sorts of things like a delay in the effect of solar maxima etc etc, supply of heat from oceans etc etc. Its very complication shows it is a dubious theory—and does not account for the spectrometry data. There really is no explanation by looking at the sun alone.

If you accept there is warming then I can’t see how you can reject AGW.

What is the frequency band of the IR emitted by the sun compared to the frequency band of the IR emitted by the Earth? The IR from the earth is black body radiation, that from the sun isn’t, obviously.

What does this have to do with the IR spectrum observed by satellites?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 30^th, 2017 at 2:41pm:


You mean infrared is not necessarily infrared?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 30^th, 2017 at 2:41pm:


You know the earth is not a black body; don't you?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 30^th, 2017 at 3:21pm:



Very good. Now the sun emits white light. What part of spectrum do you think the suns emission of white light differs?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 30^th, 2017 at 3:21pm:



Because it doesn't accord with your beliefs?

"Is earth a perfect black body?"
"No basically a Perfect Black Body is the Body which radiates the amount of radiation which is absorbed.

So Earth doesn't emitt that much amount of radiation absorbed by it so it can't be classified as perfect Black Body."

https://www.quora.com/Is-earth-a-perfect-black-body

It is more a grey body

"Most of the Sun's radiation is blackbody radiation radiated from the Sun's surface, or photosphere, whose temperature is about 5700 K. The Earth's surface is warmed by absorbing this light. At the same time it is absorbing energy, the Earth's surface is emitting its own blackbody radiation. At night, when the surface is no longer being illuminated by the Sun, it is still radiating its own blackbody radiation, the Earth's surface to cool. "

ftp://umpgal.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/daac_ozone/Lecture4/Text/X/blackbodyintro.html

So the earth re-radiates some of its absorbed radiation.

So answer the rest.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 30^th, 2017 at 4:51pm:



And obviously you can't,

And you continually lie. BLIMEY.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 30^th, 2017 at 7:30pm:



No. You make it up. It is so much more interesting.

The climate is changing, the oceans are dying the atmosphere is polluted, people are choking to death in major cities, water is ever increasingly being contaminated but as if humans have anything to do with this, pfft, it is such a big planet so how could that be.
To err on the side of caution for the sake humanity would not hurt.
Go Nuclear real quick.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 30^th, 2017 at 7:56pm:

Build a Nuclear plant to produce enough windymills to criss cross Australia and then decommission the nuclear.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 30^th, 2017 at 7:39pm:


I'm so glad. Small things amuse small minds.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 30^th, 2017 at 10:15pm:


Yes. I have no clue why you lie.

lee wrote on Apr 30^th, 2017 at 4:42pm:



These blokes used to end up  putting their heads in ovens when wifey left and everyone knew why...   

Jovial Monk wrote on May 17^th, 2017 at 11:23am:



The one that blocks incoming IR. Reducing warming.

Or do you still believe the IR is only affected one way? How much extra CO2 is in your greenhouse, that warms it so much?

Jovial Monk wrote on May 17^th, 2017 at 12:25pm:


I'll say similar. Prove me wrong.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 17^th, 2017 at 12:37pm:


It seems even NASA is having trouble with it,

"These kinds of experimental studies are very difficult to make using terrestrial infrared telescopes because Earth's own atmosphere is loaded with water and other molecules that strongly absorb incoming radiation, making the atmosphere opaque. In fact, there are only a frustratingly few wavelength regions where incoming infrared radiation can be studied without interference from atmospheric gases. For example, there are localized "windows' at 4.7-5.2, 7-13, and 20 μm, among others. This is why it is common to locate observatories high on mountain tops, where they are above at least some of the Earth's atmosphere. Better yet, of course, is to send infrared instruments into space where the atmospheric interferences are avoided altogether."

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/Here_Comes_Heat.pdf

BTW - I am chuffed you believe I know more than NASA.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 17^th, 2017 at 1:33pm:


Yes. But don't show the difference between Incoming and Outgoing IR.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 17^th, 2017 at 3:10pm:


So what is the difference between incoming and outgoing IR?

Or do you still believe it is at a different wavelength and won't have an effect?

Surely SKS has something to say on the matter.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 17^th, 2017 at 3:32pm:


More like "baited" breath.

So assume I am wrong. Tell me scientifically, why the theory is wrong. You are supposed to be the scientist.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 17^th, 2017 at 3:38pm:


I don't need to. Your philosophy is GAIA knows.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 17^th, 2017 at 3:41pm:


You accept anything. Including CO2 is a one way mirror.