Australian Politics Forum - Action on AGW, is it enough?

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Action on AGW, is it enough?
Reply #105 - Jun 28^th, 2017 at 10:06pm

Grendel wrote on Jun 28^th, 2017 at 10:00pm:

Grendel wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 9:12pm:

Factoid... according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the polar bear population stands between 20 and 31,000, the highest it has been for the past 50 years.

Monk, I wasn't referring to this... I'm sure if you Google Polar bear population the article will pop up sometime. Sorry, but I cant be bothered looking again. bad enough I had to go back and fetch this one again for you. Might be nicer if you quoted or linked to it eh.

Anyhoo the article I recently read said 31,000... up from the 5000 in the early 2000s. So as you can see the PB population is going up. Hooray. Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 51474 Gender:	Re: Action on AGW, is it enough? Reply #106 - Jun 28^th, 2017 at 10:11pm You posted it roach. Not my problem if you don’t comprehend things too well. If the last remaining area of multiyear in the Canadian Arctic shrinks the bears might have to adapt more.
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: 21632 Gender:	Re: Action on AGW, is it enough? Reply #107 - Jun 28^th, 2017 at 10:22pm Don't forget JM is now sure they are fleeing to the Arctic, Although the increasing numbers in Newfoundland suggest they are holidaying more, to the south.
Back to top	IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21632
Gender: male

Re: Action on AGW, is it enough?
Reply #108 - Jun 28^th, 2017 at 10:31pm

"The results of three recently-released studies that were not included in the last IUCN Red List assessment add more than 2,050 bears (on average)1 to the official 2015 global polar bear estimate, a point you won’t likely hear next Monday (27 February) from most polar bear specialists, conservation organizations, their cheerleaders and corporate sponsors on International Polar Bear Day.

This means the adjusted 2015 global estimate for polar bears should be about 28,500 (average), a marked increase over the official estimate of 26,500 (average) for 2015 — and an even larger increase over the 2005 estimate of about 22,500 (average)2, despite the dramatic loss of summer sea ice since 2007 that we hear about endlessly.

It is increasingly obvious that polar bears are thriving despite having lived through summer sea ice levels not predicted to occur until 2050 – levels of sea ice that experts said would wipe out 2/3 of the world’s polar bears (Amstrup et al. 2007; Crockford 2017 v3)."

https://polarbearscience.com/2017/02/23/global-polar-bear-population-larger-than...

Some experts eh?

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk

Gold Member

Offline

Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male

Re: Action on AGW, is it enough?
Reply #109 - Jun 30^th, 2017 at 1:38am

lee wrote on Jun 28^th, 2017 at 8:33pm:

Or the real scary one of temperature changes through the ages -

https://videos.files.wordpress.com/JUDO1cWK/globaltempchange-spiral_dvd.mp4

or look at it here -
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/13/friday-funny-another-look-at-ed-hawkins-s...

Ah, wattsup, the site all deniers rely on, frequently found to be wrong Wink

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 28^th, 2017 at 8:11pm:

Will not be long before the balance between the East Antarctic plateau (gaining mass) and the West Antarctic ice sheet (losing ice) tips into net ice loss from Antarctica as well.

Not long in the geologic sense.

In 2-3 decades at most.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 28^th, 2017 at 8:11pm:

Land based ice from Greenland which is shedding 200,000,000 tons of ice each year

And will take about 3,000 years to melt.

Irrelevant, it is adding more and more to sea level rise

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 28^th, 2017 at 8:11pm:

We know GHGs in the atmopsphere are increasing, that we are putting them there by mass burning of fossil fuels.

And also by the greening of the planet.

That would absorb CO2—carbon cycle. Wink

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 28^th, 2017 at 8:11pm:

Spectrometry, both terrestrial, i.e. from the ground looking up and from satellites looking down shows that there are gaps corresponding to the GHGs at the black body temperature corresponding to our world

It doesn't show temperatures, it doesn't show the IR that is trapped incoming.

It shows IR is blocked from leaving the atmosphere, warming it. HM IR is incoming?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 28^th, 2017 at 8:11pm:

The Arctic warms by another mechanism: as the sea ice extent shrinks in the NH summer sunlight hits dark ocean and is absorbed, warming the ocean. This is called “warming due albedo change” and is why the Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the rest of our planet.

For so few days and the angle at which the sun hits is acute, meaning more is reflected than warms.

Still hits and is absorbed by the sea. HM days of sunlight in the arctic circle? Do you know, Lees?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 28^th, 2017 at 8:11pm:

there is a known, measured mechanism whereby GHGs absorb infrared radiation, preventing it from escaping to space and so warming the earth.

And of course CO2 is not and cannot be direction dependant, So the IR is also trapped incoming, which reduces that which reaches the surface as well as that that is available for reflection.

Ah yes, Lees’ little theory. HM IR is incoming from the sun?
Of course, Lees has not thought it through: any IR absorbed will increase global temperature. But HM IR do we receive directly from the sun?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 28^th, 2017 at 8:11pm:

Sea levels are rising due to AGW in two ways

Recovery from the Little Ice Age.

Evidence? E.g, HM was the LIA cooler, HM extra ice did it freeze?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 30^th, 2017 at 1:46am 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: 21632
Gender: male

Re: Action on AGW, is it enough?
Reply #110 - Jun 30^th, 2017 at 11:16pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 30^th, 2017 at 1:38am:

Ah, wattsup, the site all deniers rely on, frequently found to be wrong

I only provided a pretty picture like Hawkins did but with data from the last 2,000 years instead of since 1880. Wink

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 30^th, 2017 at 1:38am:

Not long in the geologic sense.
In 2-3 decades at most.

Speculation/ Got any peer-review to support it?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 30^th, 2017 at 1:38am:

And will take about 3,000 years to melt.
Irrelevant, it is adding more and more to sea level rise

Glaciers have advanced and retreated for aeons. Why is this one supposedly different?Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 30^th, 2017 at 1:38am:

And also by the greening of the planet.
That would absorb CO2—carbon cycle.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 30^th, 2017 at 1:38am:

It doesn't show temperatures, it doesn't show the IR that is trapped incoming.It shows IR is blocked from leaving the atmosphere, warming it. HM IR is incoming?

Actually it would show the net between incoming IR and outgoing IR. The incoming has to arrive before it can be absorbed and re-emitted.

Too many humans emitting IR? Call Paul Ehrlich he has been trying to cull Humans for years. Wink

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 30^th, 2017 at 1:38am:

HM days of sunlight in the arctic circle? Do you know, Lees

It varies depending on longitude. Wink

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 30^th, 2017 at 1:38am:

And of course CO2 is not and cannot be direction dependant, So the IR is also trapped incoming, which reduces that which reaches the surface as well as that that is available for reflection.
Ah yes, Lees’ little theory. HM IR is incoming from the sun?
Of course, Lees has not thought it through: any IR absorbed will increase global temperature. But HM IR do we receive directly from the sun?

Even that IR that gets dispersed in a similar way to the outgoing IR? Over, under, sideways. down. Grin

If it doesn't reach earth it ain't warming the surface. Wink

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 30^th, 2017 at 1:38am:

Recovery from the Little Ice Age.
Evidence? E.g, HM was the LIA cooler, HM extra ice did it freeze?

Who knows? Do they still have winter Fairs on the Thames?

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 51474 Gender:	Re: Action on AGW, is it enough? Reply #111 - Jul 1^st, 2017 at 1:29am Notice that Lees has no answers? I just asked some simple questions. Lees avoided answering them all! Lees is a liar!
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: Action on AGW, is it enough?
Reply #112 - Jul 1^st, 2017 at 1:46am

lee wrote on Jun 28^th, 2017 at 8:33pm:

Or the real scary one of temperature changes through the ages -

https://videos.files.wordpress.com/JUDO1cWK/globaltempchange-spiral_dvd.mp4

or look at it here -
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/13/friday-funny-another-look-at-ed-hawkins-s...

Ah, wattsup, the site all deniers rely on, frequently found to be wrong Wink

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 28^th, 2017 at 8:11pm:

Will not be long before the balance between the East Antarctic plateau (gaining mass) and the West Antarctic ice sheet (losing ice) tips into net ice loss from Antarctica as well.

Not long in the geologic sense.

In 2-3 decades at most.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 28^th, 2017 at 8:11pm:

Land based ice from Greenland which is shedding 200,000,000 tons of ice each year

And will take about 3,000 years to melt.

Irrelevant, it is adding more and more to sea level rise

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 28^th, 2017 at 8:11pm:

We know GHGs in the atmopsphere are increasing, that we are putting them there by mass burning of fossil fuels.

And also by the greening of the planet.

That would absorb CO2—carbon cycle. Wink

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 28^th, 2017 at 8:11pm:

Spectrometry, both terrestrial, i.e. from the ground looking up and from satellites looking down shows that there are gaps corresponding to the GHGs at the black body temperature corresponding to our world

It doesn't show temperatures, it doesn't show the IR that is trapped incoming.

It shows IR is blocked from leaving the atmosphere, warming it. HM IR is incoming?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 28^th, 2017 at 8:11pm:

The Arctic warms by another mechanism: as the sea ice extent shrinks in the NH summer sunlight hits dark ocean and is absorbed, warming the ocean. This is called “warming due albedo change” and is why the Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the rest of our planet.

For so few days and the angle at which the sun hits is acute, meaning more is reflected than warms.

Still hits and is absorbed by the sea. HM days of sunlight in the arctic circle? Do you know, Lees?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 28^th, 2017 at 8:11pm:

there is a known, measured mechanism whereby GHGs absorb infrared radiation, preventing it from escaping to space and so warming the earth.

And of course CO2 is not and cannot be direction dependant, So the IR is also trapped incoming, which reduces that which reaches the surface as well as that that is available for reflection.

Ah yes, Lees’ little theory. HM IR is incoming from the sun?
Of course, Lees has not thought it through: any IR absorbed will increase global temperature. But HM IR do we receive directly from the sun?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 28^th, 2017 at 8:11pm:

Sea levels are rising due to AGW in two ways

Recovery from the Little Ice Age.

Evidence? E.g, HM was the LIA cooler, HM extra ice did it freeze?

Any real answers to my questions, Lees? Or don’t you know the answers? Wink

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: 21632 Gender:	Re: Action on AGW, is it enough? Reply #113 - Jul 1^st, 2017 at 3:04pm Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 1^st, 2017 at 1:29am: Notice that Lees has no answers? I just asked some simple questions. Lees avoided answering them all! Lees is a liar! Just because you do not like the answers, doesn't mean the questions weren't answered. Merely reposting the questions doesn't do anything for you.
Back to top	IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 51474 Gender:	Re: Action on AGW, is it enough? Reply #114 - Jul 1^st, 2017 at 3:35pm HM IR do we receive direct from the sun, Liar Lees?
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: 21632
Gender: male

Re: Action on AGW, is it enough?
Reply #115 - Jul 1^st, 2017 at 4:37pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 1^st, 2017 at 3:35pm:

HM IR do we receive direct from the sun, Liar Lees?

How would I know? I can't find a figure for it.

However -

"Solar radiation occurs over a wide range of wavelengths. However, the energy of solar radiation is not divided evenly over all wavelengths but, as Figure 1 shows, is rather sharply centered on the wavelength band of 0.2-2 micrometers (μm=one millionth of a meter). As can be seen from Figure 2, the main range of solar radiation includes ultraviolet radiation (UV, 0.001-0.4 μm), visible radiation (light, 0.4-0.7 μm), and infrared radiation (IR, 0.7-100 μm). "

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk

Gold Member

Offline

Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male

Re: Action on AGW, is it enough?
Reply #116 - Jul 1^st, 2017 at 7:09pm

You are trying to float a line of BS related to IR that comes to us from the sun.

You showed we get some. Well done, but that was never in question.

Up to YOU to show there is significant IR coming to us from the sun.

So, try again, bozo!

HM IR comes to us direct from the sun?

You evaded all the other questions so you better get a good answer re IR!

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: 21632
Gender: male

Re: Action on AGW, is it enough?
Reply #117 - Jul 1^st, 2017 at 7:27pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 1^st, 2017 at 7:09pm:

You are trying to float a line of BS related to IR that comes to us from the sun.

You showed we get some. Well done, but that was never in question.

Up to YOU to show there is significant IR coming to us from the sun.

So, try again, bozo!

HM IR comes to us direct from the sun?

Well if it ain't been measured I can't provide it. Of course you cold show your erudition and enlighten us.

BTW - It was you who said way back that the sun emitted visible and ultraviolet light. Which it does, as well as IR. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk

Gold Member

Offline

Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male

Re: Action on AGW, is it enough?
Reply #118 - Jul 1^st, 2017 at 7:33pm

Oh dear, children! Uncle Lees’ theory comes tumbling down to earth!

Not much IR comes to us direct from the sun.

The IR that is trapped is visible light reflected from the surface of the earth.

The IR that is trapped heats the atmosphere and the heat gets transferred to the surface and the seas.

Lees has admitted defeat: the globe IS heating because of GHGs.

Thank you Lees.

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: 21632
Gender: male

Re: Action on AGW, is it enough?
Reply #119 - Jul 1^st, 2017 at 10:20pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 1^st, 2017 at 7:33pm:

Oh dear, children! Uncle Lees’ theory comes tumbling down to earth!

Not much IR comes to us direct from the sun.

Citation needed. Of course if you are looking at the graph about 70 W/m2 at 0.7um. Wink

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 1^st, 2017 at 7:33pm:

The IR that is trapped is visible light reflected from the surface of the earth.

Citation needed that it is only IR from the earth. Reflected? How about at nightime? That's when warm bodies - tarmac, concrete, houses emit the heat built up during the day ( you have heard of UHI?). Humans emit IR all he time until deceased.Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 1^st, 2017 at 7:33pm:

The IR that is trapped heats the atmosphere and the heat gets transferred to the surface and the seas.

The seas are generally warmer than the atmosphere. How does heat transfer from cold to hot?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 1^st, 2017 at 7:33pm:

Lees has admitted defeat: the globe IS heating because of GHGs.

Jumping the Sharknado again. Cheesy

Back to top

IP Logged