Received the book today, will be posting bits from it for a while.

Reading about the history of the discovery of AGW will maybe provide a way some can get to understand the theory.

AGW is real enough. In Ice Watch I posted a video by a scientist who has studied the ice sheets for some decades talking about how the three main icesheets are showing signs of destabilisation leading to collapse. You may have heard of the Thwaites Glacier—I posted quite a bit of information about it, might find that, bring it to the front and update it. Should give some point to looking at the history of how the Greenhouse Effect was discovered.

The history seems to start with Fourier. Tyndal and Arrhenius took it up. Will leave their stories for later but point out these early scientists were living and working at a time when the Little Ice Age was slowly ending. Keep that in mind and you will understand why Arrhenius phrased some of his results.

Poor Arrhenius—took him MONTHS of pencil and paper calculations and even then he had to simplify drastically!

First installment likely tomorrow.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 24^th, 2017 at 12:21pm:



What timeframe are you putting on the LIA?

Do you know what a parameter is, Cpl Lees?

You don’t know what a parameter is?

You don’t know what a parameter is?


I do


Its shorter than a meter, its for the Veggie Olympics so they don't have to run, jump,swim as far as ordinary athletes.


No need to thank me, just doing my job.

Quote:


Quote:


Seems to me you better wait for a REAL CONCENSUS and a REAL ACCEPTED THEORY Monk.

Grendel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 5:03pm:

I think it is great that there is discussion, checking and refinements.

That the greenhouse effect is real and is causing temperature increases is not up for debate but the amount of warming, the effects of the warming, the severe weather effects, storm frequency and intensity etc etc all up for debate, measurement etc.

But they are wrong that not a lot is being done: coal is out of favor, renewable energy is being implemented nearly everywhere etc. US emissions actually have been decreasing for some time even as their economy picked up speed after the GFC.

With idiots like trumpy coal won’t make a comeback but the east coast of the US is not being protected against sea level rise. Truly the act of an imbecile, trumpy reversed the Obama direction that coastal infrastructure be built to be proof against floods. Won’t reverse AGW but will cost the US a lot of money, maybe lives.

No it is because of sea level rise.

Whatever, I predict there will be a big flood there within five years leading to geo-engineering with aerosols.

I made a prediction. I think it is realistic or I would not have made it.

If you actually watched that video with the scientist talking about how the big ice sheets are destabilising and retreating you would see it is reasonable.

Sandy flooded NY. With higher sea levels a bigger flood happening within five years is probable and the east coast of the US, Bangladesh and Holland probable locations.

Once that happens I think geo-engineering will follow.

Yes all that, and started with a higher sea level.

As I have said before a few cm sea level rise may not sound like much but it heightens the hightide/storm surge making flooding more frequent and bigger and more destructive.

With sea level rise, compounded yes with subsidence how likely is another, worse flood than Sandy? I think one will happen within five years.

Hopefully it won’t happen until a lot of Repug troglodytes have lost their seats in House and Senate in the mid terms so a proper response can be mounted.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 10:59pm:

So like other alarmists when this junk never happens will you concede you are wrong or just add another 50 years to it?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 26^th, 2017 at 9:34am:


It was ex-hurricane Sandy that hit New York.

Number of Hurricanes by Decade      Saffir-Simpson Category      
                      1      2      3      4      5  Total Hurricanes
2001-2004      4      2      2      1      0      9
1991-2000      3      6      4      0      1      14
1981-1990      9      1      4      1      0      15
1971-1980      6      2      4      0      0      12
1961-1970      3      5      4      1      1      14
1951-1960      8      1      5      3      0      17
1941-1950      8      6      9      1      0      24
1931-1940      4      7      6      1      1      19
1921-1930      5      3      3      2      0      13
1911-1920      10      4      4      3      0      21
1901-1910      10      4      4      0      0      18
1891-1900      8      5      5      3      0      21
1881-1890      8      9      4      1      0      22
1871-1880      7      6      7      0      0      20
1861-1870      8      6      1      0      0      15
1851-1860      8      5      5      1      0      19
Total Hurricanes from 1851-2004      109      72      71      18      3      273
Average Per Decade      7.1      4.7      4.6      1.2      0.2      17.7

Yep. scary.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 26^th, 2017 at 9:34am:

Galveston was totalled in 1900 by a bigger storm.

Oops...  lost again, facts and nature once more defeating climate zealotry.

You are a coward (and a buffoon) who cannot face that sea levels are rising. Rising sea levels brings certain consequences.

Grendel wrote on Aug 26^th, 2017 at 9:16am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 26^th, 2017 at 1:55pm:

LOL
Uhhuh...  presented with FACTS you runaway.
Well Monk, I don't.

Maybe you need a drink eh...  help soften the blow eh.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 26^th, 2017 at 1:58pm:

YOU should try reading them for a change.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 24^th, 2017 at 12:21pm:


The only books I would burn to keep warm would be in no particular order,

* Neo Liberalism economics 101 by Milton Friedman

* Anthropogenic Global Warming 101 by alarmists and warmists

You're wasting your money as the AGW theory will eventually get thrown out, baby and water the whole kit and caboodle.

Not worth the paper its printed on................

Look at the post you made today when they said the effects of increase in CO2 were linear. And the effects of CO2 are logarithmic.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 26^th, 2017 at 2:36pm:


Maybe it is not CO2?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 26^th, 2017 at 3:15pm:


Yes. The argument that it is CO2 is definitely that.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 26^th, 2017 at 2:07pm:

Now now now...  I'm not reposting everything that has been posted previously just for you.
You never read most of them the first time.

If I reposted as many posts as you do, the site would have fallen over by now.

Stop stop lying Monk and start reading stuff other people post and address the point.
Or simply go away.

One more time...
Grendel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 4:59pm:

We will be back there soon enough—the major icesheets are being destabilised.

Of course, you do not have the mental agility to think:

The past warm periods were not caused by AGW, different forcings applied.

So, what if these non–CO2 forcings returned and added to AGW?

Be bloody hot and the icesheets would disappear quicksmart, give them a decade as against 3-4 decades just from AGW.

Any comments on that, roach?

You see, you do not destroy the theory of AGW by pointing to past warm periods in the past, you point to the danger of AGW!

The lower Murray east was also covered by sea water. Drive from Mt Gambier to Adelaide and you see flat lands with the occasional low ridge. These ridges are fossil dunes, stranded as the sea receded.

Really, you think there is much dispute among real scientists about the causes of AGW? I doubt that very much. We have known CO2 is a greenhouse gas for 200 years or so.

Arrhenius worked out the basic science late 19th century to 1906.

Quibbles about the impact of AGW maybe, the basic science, nope.

Grendel wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 1:07pm: