AGW has enormous impact on plants and critters, surface and marine. It is therefore extremely relevant to this board.



I find this an extremely interesting graph for many reasons:

---

The orange curve is the Milankovitch cycle, insolation (sunlight reaching the surface) north of 60°N latitude. When it is low the NH gets very cold and major ice ages form. This has happened at 100,000 year intervals for the last 800,000 years. It is due to regular changes in the orbit of our planet and the inclination of the axis of rotation, precession of Equinoxes etc.

At about 4500 years ago the Milankovitch Cycle started declining and is getting close to bottom. We see temperatures start to decline, but they start to decline slower and slower over time. Hmmm what could the reason be?

As the chart shows: intensive agriculture started in 5500. This means deforestation, more animals to pull ploughs and carts, more cities–agriculture is not carried out by nomads.

As cities and intensive agriculture continued and the human population grew more and with it the number of draft, dairy and meat animals more and more CO2 was generated. Eventually the Industrial Revolution took off and is still spreading and the globe has warmed 1.1°C since 1905.

I will do some research into the decline in insect populations and why they are declining. AGW will be part of it I am sure.

Despite forcings from the Milankovitch Cycle the Arctic is not getting colder—Arctic ice has been disappearing all through the satellite period 1979–. The last two melt seasons have seen massive amounts of Arctic Sea Ice melt in place or melting after being exported from the Arctic Ocean down the Framm Strait (between Greenland and the Svalbard archipelago.)

Scientists examining climate forcings find that CO2 by far has the biggest influence.

In the Arctic there is another positive feedback: albedo is decreasing.

A world completely covered with ice—which has happened twice, both times ended by CO2 from volcanic eruptions causing warming—has a high albedo. A world, or an object, that is all black has a very low albedo. High albedo surfaces reflect a lot of radiant energy away, low albedo surfaces, like exposed Arctic Ocean, absorb sunlight and are warmed by it. This sees more bottom of the ice melting in what should be the freezing season. Salty warm water is heavier than colder but fresh, not salty, water. Hence a lot of the huge amount of heat absorbed by the Arctic Ocean this NH summer is still there, until conditions change.

So no ice age major or minor is happening any time soon. Warming is what is happening, more and more heat accumulating especially in the oceans.

CO2 is accumulating in the oceans too*, making them more acidic due to the increase in H+ and HCO3+ ions. This is causing problems for small fauna in the oceans, zooplankton. Terrestrial heat dries out vegetation causing any fires started by dry lightning to burn much more fiercely, killing huge numbers of animals and destroying property and killing people.

*Some say the oceans are outgassing CO2, that heat causes the growth in CO2, not burning fossil fuels. A preposterous notion probably floated by FF interests. Oceans do lose their ability to absorb gases as they warm. But the oceans are so vast and the specific heat of water is so high that the nearly 50% increase in partial pressure of CO2 vastly outweighs the effect of the tiny temperature increase on solubility. The oceans absorb over half of the manmade CO2 absorbed by carbon sinks.

Do we know for sure that it is CO2 that is causing AGW? Yes, we do!


Quote:

In 1859, Tyndall showed that gases including carbon dioxide and water vapour can absorb heat. ... He realised that any change in the amount of water vapour or carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could change the climate. His work therefore set a foundation for our understanding of climate change and meteorology.

https://theconversation.com/john-tyndall-the-forgotten-co-founder-of-climate-science-143499#:~:text=In%201859%2C%20Tyndall%20showed%20that,water%20vapour%20can%20absorb%20heat.&text=He%20realised%20that%20any%20change,of%20climate%20change%20and%20meteorology.

There is one difference between CO2 and water vapor: water vapor condenses and falls out as rain, hail or snow, CO2 at our temperatures does not (not even on the top of the Antarctic Plateau because the partial pressure is too low: any CO2 that may freeze there sublimates back to gaseous CO2 quickly.)

CO2 is the driver of global warming, water vapor is a feedback: More CO2 more warming the more warming the more water evaporates from the oceans and the more water vapor the more warming.

Our planet is a globe in a vacuum that is hit everyday by radiation including UV, visible light and a small amount of near infrared. This warms our globe causing IR to be radiated by it which acts to cool the climate. Want to know more? Read up on black bodies and the Stefan-Boltzmann law governing how much radiation is emitted from a surface:

https://www.britannica.com/science/Stefan-Boltzmann-law

If this infrared radiation reaches space then the planet is cooled. Look at our Moon, located in the same area of space as us, it has huge temperature swings between light and dark—no atmosphere with greenhouse gases in it to moderate temperature loss.

So a photon of IR (radiation in the far infrared part of the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation) is emitted from the surface. There are billions of CO2 molecules in every cubic centimetre of the atmosphere near the surface known as the lower troposphere. One of these molecules will absorb the IR photon within a few metres of the surface.

That molecule of CO2 is “excited” or has an increase in its energy level. The two oxygen atoms vibrate around the carbon atom. Within an incredibly short time the CO2 molecule collides with thousands of nitrogen and oxygen molecules, transferring its extra energy to these molecules that do not absorb IR themselves.

As we increase atmospheric CO2 we are decreasing the amount of IR reaching space which means we are decreasing the ability of the surface + lower troposphere to cool. There is no doubt about that:

---

Have I quoted Al bleeping Gore in the above posts? No I have not!

Have I predicted weather in the above posts? No I have not!



Further posts on AGW will relate to harm (or increase in pest populations and their spread) to populations of critters including people caused by AGW. This includes pests that AGW lets spread from tropical areas to subtropical areas.

Booby owes me some sincere apologies, he has LIED about me hundreds of times over the years since he was made Mod of Environment and turned it into the Dubyne board.

A bit of cold weather is no indication of ICE AGE! Nor is a bit of warm weather a sign of global warming. Summing up heat and cold records tho (From https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records:}

---

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) (manmade) is a small part of Global Warming (natural).

Trying to control natural global warming where the Earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling is more irresponsible than trying to subdue AGW.

We cannot control nature ie that natural variation of the Earths weather patterns and climate.

But what I would like you guys who believe in AGW to do, is to ask the United Nations to STOP carrying out all these weather modification programs around the world until we have the technology to asses the impacts of such programs.

Ajax, “natural cycles” are cooling the globe. These cycles are:

1. The Milankovitch Cycle—mentioned in the OP. Should be causing deep cooling in the NH, it is warming.

2. Solar cycles. Sun was at a maximum for a large part of the 20th century. In the 1960s and again in the 1980s solar activity waned—we are in a solar minimum (not a Grand Solar Minimum) yet the globe is STILL warming.

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 25^th, 2020 at 10:41am:

Ajax, “natural cycles” are cooling the globe. These cycles are: 1. The Milankovitch Cycle—mentioned in the OP. Should be causing deep cooling in the NH, it is warming. 2. Solar cycles. Sun was at a maximum for a large part of the 20th century. In the 1960s and again in the 1980s solar activity waned—we are in a solar minimum (not a Grand Solar Minimum) yet the globe is STILL warming.

I don't dispute that we have warmed never have, we have been warming since the end of the of little ice age (LIA) the year 1850.

But in this time we have not been warming in accordance with manmade CO2 emissions and we never have.

Since 1850 the end of the LIA til now we have warmed 0.8°C and in accordance with empirical data (observations of nature) we are destined to warm by a further 1°C by the end of this century.

Since the year 2000 we have sent up into the atmosphere double the manmade CO2 emissions that we sent up in the preceding years to the year 2000.

Yet this doubling of manmade CO2 sent into the atmosphere after the year 2000 didn't register neither in the steady annual increase of atmospheric CO2 nor in the average global mean temperature.

The natural CO2 that has been degasing from natural sinks due to the rise in temperature from the LIA totally eclipses mans CO2 emissions as the steady rise in atmospheric CO2 shows.

And due to the logarithmic affect of atmospheric CO2 the temperature has remained stable, hence your hiatus and pulling your hair out trying to come up with an excuse.

Nearly as bad as the hot spot in the tropopause which only existing on the computer circulation models.

Now stop listening to politicized science and start listen to real world science.............. ;) :)

https://i.ibb.co/C5fcMwg/graph-02.jpg

Your graph, UAH6, shows a steady rise in temperatures with fluctuations up or down from the trend line. It is an outlier, the people concerned are AGW deniers and so UAH6 shows a lower temperature rise than the other series yet its rate of increase has increased from 0.14°C/decade to now 0.15°C/decade, the other series, HadCRUT etc etc show 0.2°C/decade.

We have warmed 0.6°C since 1990, by the end of this century we will have increased by 0.8°C from now. think what that does to the ice sheets and so to sea level rise as well as further sea level rise by thermal expansion of the top 2000m of the oceans. Flooding, extreme heat—more and more places recording temperatures over 50°C!

And please forget about the LIA—it did not exist over the whole globe at the same time, was mostly a north Atlantic thing, US/Canada and UK/Western Europe. Look at this chart to see the tiny temperature drop MWP to LIA:

---

You are stealing Environment topics.

Monk - move this thread to Environment.

Piss off, Dubyne lover. You have destroyed your board, leave mine alone, OK?

This thread is about the effect of AGW on critters, not weather reports “proving” (LOL!) that the globe is warming, the globe is cooling, we are in an ice age. Arrant nonsense!

FD should rename Environment to “Nonsense” or “The Ice Age Cometh” and set up an Environment board to discuss the environment.

You are probably on your knees to frontbottom Setanta begging and beseeching him to move this thread.

This board deals with critters mainly. How AGW affects critters is important and totally relevant to this board. So piss off!

Well JV what better way to prove something to you other than taking it straight from the horses mouth.

Two IPCC professors admit the hiatus is real and may continue until 2020 - 2025.

https://i.ibb.co/pRLqJCw/IPCCHIATUS.jpg

https://notrickszone.com/2013/09/21/warming-gets-delayed-again-ipcc-scientist-mojib-latif-pause-may-stubbornly-remain-until-2020-or-2025/

Lots of people (Judith Curry for one) have predicted warming to end or cooling to begin. Anybody can be an IPCC reviewer, not necessarily just experts in climate science (=physics, basically.)

The world keeps stubbornly warming despite natural cycles cooling us.

To refute AGW you will need to overturn the particle/wave theory of light (Electromagnetic radiation) and quantum physics.

CO2 and other gases with 3 or more molecules (including man-made HFCs) methane, water vapor, nitrous oxide and ozone absorb IR. This is routinely shown in experiments dating to around 1850. The GHG molecule gets excited—a higher energy level—and in billions of collisions per a second with N2 & O2 molecule transfers the energy of the photon of IR to those molecules. These have a bit more energy—heat. The photon of IR does not reach space, the globe does  not cool and keeps getting hit by solar radiation.

AGW is real. Scary, but real. It is having devastating consequence on the real world incl the drastic reduction of insect species and effects of that spreading through the web of life.

I will talk about one aspect of weather: hotter air creates more powerful convection currents in the atmosphere. A thunderstorm can send moist air far higher up the atmosphere, high enough for hail to form and the hailstones to increase in size as they fall until the fall past the level of clouds. Hail is increasing in frequency and size of hailstones.

Fortunately, economics now makes carbon free renewable energy cheaper than running an existing coal station, electric cars are more economical over the lifecycle of a car.

If you are worried about AGW then instead of denying it, do something about it, solar panels on your roof, planting trees in your garden, joining a group that plants native plants, regenerate/replant degraded river banks etc.

There is nothing stating that Critters and Gardens is about pets only. There is nothing stating that the effects of nature—in this case AGW—on animals wild and domestic cannot be discussed here.

I have, apart from Iron Butterflies and one beer review, concentrated 100% on Critters and Gardens.

Cretins who talk crap about ice ages will have to start their own threads. If they can.

Here is a great website. It details the history of the science of AGW. In doing that it provides a very gentle introduction to the science. Well worth reading:

https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm

The Arctic has been warm and still is. New record high November temperature set for the Svalbard archipelago:


Quote:

9.4 °C The Arctic fox is waiting for a delayed winter. 9.4 °C measured at the weather station in Reindalspasset just after midnight on November 12

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/climate-crisis/2020/11/record-november-warmth-svalbard#:~:text=The%20Arctic%20fox%20is%20waiting,after%20midnight%20on%20November%2012.

Most of the Arctic is warmer than average:
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/c_fill,f_auto,fl_progressive,g_center,h_675,pg_1,q_80,w_1200/zu8y12qvekjaisrn9j0e.gif

You could argue this is just weather. However, it is continuing a trend, a trend since satellite observations began in 1979 and that has accelerated in the 20 years of this century. If this trend continues we will see more and more blue ocean in the Arctic summer, ocean that absorbs heat from the sun rather than reflecting that heat back into space. So AGW can be expected to increase and middle northern latitudes will see increasingly extreme weather.

As the Arctic warms more than twice as quickly as the rest of the globe the temperature difference that used to drive a strong Jet Stream reduces and the Jet Stream has weakened, slowed and become wavy. A bow facing south allows Arctic air to move south, bringing cold, blizzards and snow to subarctic regions, e.g. Canada and the USA. Some of the weather reports in Bobby’s fatuous “Global cooling” and the idiotic “Ice Age” threads are due to this effect.

When properly collected and collated we see hot records WAY outnumbering cold records (source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records)

---

BTW—notice the record precipitation events?

What has to happen before there is precipitation? You learned this in primary school: evaporation has to happen before we can have precipitation (rain, hail or snow.)

If the world was cooling what would happen to evaporation? It would DECREASE! And so in a cooling world we would see no precipitation records. That we have precipitation records—there are “atmospheric rivers”—is proof enough of AGW.

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 25^th, 2020 at 12:34pm:

There is nothing stating that Critters and Gardens is about pets only. There is nothing stating that the effects of nature—in this case AGW—on animals wild and domestic cannot be discussed here. I have, apart from Iron Butterflies and one beer review, concentrated 100% on Critters and Gardens. Cretins who talk crap about ice ages will have to start their own threads. If they can.

First off it's Cats & Critters not Critters & Gardens.

Secondly you were elected to be Moderator here ... so it's not "your" board per se.

You continually seem to want to shift the goal posts for your own personal agenda.

2 non related posts in Beer & Iron butterflies is probably just the start.  ::)

Now it's AGW because you say so.

Gnads wrote on Dec 15^th, 2020 at 9:34am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 25th, 2020 at 12:34pm: There is nothing stating that Critters and Gardens is about pets only. There is nothing stating that the effects of nature—in this case AGW—on animals wild and domestic cannot be discussed here. I have, apart from Iron Butterflies and one beer review, concentrated 100% on Critters and Gardens. Cretins who talk crap about ice ages will have to start their own threads. If they can. First off it's Cats & Critters not Critters & Gardens. Secondly you were elected to be Moderator here ... so it's not "your" board per se. You continually seem to want to shift the goal posts for your own personal agenda. 2 non related posts in Beer & Iron butterflies is probably just the start.  ::) Now it's AGW because you say so.

Fair enough.  Now, let me see you make the same point in Extremism.  You do want to be consistent, yes?

What do videos of puppies and kittens have to do with Environment? What does management of this board have to do with Extremism Exposed?

At least I have given some justification for an intro to AGW here.

Aussie wrote on Dec 15^th, 2020 at 11:51am:

Gnads wrote on Dec 15th, 2020 at 9:34am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 25th, 2020 at 12:34pm: There is nothing stating that Critters and Gardens is about pets only. There is nothing stating that the effects of nature—in this case AGW—on animals wild and domestic cannot be discussed here. I have, apart from Iron Butterflies and one beer review, concentrated 100% on Critters and Gardens. Cretins who talk crap about ice ages will have to start their own threads. If they can. First off it's Cats & Critters not Critters & Gardens. Secondly you were elected to be Moderator here ... so it's not "your" board per se. You continually seem to want to shift the goal posts for your own personal agenda. 2 non related posts in Beer & Iron butterflies is probably just the start.  ::) Now it's AGW because you say so. Fair enough.  Now, let me see you make the same point in Extremism.  You do want to be consistent, yes?

Was I speaking to you?

Pharque orff - I don't dance to your expectations.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 15^th, 2020 at 10:13pm:

What do videos of puppies and kittens have to do with Environment? What does management of this board have to do with Extremism Exposed? At least I have given some justification for an intro to AGW here.

What about beer? What has that to do with Cats?  ::)

Eventually Fermentations will be restarted and I can move the posts there.

Enough on this!

Eventually Fermentations will be restarted and I can move the posts there.

Enough on this!

People could ask why no posts on the environment are made in Environment.

Posting weather reports and asking me to apologise for the weather (I know!) have nothing to do with environment! Now the idiot mismanaging that board is posting kitten and puppy videos!

Makes sense to someone I suppose!

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 16^th, 2020 at 8:51am:

People could ask why no posts on the environment are made in Environment. Posting weather reports and asking me to apologise for the weather (I know!) have nothing to do with environment! Now the idiot mismanaging that board is posting kitten and puppy videos! Makes sense to someone I suppose!

Bit rich of you accusing anyone of mismanaging anything.

This board is a prime example.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 15^th, 2020 at 10:13pm:

What do videos of puppies and kittens have to do with Environment? What does management of this board have to do with Extremism Exposed? At least I have given some justification for an intro to AGW here.

What does climate policy have to do with the Environment..?

NOT MUCH these days....!

See below straight from the horses mouth


Quote:

"First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole." Ottmar Edenhofer - is Director and Chief Economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research as well as Director of the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change and Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Technische Universität Berlin.

AGW science is solid, it is no more than basic physics.

As such, CO2, AGW, CC are VERY relevant to Critters and gardens—the southern half of the continent is warming and drying out,m CSIRO/BoM “State of the Climate 2016” report. Read it!

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 16^th, 2020 at 12:11pm:

AGW science is solid, it is no more than basic physics. As such, CO2, AGW, CC are VERY relevant to Critters and gardens—the southern half of the continent is warming and drying out,m CSIRO/BoM “State of the Climate 2016” report. Read it!

You mean like the hotspot that showed up on the computer models....?!

And the sceptical scientists failed to find in the real world looking at satellite and weather balloon data...!

How can it be solid if its signature footprint doesn't exist in the real world.....???

https://i.ibb.co/N6Cdq6r/lost-70-percent-of-greenhouse-energy-sml.gif

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 16^th, 2020 at 8:51am:

People could ask why no posts on the environment are made in Environment. Posting weather reports and asking me to apologise for the weather (I know!) have nothing to do with environment! Now the idiot mismanaging that board is posting kitten and puppy videos! Makes sense to someone I suppose!

Stop stealing my topics - you thief.

Says the idiot Modding Environment but posting videos of cuty cuty kittens and puppies. You truly are a moron, right?

Apart from those off topic videos you post weather reports, often asking me to apologise for the weather. Geez!

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 16^th, 2020 at 12:35pm:

Apart from those off topic videos you post weather reports, often asking me to apologise for the weather. Geez!

Yes Monk,
whenever we get record cold weather -
especially one hundred year events and
whenever it snows in summer you
will be asked to apologise.

That is due to your complete and utter ignorance of weather, climate and environment. You are a clueless fool..

Cold weather can still occur, but does so less often while extreme hot weather occurs more and more often. You really know nothing.

Summer snow in alpine areas is not that uncommon, ignoramus!

Gnads wrote on Dec 16^th, 2020 at 7:08am:

Aussie wrote on Dec 15th, 2020 at 11:51am: Gnads wrote on Dec 15th, 2020 at 9:34am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 25th, 2020 at 12:34pm: There is nothing stating that Critters and Gardens is about pets only. There is nothing stating that the effects of nature—in this case AGW—on animals wild and domestic cannot be discussed here. I have, apart from Iron Butterflies and one beer review, concentrated 100% on Critters and Gardens. Cretins who talk crap about ice ages will have to start their own threads. If they can. First off it's Cats & Critters not Critters & Gardens. Secondly you were elected to be Moderator here ... so it's not "your" board per se. You continually seem to want to shift the goal posts for your own personal agenda. 2 non related posts in Beer & Iron butterflies is probably just the start.  ::) Now it's AGW because you say so. Fair enough.  Now, let me see you make the same point in Extremism.  You do want to be consistent, yes? Was I speaking to you? Pharque orff - I don't dance to your expectations.

No I will not far cough.  If you are gonna lecture Monk on this Topic you have some others to address.  An expectation of anyone is that they at least be consistent. You?

SN—do not presume to govern how boards other than yours are run!

In any case, the Intro to AGW is just that—an intro. I will refer to it when referring, e.g. to the massive decline in vertebrate and invertebrate animal populations due to AGW.

I cannot help that the Environment board does not discuss the environment! This board does discuss Critters and Gardens.

Butt out, SN!

Aussie wrote on Dec 16^th, 2020 at 3:21pm:

Gnads wrote on Dec 16th, 2020 at 7:08am: Aussie wrote on Dec 15th, 2020 at 11:51am: Gnads wrote on Dec 15th, 2020 at 9:34am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 25th, 2020 at 12:34pm: There is nothing stating that Critters and Gardens is about pets only. There is nothing stating that the effects of nature—in this case AGW—on animals wild and domestic cannot be discussed here. I have, apart from Iron Butterflies and one beer review, concentrated 100% on Critters and Gardens. Cretins who talk crap about ice ages will have to start their own threads. If they can. First off it's Cats & Critters not Critters & Gardens. Secondly you were elected to be Moderator here ... so it's not "your" board per se. You continually seem to want to shift the goal posts for your own personal agenda. 2 non related posts in Beer & Iron butterflies is probably just the start.  ::) Now it's AGW because you say so. Fair enough.  Now, let me see you make the same point in Extremism.  You do want to be consistent, yes? Was I speaking to you? Pharque orff - I don't dance to your expectations. No I will not far cough.  If you are gonna lecture Monk on this Topic you have some others to address.  An expectation of anyone is that they at least be consistent. You?

I don't give a flying fat rats clacker how you see it.

Both peas in a pod.

Wallow in hypocrisy then.  Enjoy.

At some time FD will change the name and icon of this board and create a Fermentations board again. I will plug along until then.

What has been happening in the Arctic this century?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln5iNxHftMM&feature=emb_logo


Look at Arctic temperatures too: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Look how long temperatures stayed above 0°C this fall and remember that sea water only freezes below -1.8°C.

Aussie wrote on Dec 17^th, 2020 at 8:17am:

Wallow in hypocrisy then.  Enjoy.

Says you, you shyster hypocrite

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 17^th, 2020 at 8:32am:

At some time FD will change the name and icon of this board and create a Fermentations board again. I will plug along until then.

So what's that mean? You using influence to change boards to suit yourself?

Gnads wrote on Dec 17^th, 2020 at 3:33pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 17th, 2020 at 8:32am: At some time FD will change the name and icon of this board and create a Fermentations board again. I will plug along until then. So what's that mean? You using influence to change boards to suit yourself?

If he wasn't going to be happy with the MRB he got
then he should have withdrawn from the election.
Monk is always complaining - it's never good enough for him.

Gnads wrote on Dec 17^th, 2020 at 3:32pm:

Aussie wrote on Dec 17th, 2020 at 8:17am: Wallow in hypocrisy then.  Enjoy. Says you, you shyster hypocrite

Yes, that is what I direct at you.  You want one thing to apply to Monk and you could not care less if that same thing is ignored elsewhere.  Classic hypocrisy.

Wallow away.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 17^th, 2020 at 3:37pm:

Gnads wrote on Dec 17th, 2020 at 3:33pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 17th, 2020 at 8:32am: At some time FD will change the name and icon of this board and create a Fermentations board again. I will plug along until then. So what's that mean? You using influence to change boards to suit yourself? If he wasn't going to be happy with the MRB he got then he should have withdrawn from the election. Monk is always complaining - it's never good enough for him.

You were given Environment to mod and turned it into the Dubyne MRB.

ALL you post is weather reports. Meaningless, useless, pointless! I am using the freedom FD gave to MRB Mods to run the board as I see fit. Since I have to introduce settled science I will introduce settled science. You introduce cuty cuty puppy and kitten YouTubes to Environment instead of ecology, your call.

Eventually FD will have to face to serious faults in OzPol, including your Modship of the Dubyne MRB.

YOU RUN YOUR BOARD TO SUIT GRIFTER DUBYNE! Run your MRB to suit OzPol, idiot! Or get bumped off your Mod position! FD pays $250/month after advertising now, what if that increases to $300, $350 per month? Look to YOUR board you total idiot!

Monk - you have never attracted a single new member to this MRB.
You've done nothing to help FD.
You spend more time banned than here doing your job.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 17^th, 2020 at 4:01pm:

Monk - you have never attracted a single new member to this MRB. You've done nothing to help FD. You spend more time banned than here doing your job.

That's probably because of dibby dobbers like you Bobby.

:)

Idiot! I have boosted post count here by over 2500 despite dibby dobbers like you getting me banned all the time for bullshit reasons.

LOTS of people post here now that never used to! Open your eyes idiot!

I warm you! Listen or not, but if you lose the Modship of Environment do NOT blame me! I advised you to ask for the modship of Fringe, then I advised you to ask to Mod this MRB. In you stupidity and shortsightedness you ignored me.

Do not ask me to support you if FD, inevitably, feels he has to appoint competent Mods to MRBs like yours. FFS, your only interest has been to post puppy and kitten videos!

WHAT ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT, idiot?

Warming did not take place for hundreds of years before CO2 increased:


Quote:

No Leader to Follow Changes in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and surface air temperature are closely related. However, temperature can influence atmospheric CO2 as well as be influenced by it. Studies of polar ice cores have concluded that temperature increases during periods of rapid warming have preceded increases in CO2 by hundreds of years. Parrenin et al. (p. 1060; see the Perspective by Brook) present a revised age scale for the atmospheric component of Antarctic ice cores, based on the isotopic composition of the N2 that they contain, and suggest that temperature and CO2 changed synchronously over four intervals of rapid warming during the last deglaciation. Abstract Understanding the role of atmospheric CO2 during past climate changes requires clear knowledge of how it varies in time relative to temperature. Antarctic ice cores preserve highly resolved records of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the past 800,000 years. Here we propose a revised relative age scale for the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the last deglacial warming, using data from five Antarctic ice cores. We infer the phasing between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature at four times when their trends change abruptly. We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2, as has been suggested by earlier studies. {My emphasis]

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060

Full text of F. Parrenin et al available to download.

Global temps have warmed 1°C since 1960–70:

http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/images/2016-02_p3.png

Australian temperatures have increased by a similar amount:

http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/images/2016-03_p4.png

As a result of this temperature distributions have shifted:

http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/images/2016-04_p5.png

So we see that in the 1950s really cold weather happened 1.73% of the time but now happens only 1% of the time—so cold weather can still happen, does not mean AGW is wrong or ended etc.

On maximum temperatures there has been a much bigger shift: very hot weather that occurred 2.2% of the time now occurs 11.45% of the time.

So the weather supports the AGW science. No ice age in sight.

The HadCRUT4 surface temperature index produced by the,

a. Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the,

b. Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia show the following trends

1878 to 1911…………….cooling

1912 to 1941…………….warming

1942 to 1964…………….cooling

1965 to 1998……………..warming

1999 to 2011………………cooling

Warming rate from 1908 to 1938………0.13°C per decade

Warming rate from 1983 to 2013………0.17°C per decade

Satellite data shows 2002 to mid 2015………..cooling

Warming pause ends late 2015 with El Nino event starting late 2015

The UAH analysis of satellite data gives a warming trend from 1979 to 2020 of 0.14°C per decade

The IPCC global circulations models (computer models) predicted a warming trend of 0.27°C per decade

That’s just under twice the warming we have experienced in the real world by observations of nature the last 40 years.


https://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

Satellite data from 1979 to 2016 suggest a warming by the year 2100 of 1.07°C.

So we don't have to spend billions of dollars of tax payers money on the stock exchange and giving 10% of this money over to the United Nations to try and keep the temperature to under a 2°C warming by end of 2100.

This will happen all by itself.

This warming is not out of the natural range of warming that is to be expected, coming out of the little ice age.

https://i.ibb.co/XZ7NR25/UAHLT.jpg

Like i said empirical data (observations in nature) the last 40 years show that by the year 2100AD we will warm 1.07 ° C.

Will not get to what the IPCC computer models predicted which was between 2.7 ° C to 4.5 ° C by the year 2100AD.

The models were running too hot and have now been shown to be wrong.


Quote:

Costing the Earth: Funding city climate initiatives with green banks by Sue Weekes: News editor, Smart Cities World Green banks are on the rise as cities look for ways to fund essential work to prevent climate change and its effects. The world needs to spend $2.4 trillion every year until 2035 to mitigate the effects of climate change. This was the stark reality delivered by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C. Cities recognise they need to be on the frontline of the action and a growing list have officially declared a climate emergency, including Krakow, London, Liverpool, Paris, New York and Sydney. According to the Climate Emergency Declaration and Mobilisation in Action (Cedamia) website, more than 888 jurisdictions in 18 countries, covering 161 million citizens, have now declared such an emergency. As the IPCC highlights, though, fighting climate change costs and the race is on to find sustainable ways to fund green initiatives in cities around the world. This is bringing new momentum behind the green bank movement. On July 2, Washington, DC Mayor, Muriel Bowser, signed the District’s Green Finance Authority Establishment Act, officially making it the first city in the country to establish a government-funded green bank. The bank is being capitalised with $105 million of public funds. The world needs to spend $2.4 trillion every year until 2035 to mitigate the effects of climate change. The rest here, https://www.smartcitiesworld.net/special-reports/special-reports/costing-the-ear....

Temperatures are increasing faster now, especially in the Arctic.

No getting around that the globe is warming. Arctic sea ice is melting and that is a positive boost to the warming.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 11:05am:

Temperatures are increasing faster now, especially in the Arctic. No getting around that the globe is warming. Arctic sea ice is melting and that is a positive boost to the warming.

We have been warming since 1850 coming out of the LIA.

If we warm by 1.07 ° C by then end of this century 2100 that is within normal parameters according to scientists.

There's nothing to worry about.

https://i.ibb.co/Mf4NSB6/HS10.jpg

Please stop posting stupid charts.

The LIA was not a real ice age nor was it global. We “recovered” from the LIA by early 1900s.

Mann has been vindicated more than once.

The globe is warming at 0.2°C per decade. If the sun goes into a GSM (not for at least 11 years) then it will cool the globe by 0.2°C tops. That is for a Maunder level Minimum.

The sun has been a bit quiet since the 1960s and STILL WE WARMED!

Give it up, Ajax. AGW is real! Go plant some trees.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 11:17am:

Please stop posting stupid charts. The LIA was not a real ice age nor was it global. We “recovered” from the LIA by early 1900s. Mann has been vindicated more than once. The globe is warming at 0.2°C per decade. If the sun goes into a GSM (not for at least 11 years) then it will cool the globe by 0.2°C tops. That is for a Maunder level Minimum. The sun has been a bit quiet since the 1960s and STILL WE WARMED! Give it up, Ajax. AGW is real! Go plant some trees.

The LIA happened and they were ice scatting on the Thames river at that time.

Before this madness about AGW came along there were many studies by scientists around the world that confirmed the little ice age and the medieval warm period had occurred and that they were global.

If Mann had one ounce of integrity he would have shown how (math/calculations) he got the hockey stick in a court of law, but he didn't choosing to lose rather than show his math.

What does that tell you JV......?!


Quote:

The UAH analysis of satellite data gives a warming trend from 1979 to 2020 of 0.14°C per decade The IPCC global circulations models (computer models) predicted a warming trend of 0.27°C per decade That’s just under twice the warming we have experienced in the real world by observations of nature the last 40 years.

https://i.ibb.co/vc44gjP/MWPLIA1.jpg

UAH is a garbage, error-riddles series prepared by religious AGW deniers.

Still, they have the globe warming at 0.15°C per decade.

Warming, Ajax. Warming because of anthropogenic carbon emissions.

JV lets forget about CO2 and mans emissions for the moment because we are never going to agree on this subject.

So whats the next 3 big thing for the environment...?

For me it is the following,

1. Deforestation, not talking about plantation trees here, but our natural forests all around the world. Should be stopped like right NOW....!

2. The islands of plastic garbage that are floating in our oceans, should be dealt with IMMEDIATELY, not a second to lose.

3. The ozone layer and CFC's

What about you.....?

 

Your three items are of concern, yes.

1. Deforestation affects the hydrology of a region (rivers, underground water) and leads to erosion, silting of rivers etc. Removes a carbon sink as well as habitat for critters (I really really need to research loss of populations of vertebrate and invertebrate critters.) We need a healthy ecology!

2. Plastic crap is destroying the marine environment and killing critters like sea turtles etc. We will need to drastically alter some of the ways we live our lives: pure cotton/wool/silk with no polyester, reusing plastic bags as well as doing away with them altogether. Small moves in that direction. It is not just the big islands tho, any bit of plastic can cause harm and does not rot! There are also microplastics—use of a front end loader not a top loader can make a big difference here, apparently.

3. The ozone layer is recovering but some arsehole in China is manufacturing CFCs again and they live forever almost in the atmosphere, destroying ozone and being a minor GHG.

There is also desertification and the CO2-greening is sputtering out, increasing just one nutrient is not an efficient way to encourage plant growth.

I would love much more discussion on these topics but we do not have an Environment board and here we really need to stick to critters and gardens.

I do encourage people to plant trees, have their councils plant more trees etc.

Related to the graph in the OP but going back a bit further is this:

---

Clearly, temperatures should be falling but they are rising!

Poison Ivy is whinging about me and this board.

I never, ever said it would be the same as when that old fart Herbert was running it. TONS of stuff about critters.

Cats should be killed until no more cats, domestic or feral, exist in Australia, then our native wildlife might have a chance to recover from their depredations.

That tiresome pansy Booby is asking me to apologise for the flipping weather again.

I HAVE pointed out, tho the was removed by a GMod interfering in MRBs, that the BoM has recorded that very cold weather that occurred 1.73% of the time in the 1950s now happens 1% of the time. NOTHING about AGW science says we cannot get even very cold weather, just not as frequently.

To ram this home past the VERY thick layer of bone that is Booby’s skull here is NOAA’s summary of record weather:

---

Link: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records

We see high max and high minimum temperatures far outweigh low max/min temperatures. We expect this from the BoM graph showing the skew of the max temperature distribution to the hot side.

So from weather data scientifically and carefully collected and standardised we can see cold weather is declining in frequency.

No apology to a high school dropout about the flipping weather!

Notice too the increasing precipitation, including snow, expected of a warming world

Jovial Monk wrote on Jan 5^th, 2021 at 5:51am:

Notice too the increasing precipitation, including snow, expected of a warming world

Two things petal.

1. You must have included the wrong link because 1 years data shows no trend, apart from seasonal. ;)

2. A "warming world" is not proof of AGW.

We see weather events are increasingly warm. That is what I said.

Proof of AGW is basic physics: SWR, LWR, radiative properties of CO2, CH4 etc.

We have known from 1850 that CO2 and CH4 are opaque to certain frequencies of LWR, infrared. Satellite spectroscopy shows top of atmosphere LWR is missing energy in the spectra of the GHGs.

Seems pretty conclusive to me.

As to “a warming world is not proof of AGW” it is a prerequisite of proof, no? If the world was cooling long term then AGW would not be a viable theory.

BUT

The world is warming when:

1. the sun has gone a bit quiet since the 1980s

2. The Milankovitch cycle should see the world, especially the Arctic, be cold and cooling.

But the globe is warming, 1°C since 1980, 4°C in the Arctic so a reasonable person would conclude AGW is plausible.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jan 5^th, 2021 at 4:17pm:

We see weather events are increasingly warm. That is what I said.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jan 5^th, 2021 at 5:51am:

Notice too the increasing precipitation, including snow, expected of a warming world

Or do you resile from that?


Jovial Monk wrote on Jan 5^th, 2021 at 4:17pm:

Satellite spectroscopy shows top of atmosphere LWR is missing energy in the spectra of the GHGs.

lee wrote on Oct 25^th, 2020 at 3:40pm:

"The basic physics underlying this global warming, the greenhouse gas effect, is simple. An increase in gases such as CO2 makes the atmosphere more opaque at infrared wavelengths. This added opacity causes the planet’s heat radiation to space to arise from higher, colder levels in the atmosphere, thus reducing emission of heat energy to space. " Hansen et al.; 2011 https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1140 https://i.ibb.co/QfTqJ5B/ghge-2-optical-thickness-of-atmosphere-is-unchanged.png Nope. The opacity hasn't changed beyond norms. https://i.ibb.co/0QGsPMn/ghge-3-OLR-1985-2018.png Nope no reduced heat energy to space. "The partition of the outgoing long wave radiation into upward atmospheric emittance and surface transmitted radiation components is based on the accurate computation of the true greenhouse-gas optical thickness for the radiosonde data. New relationships among the flux components have been found and are used to construct a quasi-allsky model of the earth's atmospheric energy transfer process. In the 1948-2008 time period the global average annual mean true greenhouse-gas optical thickness is found to be time-stationary." https://www.jstor.org/stable/43734929?seq=1 More heating should give higher Relative Humidity "The resultant, more humid atmosphere, causes a hotspot over the tropics at altitudes of 10km to 12km). " "Temperature trends from raw radiosonde data are also inconsistent with climate models, which project an upper tropospheric warming maximum, especially in the tropics" (Santer et al. 2005; Trenberth et al. 2007; Santer et al. 2008) "the vertical trend profiles in the tropics did not show the enhanced upper tropospheric amplification as predicted by climate models" http://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00668.1

Jovial Monk wrote on Jan 5^th, 2021 at 4:20pm:

But the globe is warming, 1°C since 1980, 4°C in the Arctic so a reasonable person would conclude AGW is plausible.

"The Arctic region has had its second-warmest year since 1900, continuing a pattern of extreme heat, ice melt and environmental transformation at the top of the world, scientists reported Tuesday."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-arctic-idUSKBN28I2BM

Please cite this alleged 4C increase.

So, the globe is warming despite:

1. The sun going a bit quiet in the 1980s

2. The Milankovitch cycle should be causing cooling.

You did not try to dispute the above. For good reason.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jan 5^th, 2021 at 5:33pm:

You did not try to dispute the above. For good reason.

Because we know exactly how much the earth has warmed since 1880? Despite Phil Jones saying the SST normals between 40 and 60s being mostly made up. And that was in 2009.

And the data is still sparse. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Or don't you think SST's have anything to do with global temperature?

What is the good reason petal? That we know even in the 21st century the average temperature to within +/-0.01C? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Land      +1.77 ± 0.23      +3.19 ± 0.41

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/202011

BTW =- I notice you didn't correct me on Arctic temperatures. With good reason. ;)

So no argument re warming despite natural forcings cooling us?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jan 5^th, 2021 at 5:59pm:

So no argument re warming despite natural forcings cooling us?

Apart from sparse data? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I accept your white flag.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jan 5^th, 2021 at 6:01pm:

I accept your white flag.

Poor petal. Loses again and claims a white flag.

Today I have shown no loss of opacity of the atmosphere.
No loss of heat energy escaping the earth.
The Arctic has not warmed 4C since 1980.

Here is a chart of Total Precipitable Water

https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/GlobalRelativeHumidity300_700mb.jpg

Nope that hasn't gone up either. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Despite:

1. the sun going a bit quiet in the 1980s

2. The Milankovitch Cycle cooling the NH and Arctic

The globe and Arctic are warming.

AGW is clearly at work, as we have known for sure since 1850.

.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jan 5^th, 2021 at 6:14pm:

The globe and Arctic are warming. AGW is clearly at work, as we have known for sure since 1850.

You still don't want to understand. The climate data before 2009, according to Phil Hughes for between 40 and 60S most mostly made up. That means the "data" is at best suspect. And you want to claim accuracy to within what? ::)

So you cannot dispute that the globe is warming when it should be cooling if only natural factors were in play.

I see the pansy high school drop out is viewing this.

Cold weather is not a sign of cooling or an ice age you frigging idiot! Some hot weather is also not a sign of AGW.

People that know about data collection, processing and analysis show that there is more hot weather and less cold weather than 70 years ago. Your pathetic threads of weather reports are just that, reports of weather, not evidence of anything in particular. You frigging idiot!

Bump

poor old monk wants his site pristine.

All I asked hm was for the paper that said that polar bears are  coming out on land more now the Arctic sea ice is declining. By deleting the post he has declined to answer. ;)

So Arctic Temperatures

ftp://ftp.library.noaa.gov/docs.lib/htdocs/rescue/mwr/064/mwr-064-02-c1.pdf

1936? oh dear.

https://i1.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/fig2.jpg


From Polyakov et al 2002

http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/usbhatt/publications/polyakov.etal.2002.pdf

Figure 2

Arctic Sea ice Figure 2 Polyakov et al 2003

http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/usbhatt/publications/polyakov.etal.2003b.pdf

So the Arctic Ice was lower in the four Arctic seas in 1940's than 2000? And been trending down since 1900. ;)

The road to Glasgow 2021.
Sounds like a Bob Hope movie. ;)

https://i1.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Josh-Last-Chance_scr.jpg

How well do Temperatures track CO2?

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Screen_Shot_2021-01-19_at_4.43.16_PM.png

Not well it seems. ;)

And spatially how good are temperature records? Remembering Phil Jones, CRU said that normals from 40S-60S were mostly made up?

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/x2.png

That shows the paucity of data. And yet they can calculate Global Temperatures back to 1880 to 1/100ths of a degree. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The Earth warms and cools in cycles monk, get it through your head.

CO2 and temperature have never correlated.

We have been warming since the LIA.

And the computer models are running too hot, therefore the theory is wrong because after 30 years of empirical data (observations of nature) we have not warmed in accordance with the computer models and what they predicted.


Quote:

The HadCRUT4 surface temperature index produced by the, a. Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the, b. Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia show the following trends 1878 to 1911…………….cooling 1912 to 1941…………….warming 1942 to 1964…………….cooling 1965 to 1998……………..warming 1999 to 2011………………cooling Warming rate from 1908 to 1938………0.13°C per decade Warming rate from 1983 to 2013………0.17°C per decade Satellite data shows 2002 to mid 2015………..cooling Warming pause ends late 2015 with El Nino event starting late 2015 The UAH analysis of satellite data gives a warming trend from 1979 to 2020 of 0.14°C per decade The IPCC global circulations models (computer models) predicted a warming trend of 0.27°C per decade That’s just under twice the warming we have experienced in the real world by observations of nature the last 40 years. https://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

https://i.ibb.co/5jYjkxZ/MWP-11.jpg

Warming by the end of this century

IPCC computer models in 1990 projected warming by end of 2100 of………...........+2.78° C +

Observations in nature the last 30 years suggest warming by end of 2100 of..... +1.01° C

Therefore the theory of AGW and the circulation models are WRONG

https://i.ibb.co/6Jbwdxt/m14.png https://i.ibb.co/G3pdVhf/UAHLT.jpg https://i.ibb.co/Vt0mnK7/MTH.jpg

https://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

Monk is a bullshit artist:

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1642548635/0#0

Monk,

Quote:

I will remind members that when I tried to start a thread “Introduction to AGW” so I could discuss its effect on gardens/farms and critters THAT THREAD GOT MOVED to Environment where it was buried and was likely deleted by Bobby, the inept Mod of the Environment MRB.