Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 Next
Comments 65801 to 65850:
-
Philippe Chantreau at 12:13 PM on 25 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
DB, I must say that it was not my intention to bait on an off-topic subject. The impossible expectation of pure deterministic knowledge is in fact not widespread among people, this was the first example that came to my mind as an illustration, but there are plenty of others (geology comes to mind). -
Rob Painting at 12:07 PM on 25 January 2012Debunking Handbook: update and feedback
Err, no thanks on the nuclear power here in NZ. Too damn expensive. Our wind farms require no subsidies. I think that indicates how lucky we are. -
Rob Painting at 12:04 PM on 25 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
Zeboo - no need for an apology. Your friend Patonomics is engaging in a form of denial. That's not a condition we can cure. Be nice if he didn't write in riddles too, it impresses no one here. State things plainly - if you can't maybe you don't know what you're on about? -
David Lewis at 11:50 AM on 25 January 2012Debunking Handbook: update and feedback
I've studied nuclear power as a potential solution to the problem of replacing fossil fuel use for some years now, ever since Jim Hansen circulated his views calling for a massive deployment of breeder reactors of a specific US design called the IFR. It came to my mind when I saw the "Debunking Handbook", that the negative statements about nuclear power expressed in another of John Cook's books, i.e. "Climate Change Denial" starting on page 143 could stand debunking themselves. It happens that a new book "Plentiful Energy" is out written by two of the people who ran Argonne National Lab when it was the foremost design lab for nuclear reactors that existed in the world. These are the two men most responsible for the design of the reactor Hansen is touting. This reactor design was the culmination of the reactor design work Argonne produced. The design was intended to directly address all supposed failings of nuclear power generation technology. The reactor produces more fuel than it uses. The fuel is a different type than used in existing reactors and can be reprocessed on site so potential bomb making material is sent back into the reactor to be burnt. The reprocessing setup can't be manipulated to produce highly refined bomb grade material in any case. The waste stream that leaves the reactor site decays back to the level of radioactivity of natural ore in a few hundred years. Nothing would have to be mined for hundreds of years as the design can burn the waste generated by the existing reactor types as well as the massive stocks of depleted uranium. It is a solution for the existing nuclear waste problem as well as the solution for how to replace fossil fuels. The authors make the case that the program to build the design at full scale as the last step prior to commercialization was terminated in 1994 by anti nuclear people led by John Kerry in the US Senate backed by the newly inaugurated President Clinton using as their rationale arguments that don't stand up to examination. "We don't need it", is what Kerry said on the Senate floor. Well that was before it became apparent to people that we do need massive amounts of low carbon energy that can be produced for the foreseeable future because of climate change. I hope John and his co-author Dr Haydn Washington read "Plentiful Energy" and see if they would stand by what is in "Climate Change Denial" about nuclear power afterward. When Hansen was touring New Zealand recently he was asked about nuclear power. He said: "it's really a case of you should be examining that, along with all the other alternatives, because we have an emergency situation". -
Brian Purdue at 11:42 AM on 25 January 2012Climate Change Denial and the Media - Banishment of Science Reality
Skeptikal It would appear the article struck a raw nerve with you. That’s good because its intention was to do exactly that - by exposing the difference between skepticism and denial. Your comments break most of the rules that true skeptics apply like “Experts do know more” and “Trust the scientific method”. And you were even kind enough to include the denialist’s myth about the scientific consensus in the 1970s being that the world was heading for another ice age. It certainly was the consensus in the media and your acceptance of it still is testament to massive power wheeled by the mass media - as pointed out in the article. You look to me to be one of the many hiding behind the facade of skepticism. -
michael sweet at 11:26 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
Ron, It appears to me that Mann has simply not updated his slides recently. Perhaps he rarely gives this talk. As your reference points out this makes the data look "slightly different". Who cares? Hardly comparable to Michaels claiming the opposite of what the data show. -
Zeboo at 11:13 AM on 25 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
I have to make an apology: I am the friend who pointed Patonomics to SkS and the possibility to discuss AGW here, after I had exhausted my efforts to make him understand the concept. I also had already provided him with copies of or links to a lot of up to date literature and discussions, on climate models, trends, the BEST study, Arctic ice melt, etc etc, whatever i could find including Principles of Planetary Climate. Only having a PhD in medicine, some odd 30 years in science and having read climate science literature for the last 20 yrs I thought that maybe I lacked clarity in my arguments.... Thanks anyway to all of you who took time to engage in the debate. -
Albatross at 10:39 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
Ron @10, "that is to give a favoural impression of the projection. " That is conjecture...and a red herring. We are discussing the removal of the scenarios B and C and then making the claim that Scenario A was Hansen et al's prediction. I agree though that the observations should have been included though 2010 (too early for 2011). But this excuse that "Well they allegedly did it!", is quite juvenile and is getting tiresome. So Ron, please state for everyone here whether or not you support Michaels doctoring a graphic generated by scientists to misrepresent their position and thereby misleading Congress and the people of the US. -
Rob Painting at 10:03 AM on 25 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
Micheal Sweet - Patonomics is playing the "impossible expectations" card. With his impossible expectations unable to be met by any scientific discipline, he can convince himself of whatever he chooses. Hard to say whether this just a more polite, sophisticated form of trolling, or if he really does believe what he writes. But regardless, I fear any advice to him will fall upon deaf ears. -
RonManley at 09:59 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
Recently I noticed another case in which the Hansen 1988 projection graph had been used in a TEDx presentation with data truncated and one of the data series that Hansen had included in his later 2006 paper excluded. In this case the aim of the omissions was the opposite of Michaels', that is to give a favoural impression of the projection. You can see the charts at: Climate Opinions . -
skywatcher at 09:22 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
#8 Nichol: Your #1 is something that would be most entertaining. Put Michaels in from of Hansen, Santer, Rahmstorf, Mann and a couple of hundred other of the top climate scientists. Add Foster for the stats. See how long anything in his presentation survives... Dana answers your #2 above. Your #3 is best asked in the part 1 of this post - in some ways you are right, there is a lower quantity of radiatively active gases in the atmosphere. However, this is not through conscious removal of the gases for their radiative properties. An accident of the Montreal Protocol was to greatly lower the CFC's radiative contribution, and accidents of world politics reduced Russia's GHG contribution in the 1990s. CO2 emissions are rising >linear, so we're now a bit of a way from 'C' on that score, with little action in the pipeline to combat that. You also need to account for the difference between Hansen's sensitivity and the modern best estimate - all of which places us closer to 'B'. -
sidd at 09:15 AM on 25 January 2012How do Climate Models Work?
Thank you TOP for the pointer. Here is another, and the thesis work by Jablonowoski linked on the page has a good lit. review. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~cjablono/amr.html sidd -
Nick Palmer at 09:12 AM on 25 January 2012New research from last week 3/2012
Thank you Ari. -
Nichol at 07:57 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
A few obvious questions: 1. should not these expert witnesses giving presentations at congress give a practice presentation, where other scientists can warn them what is wrong. That way they can fix the science questions .. and not present mistaken notions to congress? Or are these hearings set up to be like a law court, with adversarial parties, none really trying to find a 'truth', but rather trying to advocate a certain view? 2. What was the reaction at the time, at this presentation? How can this still be a living meme? 3. It looks like the world has followed a scenario near to the 'best' C, but without the extreme kink at 2000, where all greenhouse gas emissions would have had to have stopped completely. Does this mean that the world has not done quite as bad as one might have feared, in 1988? -
dana1981 at 07:56 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
That's a fair point, it would make more sense to evaluate a transient climate response than the model equilibrium sensitivity. But I think it's still fair to say that Hansen's results are consistent with the IPCC equilibrium climate sensitivity range, whereas the fake skeptics have tried to argue that Hansen's overestimated warming proves sensitivity is low. That's certainly not true. -
michael sweet at 07:52 AM on 25 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
Patonomics: You have still not taken the advice you have been given to read the background. Until you have some basic knowledge you cannot add anything to the conversation. Climate Change is a complex subject. You are responsible for finding out the background from the material that has been referred to you and raising the level of your knowledge. If you cannot reference peer reviewed papers to support your wild claims you need to read more. You have been provided with a great amount of data. Please go read it so you can contribute something. -
patonomics at 07:40 AM on 25 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
Philippe Chantreau#68: (-snip-) (-snip-) DrTsk#64: (-snip-) (-snip-)Response:[DB] The topic of this post is Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions, not health care. While sensitive to the nature of the information you share, it has no bearing on the topic of this post.
Everyone, please refrain from anything that patonomics may construe as baiting.
Patonomics, if you genuinely wish to learn more about climate science, this website is a great resource, if approached with the right attitude and without ideological preconceptions. If it is not a good fit for you, there are other highly recommended websites that you could be referred to.
Off-topic snipped.
-
EliRabett at 07:25 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
Eli went through this a number of years ago, how time flies when you are having fun. A quote there from Hansen sums it up ------------------------------- The climate model we employ has a global mean surface air equilibrium sensitivity of 4.2 C for doubled CO2. Other recent GCMs yield equilibrium sensitivities of 2.5-5.5 C..... Forecast temperature trends for time scales of a few decades or less are not very sensitive to the model's equilibrium climate sensitivity (reference provided). Therefore climate sensitivity would have to be much smaller than 4.2 C, say 1.5 to 2 C, in order for us to modify our conclusions significantly. ------------------------------- -
william5331 at 07:08 AM on 25 January 2012New research from last week 3/2012
Another possible explanation for the sharp upsurge in atmospheric Carbon dioxide is the release of clathrates accumulated under the ice sheet over the 100,000 year life of the glacial. Once an ice sheet is a few hundred meters thick, conditions are right for any methane and Carbon dioxide from shales (fracked by the ice pressure), coal deposits, petroleum deposits and methanogenesis of organic material http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2011/09/continental-glacier-meltdown.html http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2011/08/end-of-ice-ages.html http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2008/07/arctic-melting-no-problem.html -
Conservit at 05:25 AM on 25 January 2012Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
Has anyone looked at a correlation divergence with UV-B? There are several studies that suggest reduced growth with increasing UV exposure as trees increase the production of phenolics and flavonoids at the expense of growth. The timing would seem to fit the increased use of ozone depleting compounds. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:55 AM on 25 January 2012New research from last week 3/2012
Wow. This is fantastic. I look forward to this being a weekly feature. It'll be interesting to see how many papers get posted each week. -
Bob Lacatena at 04:50 AM on 25 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
37, Pirate, I object to your interpretation of climate change as an indirect cause. In this case it is not exacerbating other existing issues. From Rob's quote from Pounds 2006 (emphasis mine):...we conclude with 'very high confidence' (> 99%, following the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) that large-scale warming is a key factor in the disappearances. We propose that temperatures at many highland localities are shifting towards the growth optimum of Batrachochytrium, thus encouraging outbreaks.
Simple facts:- Prior to the increase in temperatures, this pathogen existed but did not extinguish the species for many tens of thousands (millions? tens of millions?) of years
- Temperature changes towards the optimum for this pathogen made outbreaks more frequent and virulent.
- The species is now extinct.
-
dana1981 at 04:49 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
MarkR @3 - as noted in the post, a major issue is that 13+ years later, after his errors have been pointed out to him several times, Michaels inexplicably continues to argue that he was right when he was obviously wrong. I agree that making the mistake in 1998 is somewhat understandable, although a really bad mistake for a supposed climate science expert. Not a mistake one should make in testimony to Congress, but as you say, a relatively easy mistake to make, if one were being lazy and careless. But to continue to defend the error to this day rather than admitting the massive blunder (and to attack anyone who points out the blunder) is absolutely inexcusable. It's the opposite of how a skeptic and scientist should behave. -
WheelsOC at 04:44 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
It's almost as if he chose the most divergent scenario on purpose and went back after the fact to rationalize the choice, rather than start with the data and see which scenario matched it the best. Doesn't that kind of thing sometimes cause editor resignations when it happens in the peer-reviewed journals? -
MarkR at 04:24 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
#1 Robert Murphy: It's an easy mistake to make and a lot of people (including me!) have made it. However, if I were testifying to Congress I would certainly check the background to the data I was using, in this case by reading and understanding the Hansen paper. I wouldn't just use a rhetorical flourish ('business as usual! He said busines as usual!') to delete the data that didn't agree with my opinion. Perhaps Michaels didn't know about this, and should be very embarrassed about this massive blunder. It would certainly make me suspicious about calling him up as an 'expert witness' until he could accept the clear errors and guarantee he was working to prevent them happening again. -
dana1981 at 03:24 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
Robert @1 - yes, CO2 levels don't begin to significantly diverge in the various scenarios until 2000, and even later than that between Scenarios A and B. However, even in 1998, CO2 levels were closest to Scenario C, as discussed in Part 1 of this post. Michaels' entire presentation and continued defense of his distortions are based on a wrong assumption which is very easily checked simply by looking up the GHG data. So the two options are (1) Michaels didn't bother to take the simplest step to confirm the accuracy of his claims, or (2) he did check their accuracy, discovered they were wrong, but continued to make them anyway. Neither possibility reflects very well on Michaels, to put it kindly. -
Robert Murphy at 03:19 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
The thing that has to be understood when looking at the different scenarios (something I didn't fully consider at first myself) is that CO2 was only one component. Scenarios A and B had essentially the same CO2 levels for most of the 20 odd years since 1988. Where they differed greatly was in their assumptions about the other GHG's like N2O, CH4, and especially CCL3F and CCL2F2. The RC page here makes that point very well. People can get distracted by the CO2 levels. It's the totality of the forcings that matter. There never was a reason to think scenario A was close to what actually happened, and Michaels should have known that. -
pbjamm at 03:10 AM on 25 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
apiratelooksat50@37 "My original question was pertaining to extinctions directly from climate change. There are obviously instances where climate change is exacerbating other existing issues such as the chytrid fungus and that I acknowledged." Any environmental pressure could be argued an indirect or second order effect. What would qualify as a direct effect in your opinion? -
Phila at 03:02 AM on 25 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
Pirate: However, I can see where we could get hung up on semantics and this could go on endlessly with no positive outcome Hung up on semantics? Really? Whether you define "extinction" as a process of decline or a completed event, evidence provided in this thread proves you wrong. To insist regardless that NCES needs to change its text -- for no other reason than that you chose to read it though ideological blinders -- really is the height of arrogance. As usual, the solution here is not for working scientists to change their terminology to suit your prejudices, but for you to do your homework and develop some humility. Your students deserve nothing less. And at this point, so do the generally patient people who read these threads. -
Philippe Chantreau at 02:22 AM on 25 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
Patonomics, you are demonstrating exactly what I argued. If you were sincere, you would already have found on your own all the info linked by moderator above. Language seems to be a barrier but I get your drift with your "man on the street argument." I'm sure the man on the street expects this "packaging" no more than he would with oncology. Do I hear anyone demanding determinism with cancer treatment? [crickets chirping]. No, I guess something that works will suffice after all. Of course, in these matters too the answers will be unwelcome and subjected to all sorts of denial, as with the tobacco wars. It is becoming more and more obvious that you are no interested in learning about reality. If you were, you'd already know better. I'd recommend all: DNFTT. -
prokaryotes at 01:30 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1
About projections and models. Long lived CFC’s, Methane, Nitrous Oxide uptake and the destruction of the northern hemisphere Ozone Layer The ozone hole which appeared in 2011, 220dobson was predicted by Shindell et al in 1998 to occur 2010-2019. Now with all the other Greenhouse gases and BAU++ scenarios we are on, the ozone layer's future is at peril. -
dhogaza at 00:51 AM on 25 January 2012New research from last week 3/2012
Absolutely fantastic, Ari. -
apiratelooksat50 at 00:13 AM on 25 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
Rob at 20 Sorry, I was away from the computer yesterday. My original question was pertaining to extinctions directly from climate change. There are obviously instances where climate change is exacerbating other existing issues such as the chytrid fungus and that I acknowledged. In my perception that is an indirect effect. I would like to see the statement on NCES reworded to reflect that. However, I can see where we could get hung up on semantics and this could go on endlessly with no positive outcome, and therefore I will accept your position. -
DrTsk at 23:34 PM on 24 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
@"AGW is no science". Could not be more wrong. AGW is basic physics, as basic as you can get. You either have no clue what science is or you are trolling. By the way. Chaos is deterministic. Not random. That does not mean you can model a chaotic system 100%. -
CBDunkerson at 23:27 PM on 24 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
patonomics wrote: "why then so much noise around AGW?" Because... nature is demonstrating the impacts of AGW. Duh? Or hadn't you noticed the decreasing global ice coverage, species migrations, seasonal shifts, atmospheric circulation changes, weather changes, rising temperatures, ocean acidification, et cetera? To look at nature and not see AGW one needs to be willfully blind. -
patonomics at 23:25 PM on 24 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
DrTsk#64: "It is a good insurance to reduce our GHG emissions." - I support that though process completely. (-snip-)Response:[DB] Off-topic snipped.
-
CBDunkerson at 23:23 PM on 24 January 2012New research from last week 3/2012
I'm continually amazed that so many studies are being released each week. It is good to see work on nailing down cloud impacts and the sea level and radiation budgets. The uncertainties on those factors have become the 'last refuge of scoundrels' in the climate change 'debate'. -
Tom Curtis at 23:15 PM on 24 January 2012A detailed look at climate sensitivity
Eric (skeptic) @77, your assumptions about the GEOCARBSULF model are incorrect. It includes geographic changes including rate of erosion due to expose land area and orogeny, rate of vulcansim, effects of erosion rates due to glaciation, and the effects of vascular and non-vascular plants. More details can be found in the description of the GEOCARBSULF model by Robert Burner. For some details you will need to consult the description of the GEOCARBIII model, which preceded GEOCARBSULF. The later reference shows the sedimentation rates and the "weathering uplift parameter" for various epochs of the phanerozoic, and discusses how they are determined. The important point at this level of discussion is that they are determined empirically. Given these factors, and given the fact that temperature plus CO2 concentration control the rate of chemical weathering, and given a particular ratio between CO2 concentration and temperature, it is possible to retrodict the CO2 concentration in a given period using the model. By varying the ratio of CO2 concentration to temperature, you can determine which ratio gives the best fit to the geological record of CO2 concentration. Of course, as the CO2/temperature ratio is just the climate sensitivity, you at the same time determine the best fit climate sensitivity over the entire phanerozoic. This was first done by Berner, Royer and Park (2007), which explains the methodology. It is true that GEOCARBSULF does not model specific geographical distribution of continents. This means there are significant factors which effect temperature, but which are not modeled. The question is, however, how significant? If their impact relative to CO2 concentration and temperature is large, then it will be impossible to get a good match between predicted CO2 levels and CO2 levels as observed in the geological record using this technique. Contrary to that, however, the fit is quite good:
(From Park and Royer 2011, fig 9d. Alternative fits under different assumptions in figures 9 a-c and figure 10 should also be examined)
There are, of course, to periods of significant mismatch. That may be because of problems in the record of erosion (see figure 10 and related discussion). More probably, IMO, it is because particular geographical configurations changed the climate base state. Or it could even be because the climate sensitivity was significantly different in those periods (which is a distinct possibility from the geographical change of the climate base state).
Finally, the PDFs are indeed PDFs. Given a set threshold for explained variance in the CO2 concentration, the PDF maps the probability that a particular climate sensitivity (or climate sensitivity pairing, where glacial is distinct from non-glacial) will explain that degree of variance. However, like all statistical measures, a simplistic interpretation can be risky (and I am not the one too explain the risks of over interpretation in this case). However, it is not over interpretation to say that given the evidence in this study, "...the empirical PDFs for glacial climate sensitivity predict T2x(g)>2.0 °C with 99 percent probability, T2x(g)>3.4 °C with 95 percent probability, and T2x(g)>4.4 °C with 90 percent probability", and that "[t]he most probable values are T2x(g) 6° to 8 °C."
-
DrTsk at 23:14 PM on 24 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
Huh??? How did you manage to make the connection between what I said and "why then so much noise around AGW?". Ehhh, sorry for a microsecond I thought you are honest and not trolling. We are the forcing!! We understand that, even if we cannot 100% quantify it. Sorry but the insurance industry works with infinitesimal percentages. You don't go back and ask them where is their 100% certainty before you pay your bills!! It is a good insurance to reduce our GHG emissions. Sorry but there is no GEICO for nature. Nobody will replace it if we total it!! -
patonomics at 23:04 PM on 24 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
DrTsk#61 "The only true quantitative solution of the fully coupled physics is nature itself." - I could not agree with more. why then so much noise around AGW? What it helps one "to claim as science" in their respective profession? -
Daniel Bailey at 22:52 PM on 24 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
I reluctantly must agree with DrTsk here on patonomics (not because of anything with DrTsk, as the good doctor always has pertinent insights to share). Patonomics is simply trolling with the straw man arguements & goalpost shifting. Science is difficult, at best, to understand. And as (essentially) a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary field, climate science is even more so difficult. Proof that he has some understanding of this is found on his own website, which I will not link here. Patonomics therefore sets up an artificial barrier to understanding by the conditions he imposes. There simply is no substitute for doing the hard work needed to gain the level of comprehension he asks. And to then further limit possible answers to predetermined formats is also trolling. Do the work. Or accept the answers already locatable at many websites, not just this one. Else you are here simply to waste time. Ours and yours. -
DrTsk at 22:23 PM on 24 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
@patonomics. Trolling!!! Really, you profess to ask for knowledge, but you ask for "definite", "deterministic", "breakdown by source/sink". Either you do not understand how science of the big works or you are doing that on purpose, ergo Trolling!!. There are no deterministic/precise/exact answers. Only observations, attributions, trends, cause and effect relationships. The same way that you were asking for a simple equation!! There is no simple answer. We know all the components, we understand most of the physics,and we realize the connectivity between the various physical phenomena in models to test if the connectivity is accurate to give us further understanding. The only true quantitative solution of the fully coupled physics is nature itself. Back to sink/sources and respective weights??? We know them as well as we know GDP. -
patonomics at 21:50 PM on 24 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
Philippe Chantreau#58: "It's all there but we have to package it nicely for you eh?" - Not at all. I am asking to the guys who might claim the knowledge is definite/deterministic in AGW, then don't you think that "any 'man in the street' expecting that packaging is done already". Is that expectation is too much to ask, or its obvious expectation? -
Eric (skeptic) at 21:45 PM on 24 January 2012A detailed look at climate sensitivity
Thanks Tom, for the answers and the link to the paper. I had an unexpected trip and am 4 pages of comments behind. I don't think that potential willful misrepresentation of fig 3b is a valid reason to exclude it, so the bottom line is it was deleted for space reasons. The paper with Royer has this claim: "We confirm the conclusion of Royer and others (2007): the necessity for greenhouse-weathering feedbacks in Earth’s long-term carbon cycle makes low values for Earth’s long-term climate sensitivity (delta)T2x highly unlikely." I understand that the driving factor for weathering is geography, not temperature, For example it is the explanation for The End of the Hothouse The drop in CO2 at the end of the hothouse explains the drop in temperature, but is difficult to resolve to a sensitivity number due to the large amplification from the newly formed Antarctic ice sheet. I don't believe their "empirical PDF" is a PDF, it appears to be a result of multiple runs an oversimplified model that leaves out factors that cannot be determined from the paelo record or are not included. The way I read the paper is that GEOCARB/SULF models are temperature to weathering models, but do not include geographic changes, is that correct? -
Esop at 21:35 PM on 24 January 2012New research from last week 3/2012
Most excellent! Great info. -
patonomics at 21:34 PM on 24 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
muoncounter#57: "Consider looking at the fundamental paper by Meehl et al 2004, if it is not too much bother." Thank you very much. "3) GHG (CO2, water vapor, O3, CH4, N2O, CFC12, CFC11) (G)" I am really looking for, each component breakdown of GHG and then for each GHG component, further breakdown for 1) 'by source' and 2) 'by sink' for those sub-component and there respective weights. If you know some peer reviewed document, you may through some light.Response:[DB] "If you know some peer reviewed document, you may through some light."
Fiat Lux. Try the IPCC AR4, found on this page:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml
A very accessible and useful search tool for it can be found here:
-
fouquart at 20:53 PM on 24 January 2012New research from last week 3/2012
This is a tremendous tool! Thanks a lot -
Ari Jokimäki at 19:57 PM on 24 January 2012New research from last week 3/2012
Thank you, I'm glad you like it. :) -
shoyemore at 19:10 PM on 24 January 2012New research from last week 3/2012
Let me add my "Amen" to #1. Well done, Ari. -
John Mason at 19:09 PM on 24 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
Interesting ideas, William. Am accumulating literature on this whole problem, which deserves more exploration I think. However, a rapid methane release in the order of many tens of Gt would show up starkly as a much-bigger-than-usual CO2-spike, compared to those you cite. From what I am reading, though, smaller events may actually be quite common, as a response to falling sea-levels, and ironically then trigger deglaciation. Need to read up much more on this, though.
Prev 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 Next
