Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 Next
Comments 71851 to 71900:
-
muoncounter at 07:59 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
bugai#181: "You cannot see "diurnal" osciillations there, but certainly the seasonal ones." Perhaps you should study the literature on CO2 monitoring a bit more, rather than make quite so many assumptions. Chmura 2005 et al is a good starter, showing that an industrial city is a CO2 source: The CO2 mixing ratios measured in the urban atmosphere revealed quasi-permanent excess concentration of this gas when compared with near-by background atmosphere. The annual mean CO2 concentration recorded in Krakow in 2004 was almost 10% higher than that recorded at high-altitude mountain site (Kasprowy Wierch). Such effect is occuring probably in all urban centers. There is indeed a diurnal signal: In the urban environment, the lowest CO2 mixing ratios are recorded generally during mid-day, when the convective activity of the lower atmosphere and resulting vertical mixing is at its maximum. In contrast, at the mountain site high CO2 mixing ratios are generally recorded during mid-day and early afternoon. This stems from sun-driven convection within the planetary bounday layer over Kasprowy Wierch “sucking” the CO2-laden air from the valleys towards the top of the mountain. In addition, there is an isotopic signature to anthropogenic emissions: Seasonal fluctuations of delta13C visible at both discussed sites are shifted in phase. The Krakow record reveals lowest delta13C values during winter season, when local CO2 emissions due to burning of fossil fuels in the city (heating plus car traffic) are most intense. So the record of CO2 emissions appearing in the atmosphere is unmistakeable. You seem to rest your case on 'it can't be us.' Can you provide anything more substantial than that? -
Dikran Marsupial at 07:52 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
KR sure, as it happens we were almost there: step #1 The carbon cycle obeys conservtion of mass, so the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 is equal to total emissions minus total uptake step #2 We can write this as ΔC = E_a + E_n - U_n where ΔC is the annual increase in CO2 E_a is annual anthropogenic emissions E_n is annual emissions from natural sources U_n is annual uptake by natural sinks all of these quantities are of course positive. Step #3 rearranging ΔC - E_a = E_n - U_n Step #4 if the left hand side is negative, then the right hand side is negative, so if E_a > ΔC then we know that U_n > E_n also I'm assuming that bugai agrees with this as (i) it is elementary mathematics, and (ii) he had plenty of opportunity to say it was wrong but didn't. Step #5 - look at the data. The blue line is E_a, the red line is ΔC, and the green line is E_n - U_n estimated by ΔC - E_a. The data are all freely available from the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center (here, here and here).
This clearly shows that E_a > ΔC and so we know that U_n > E_n. In other words we know that environmental uptake has exceeded environmental emissions every year for the last fifty years at least, and hence has been opposing, rather than causing the observed atmospheric increases.
Bugai only had one step left to go, pity he preferred to be obstinate. So bugai, you have three options:
(i) demonstrate that step 5 is incorrect
(ii) demonstrate that the natural environment can be the cause of the observed rise even though it is a net carbon sink
(iii) agree that the observed rise is not a natural phenomenon.
-
Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
bugai - One thing at a time, for the moment. Current anthropogenic CO2 contribution: ~29GT/year. Current yearly atmospheric CO2 accumulation: 2ppm/yr or ~14GT/year. delta CO2 (D) = Sources (S) - Sinks (K) D = (anthro S + natural S) - (anthro K + natural K) D = (aS + nS) - (aK + nK) = 14GT/yr [ for convenience ] Anthropogenic sinks (aK) are essentially zero. If we subtract anthropogenic sources (aS) from both sides of the equation: -15GT/year = nS - nK Natural sinks > Natural sources by ~15GT/year at present. So without our contribution to atmospheric CO2, CO2 levels would be declining by >2ppm/year right now. Hence we are indeed responsible for increasing atmospheric CO2. Early in the industrial revolution, anthropogenic contributions were much lower, but the imbalance in CO2 was much smaller, hence the natural sink of CO2 driven by that imbalance was smaller as well. See the history of emissions and CO2 levels for that relationship. Nature is acting as a net sink - anthropogenic contributions are responsible for rising CO2 levels. That's "1st class school math" - any disagreements? -
Michael at 07:29 AM on 22 October 2011Arctic Ice Volume is diminishing even more rapidly than Area
Correction since the 1950s. Apologies ! -
bugai at 07:29 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
@KR: You say "Incorrect - a 5% input sustained over centuries..." Certainly incorrect. Antropogenic CO2 source: In year 2005: 30 billion tons. In year 1945: 5 billion tons. In year 1850: 0.1 billion tons. "Centuries" of 5% emission? Assuming a constant natural CO2 source, the antropogenic CO2-source was just miniscule 0.9% at 1945. And - (-Snip-) - the striking 0.01% antropogenic emissions there leading to the end of LIA! 2. - "These (plankton die-off, ocean warming) are the two main reasons for CO2 rise, not the tiny emission by the fuel combustion" Sorry, unsupportable statement contradicted by all the science. We know the rates for those, and for anthropogenic emissions, and the math just doesn't support this claim. ///////// You know the exact rates? Put them forward.Response:[DB] Inappropriate tone snipped.
-
David Lewis at 07:26 AM on 22 October 2011Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us?
Trenberth (1:10:50 or so of this video) points out that the heat the NCAR model shows going into the ocean is "mainly in the Pacific" "in the subtropics, or up to about 40 degrees latitude". "And so, if the model is anything like right, it suggests where we should start looking harder at the observations". When asked about what "the mechanism" was that could move this heat into the deeper parts of the ocean enough to flatline the average global surface temperature graph for a decade he mentioned a number of possibilities: "there are subtropical overturning circulations in the Pacific that clearly play a substantial role in moving heat around although the main thought is they have been involved in the top 400m or something like that. And so there is some overturning in both hemispheres that is clearly important, largely involving the tropics to subtropics, these subtropical overturning circulations. But the other part of it that needs to be explored a lot more, where there is potential for depositing heat at much greater depths in in the Western part of the Pacific, particularly in association with the boundary currents. The Australian Current, and the Kurishio Current. And there, there are clearly components that go down deeper than 1000m. And there's quite a lot of variability. Those are the most dynamic features in the ocean - the currents can be 1 m/sec. The same thing with the Gulf Stream. And so its in those regions also where I think we need to look harder as well... ...We don't know well what is going on. The sampling of the deep ocean is quite fragmentary. There are a couple of papers…. [may be referring to Purkey] suggesting that indeed there is evidence of warming at greater depths. Generally [the heat] is permeating through. The oceanographers are not quite sure how this happens. The general thought is in the abyss, the deep part of the ocean, there's not much action there, and change is very slow. If its just conduction, not currents or convection moving stuff around then it should be a very slow process. There are things like tides, which are continually pumping the ocean up and down and at some places at greater depths are known to cause greater mixing which is probably important which may not be taken fully into account . And so it may be that there are ways and places where heat is mixed down more readily than others. It may not be everywhere. And some seasonality can come into play. That's certainly the case in the N Atlantic. The main convection that occurs in the ocean is where you get in winter these cold dry outbreaks and this large heat fluxes into the atmosp0here that cools the surface of the ocean and then that cool water sinks. And so there is this overturning within the ocean. And so in wintertime you can get this very large changes to a few km depth in association with those kind of events. …. But in general, especially with a warming climate, if you are warming the surface, its more buoyant and it tends to sit there and the ocean becomes more stable.... " -
Michael at 07:24 AM on 22 October 2011Arctic Ice Volume is diminishing even more rapidly than Area
I think you are radically understating the cumulative ice mass loss for Jan 1st each year in the Arctic. It is approaching a 70% drop in ice mass for the period 1970/79 to present. If extent has fallen by 35% [confirmed] and thickness decreased by 50% [confirmed] then one has lost 67% of the volume [Maths]. NASA will not disagree with that number: its theirs. 65% of extent left X 50% of depth = 32.5% of volume. So 67.5% loss in mass. more on www.carbonvirgin.com -
NewYorkJ at 07:21 AM on 22 October 2011The BEST Kind of Skepticism
I tried to download a sample chapter of Easterbrook's textbook but at 20 MB, it wasn't worth wasting bandwidth on. I wonder if it's worse than Rapp's textbook, and honestly, how does stuff like this get published? -
Albatross at 07:21 AM on 22 October 2011The BEST Kind of Skepticism
Funny thing, I was wondering last night whether or not McIntyre was going to "audit" (i.e., nit pick, make mountains out of molehills, feed fodder to the skeptics) the BEST research-- I wonder if he would have done so had their findings been at odds with NASA, NOAA and HadCRU? Very likely not. I wonder if Dr. Muller realizes that he is now officially a member of "The Team"-- ironic given how critical he has been of Mann et al. It is both entertaining and pathetic to watch those in denial about AGW implode. -
Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Dikran - It may well be useful to list the steps in a consolidated post: if the steps are numbered and labeled. A nice tabular reference (perhaps the contents of a new post?) would be useful in this and other discussions - particularly as a drop-in for those in denial. If bugai or others disagree, they would naturally have to support which step(s) they disagreed with, and why. And if they wander off in obfuscation, that's easy enough to point out. --- That said: bugai - You have made a number of unsupported statements. - "The humans emit just 5% of the total CO2 influx. This is nothing and could increase the CO2 percentage in the air by the same 5%, no more." Incorrect - a 5% input sustained over centuries, with an observed atmospheric annual increase equal to roughly half of the anthropogenic contribution, certainly shows the anthropogenic input driving atmospheric CO2 rise. See the IPCC CO2 attribution section for any number of references. - "...where tau is the relaxation time. We know that tau is somewhere between 5 and 10 Years." Absolutely incorrect. Single molecular residence time is on the order of 5 years - you are conflating that with adjustment time, which is ~70 years halflife as a short term adjustment, with a several thousand year tail, due to the rates of rebalancing the CO2 input to the atmosphere and the multiple pathways. See the IPCC carbon cycle drawdown section. - "These (plankton die-off, ocean warming) are the two main reasons for CO2 rise, not the tiny emission by the fuel combustion" Sorry, unsupportable statement contradicted by all the science. We know the rates for those, and for anthropogenic emissions, and the math just doesn't support this claim. I hate to say this, bugai, but none of your statements on this topic have been supportable (yet - I have hopes). They all sound good, but the data shows otherwise. Skepticism starts with ones own closely held ideas... -
pbjamm at 06:53 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
bugai@187 "Yet, he is still welcome to put his arguments. But in one posting." You are not in a position to set the rules for the discussion. He is free to post them in any way he sees fit and you are free to ignore them. The difference is that Dikran's method looks like he is trying to move a discussion forward and you look like you are trying to stall it. -
bugai at 06:31 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
@KR and Composer99: see my posting #128. Concerning Dikran. I asked him to explain his position. He refused. It is not my fault. Yet, he is still welcome to put his arguments. But in one posting. -
Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
bugai - Given that you are claiming that anthropogenic CO2 emissions do not drive the observed CO2 increases, in contradiction to the vast majority of data and analysis on scientific record, it might well be said that the onus is on you to prove your point. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi Dikran is attempting to discern where you disagree with the general body of science. In the past I have noted that his technique (of covering all steps in the analysis) has been quite successful in identifying points of disagreement for further and quite useful discussion. You are more than welcome not to participate in this. However, I will note that leaving a discussion because you don't like how it is progressing, rather than proving your point, may well be taken by most readers as evidence that your hypothesis will not stand the light of day. -
Composer99 at 06:16 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
bugai: Given you are disputing a finding which has ample empirically-derived support in the peer-reviewed literature as outlined in the OP and on this website generally with no references to speak of (save for Wikipedia), I do not see how you are in a position to expect conditions from those who are arguing with the evidence on their side. -
Joshua at 05:58 AM on 22 October 2011The BEST Kind of Skepticism
Wait a minute. Have you considered the fact that the data sample BEST used was too large? Don't you realize that if they used a smaller database, Anthony's opinion that the UHI effect is significant might have more likely to be validated? They should have been more selective in choosing their sample. After all, any legitimate researcher knows that it's easier to prove your hypothesis the more you limit your sample. -
bugai at 05:52 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
@Composer99: I did cooperate with Dikran and I am ready to continue, but he has to put all his steps in one posting. Then, we discuss. That's the condition. -
Andy Skuce at 05:52 AM on 22 October 2011The BEST Kind of Skepticism
From a Nature news article:Steve McIntyre, who runs the sceptic blog Climate Audit, said in an interview that the team deserves credit for going back to the primary data and doing the work. Although he hasn't gone through the papers in detail, he is already questioning the results reported by the Berkeley team regarding the questionable research stations and the urban heat island effect. McIntyre, a statistician, says he has already run a preliminary analysis and was unable to reproduce the results reported by Muller and his crew.
Perhaps McIntyre has found that the UHI effect is even more negative.... -
Composer99 at 05:46 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
I rather wish bugai had continued to cooperate with Dikran; speaking as science laity, I was finding his step-by-step run-through enlightening. -
Dikran Marsupial at 05:46 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
bugai, it has already been pointed out to you that the "relaxation time" is not 5 years, and a specific reference given to back it up glossary of the IPCC report. Residence time is 5 years, not relaxation/adjustment time, which is 50-200 years (according to the IPCC). -
bugai at 05:43 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
To muoncounter: There is no doubt that short time signal can be observed in CO2 concentration. The CO2 relaxation time is 5 years. Fluctuations shorter than this period are not smoothed out. You cannot see "diurnal" osciillations there, but certainly the seasonal ones. Prooves nothing. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:43 AM on 22 October 2011The BEST Kind of Skepticism
Don Easterbrook's Preface... what a load of cr@p. "How To Fit Every Silly Denial Misdirection Into A Single Preface" by Don Easterbrook. It's embarrassing. -
MA Rodger at 05:34 AM on 22 October 2011The BEST Kind of Skepticism
Watta has now cut & pasted a rant from the Global Warming Policy Foundation (that same organisation that rates mass extinction of species as 'life flourishing abundantly'). In it I like best the GWPF description of the BEST coverage by Forbes - Breaking news the earth still goes around the sun and its still warming up. "This prejudiced, intolerant and inaccurate, (Forbes) article completely misrepresents sceptical views, and is a good example of the problem facing the debate about climate science within and without of the scientific community." -
Andy Skuce at 05:34 AM on 22 October 2011Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
Geo77@16 Yes, the negative sign of the UHI effect on global land temperatures, as noted by BEST, is counter-intuitive. Urban areas are unquestionably hotter than nearby rural areas and the growth of cities should, other things being equal, increase the contribution of the UHI effect on global temperatures over time. What's not surprising is that the UHI effect is very small, once the areal weighting of the urban weather stations is done properly. Urban areas, according to the MODIS analysis quoted in the BEST paper, only cover 0.5% of the the Earth's land area. And land only covers about 30% of the Earth's surface, so once ocean surface temperatures are included (which they are not, yet, in the BEST work), then we can expect even smaller UHI effects on global (land and sea) temperature trends. -
AlexS at 05:30 AM on 22 October 2011The BEST Kind of Skepticism
Pandas and People is at least explicable, as it was published by a creationist advocacy group. The Skeptical Environmentalist is also supposed to be excused because Cambridge published it under their popular books section. Elsevier, on the other hand, is a legit academic publisher. I have full online access to the textbook through my university subscription, and I've got to tell you this thing has left me speechless. It is literally a repackaging of various WUWT posts. -
Andy Skuce at 05:18 AM on 22 October 2011Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
Lassesson@2 What happened around 1865-1870 in figure 3 and where did the huge peak around 1880 come from? There were far fewer temperature stations in the mid 19th century and they were mostly concentrated in Europe and the eastern seaboard of N America. The higher global temperature variability observed at that time probably mostly arises from poor sampling. -
WheelsOC at 05:16 AM on 22 October 2011The BEST Kind of Skepticism
Alex, thanks for that. Everybody should check out the preview on the Science Direct site, or the Look Inside feature on Elsevier's page. Shades of Pandas and People. -
John Hartz at 05:15 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
@Sphaerica #177 The best I can do is to provide a link to a news release about the study posted on Oct 5, 2011 by the University of Zurich. -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:05 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
I'm not sure where Bugai's assertion that terrestrial biomass is CO2 neutral comes from (it's not substantiated). Pretty much everything I have read indicates otherwise. The DOE is researching ways to enhance sequestration by terrestrial biomass. The very fact that trees add mass from year to year demonstrates the non neutral aspect. If terrestrial biomass production truly is carbon neutral how could such tremendous quantities of carbon been stored in the ground during the carboniferous period? -
muoncounter at 04:59 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
bugai#138: "rate of increase in global atmospheric CO2 has dropped noticeably in years immediately following global recessions" USEIA provides emissions data; this report highlights emissions decrease in 2008 due to the recession. MLO reports annual increases in atmospheric CO2 in ppm: 2002-2005 all above +2ppm/yr; 2008 - +1.62, 2009 - +1.88. See also the 1991 drop in annual increase rate - the port Gulf War recession; 1981-1982 drop in rate following the Arab oil embargo. If we are not emitting this CO2, why does the atmospheric concentration follow economic activity? "diurnal changes are (i) local and (ii) too fast to equilibrate with anything. " So what? Atmospheric CO2 concentration, local or otherwise, increases with traffic density. Transportation is a significant percentage of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Where do you think that CO2 goes? -
AlexS at 04:56 AM on 22 October 2011The BEST Kind of Skepticism
This isn't strictly related, but I thought this would be of interest. Watts is now promoting Don Easterbrook's new academic textbook (!) on climate science: http://www.elsevierdirect.com/ISBN/9780123859563/EvidenceBased-Climate-Science http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9780123859563 As it turns out, Christopher Monckton is one of the contributors. -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:45 AM on 22 October 2011The BEST Kind of Skepticism
Another shining example of what R.P. Sr. calls Watts' "commitment to scientific robustness." There would be no significant difference if Muller used 30 years. If Watts thinks so, the data is right there to verify. Considering he took him years to even attempt the first data analysis to support his main premise, I'm not holding my breath. The paper will certainly pass peer-review because it is solid but will continue being attacked in the usual fashion. Hansen is most accurate describing these people as acting like lawyers, that's exactly what they do. There is hardly a minute spent on Watts' site that is not a complete waste of time. -
Bob Lacatena at 04:42 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
174, John Hartz, I can't find a free copy of the paper to download. Can you summarize the "environmental and biological controls" they reference? -
bugai at 04:34 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
To John: Sounds like a good research! -
Dikran Marsupial at 04:31 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
bugai wrote: "Dirkan, as I said, no further discussion until you put all your seven (?) arguments. It's your call. " Sorry, bulgai, as I said, a truth-seeker would just co-operate in the discussion. All you are achieving with this pointless posturing is highlighting the fact that you do not think you can refute the argument if it is presented step by step. Yet again you are just spinning it out a bit more by responding in a way that does not allow progress, as I said if you are finding the discussion slow and tiring, the solution is simple; just stop impeding it. -
Geo77 at 04:30 AM on 22 October 2011Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
Is it really counter-intuitive that urban areas would show slightly less of a warming trend when compared to rural areas? Lots of urban areas have been urban for many hundreds of years, pre-dating the temperature records. As such they may have as their temperature record starting point a somewhat elevated temperature relative to rural areas. This would then tend to diminish the upward trend of temps slightly, because they start from a slightly elevated baseline. -
John Hartz at 04:27 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Speaking of "terrestrial productivity," here's the summary of a new study that bears on this topic. Globally, soil organic matter (SOM) contains more than three times as much carbon as either the atmosphere or terrestrial vegetation. Yet it remains largely unknown why some SOM persists for millennia whereas other SOM decomposes readily—and this limits our ability to predict how soils will respond to climate change. Recent analytical and experimental advances have demonstrated that molecular structure alone does not control SOM stability: in fact, environmental and biological controls predominate. Here we propose ways to include this understanding in a new generation of experiments and soil carbon models, thereby improving predictions of the SOM response to global warming. Michael W. I. Schmidt, Margaret S. Torn, Samuel Abiven, Thorsten Dittmar, Georg Guggenberger, Ivan A. Janssens, Markus Kleber, Ingrid Kögel-Knabner, Johannes Lehmann, David A. C. Manning, Paolo Nannipieri, Daniel P. Rasse, Steve Weiner & Susan E. Trumbore: Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property, in: Nature, 6 October, 2011, DOI: 10.1038/nature10386 -
bugai at 04:25 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Dirkan, as I said, no further discussion until you put all your seven (?) arguments. It's your call.Moderator Response: The proper spelling is "Dikran". Please take note of that. -
Daniel Bailey at 04:22 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
@ Dikran Perhaps, Dikran, perhaps. But then, given the proper usage of the colloquial express "Gosh" by bugai in 164 above, perhaps we have something else entirely. -
WheelsOC at 04:13 AM on 22 October 2011The BEST Kind of Skepticism
Yesterday, in an update to the post, Watts was trying to head people off at the pass from declaring his reaction inconsistent by highlighting the clause where he said his acceptance depended on BEST following the proper scientific method. He's using the pre-publication media announcements as an excuse to back out on that, and unfortunately nobody who takes Watts seriously as a source of climate insight is going to look any further than that. Apparently it never occurred to Watts to take BEST's freely available data and apply the methods of his choosing to second-guess their results, instead focusing on how the research is being shown off. He's literally using style as an excuse to ignore substance. This is totally consistent with his reaction to Muller's testimony before Congress about the preliminary findings, but still inconsistent with his earlier declaration that hinged on methodology rather than publicity. While Watts continues to live down to my expectations, I'm a little surprised and disappointed at RPSr.'s response. Surely he can do better than that. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:12 AM on 22 October 2011The BEST Kind of Skepticism
I'm really glad the BEST team has turned out to be good scientists. It was conceivable (though unlikely) that their results could have shown something different than the other data sets. It would have been pretty earth-shaking if the data had turned out higher OR lower. That would have cemented their team in the annals of science. That's a pretty strong incentive to do the work and get it right. It's fascinating, though not unexpected, that they got nearly identical results. And not just identical results with the temperature series but identical results with regards to the UHI effect. Is this going to quell the debate at WUWT? Unlikely. But now they clearly are placing themselves in the arena of what can properly be termed "denial." -
pbjamm at 04:11 AM on 22 October 2011The BEST Kind of Skepticism
Well, saying you will accept the results of a scientific study is only an issue if you are unwilling to follow where the science leads. With Watts now fishing for any excuse to dismiss the results it is pretty clear he is not willing to do so. His sudden insistence that peer review is vitally important (though crooked!) is a fine example of this. I also find the skeptic reliance on HadCRU to prove the earth is not warming while simultaneously insisting that Climategate proved Hadley cooked the books to be delicious irony. -
Bob Lacatena at 04:10 AM on 22 October 2011The BEST Kind of Skepticism
7, Paul D, Yes! What is most important about this is not actually the confirmation of temperature rises (that was a shocker... hmph). What is most important is that skeptics now look foolish, and their reactions to events are making them look even more foolish. Their faux-credibility crumbles with every whine and sneer. -
CBDunkerson at 04:08 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Indeed, it is interesting that Bugai bails at step 4... as acceptance of that "elementary math" combined with his own previous statements the natural sources and sinks are not in balance and that the increase in concentration can be no more than the human emissions would perforce lead to the conclusion that human emissions are entirely responsible for the increase in concentration. -
Paul D at 04:04 AM on 22 October 2011The BEST Kind of Skepticism
Looking around the comments in the media outlets, a lot of skeptics are just ignoring Mullers output and continue with their own 'theories'. The more this goes on, the more that the loyal skeptics appear to be conspiracy nutters in really deep denial about the world around them. -
NewYorkJ at 03:57 AM on 22 October 2011The BEST Kind of Skepticism
Isn't this the height of irony? "They have all contacted me regarding the release of papers from BEST today. There’s only one problem: Not one of the BEST papers have completed peer review. Nor has one has been published in a journal to my knowledge, nor is the one paper I’ve been asked to comment on in press at JGR, (where I was told it was submitted) yet BEST is making a “pre-peer review” media blitz." "Apparently, PR trumps the scientific process now, no need to do that pesky peer review, no need to address the errors with those you ask for comments prior to publication, just get it to press." Surely Watts adheres to the strict standard of waiting until his work is complete, peer-reviewed, and published before talking to the media... http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/02/09/john-lott-joseph-daleo-climate-change-noaa-james-hansen/ http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/26/climate-data-compromised-by-heat-sources/ http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/02/archaic-weather-network-run-with-volunteers/ I do agree that focusing on accurately covering published peer-reviewed work is a good idea. Where would that leave Watts? -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:49 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
I should just add, nobody would be more pleased that I if bugai were able to identify a flaw in the argument. -
Bob Lacatena at 03:42 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
bugai, Your withdrawal at this point will be viewed as a tacit admission that you have realized that your position is untenable, and that a very simple and painless, step by step walk through the mathematics that demonstrates this will force you to admit your error. Rather than do so, you bristle, obfuscate, and then retreat in a huff. -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:42 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
bugai, I presented the fourth step, had you behaved better it would have taken us a total of seven posts to get to that point, four from me, three from you. Now if you have found the discussion tiring, perhaps you should ask youself why there were more than seven posts and why you didn't simply write "I agree" each time if each step were merely "elementary maths". The fact that you have left the discussion at this point, when you were very nearly at the conclusion, speaks volumes. -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:39 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Daniel, I suspect it may be a second language issue, it is possible that bugai's comment was not quite what was intended. bugai, the difference is that I disagreed after you had stated your argument, where as you have stated that you will disagree before I have stated my argument. This is possibly not what you meant. However, I would suggest that you drop the abrasive tone, it doesn't tend to go down to well here, calm rational discussion is better appreciated. -
bugai at 03:37 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Sorry, Dikran. Somehow I understand why other "skeptics" did not withstand you. Apparently, I went three steps further then they did, and I have enough. I have no time to discuss the elementary math with you. You have to put all the chain of your arguments at once if you wish any further discussion. Sorry for that!
Prev 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 Next
