Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 Next
Comments 77151 to 77200:
-
Dale at 07:36 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Excuse me, but being precise is trolling? I've had other people in this very thread "correct" me as I wasn't precise, yet when a "sceptic" does it it's trolling? If we want to look at isotopes, is it correct to say that human emissions contain a higher ratio of C12 to C13? Since in fossil fuels C14 and C13 breakdown over time to combinations of methane, nitrogen and C12. Is it also fair to say that around 85% of plant life "prefers" the lighter isotope of C12 over C13 (it's well documented that the ratio of C13 in these plants is lower than atmospheric ratio of C13). Thus even though the C12/C13 ratio of human emissions is different to the natural C12/C13 ratio, the increased amount of C12 would be "preferred" by these plants. So that would imply that these plants "eat" human CO2 at a faster rate. Of course, this has been observed with the faster growth of C3 plants over C4 and CAM plants.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Precision ought to be tempered by common sense. Common sense should have told you that I didn't mean natural uptake took up the same molecules of CO2 that had been released that year by natural sources. I suggest we leave the isotpic arguments until later. Pedantry is often used by trolls to avoid addressing the substantive issues and obuscate the discussion. It is a good idea to ask if the meaning is not clear so that honest precision is not confused for trolling (it also facilitates the discussion of the substantive issues). -
Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale - As he has noted, Dikran is well aware that what remains in the air is not just anthropogenic CO2, but rather a mix of CO2 from anthropogenic, biological, and natural chemical sources. Again, though, it's the amount of CO2 in the increase, in ppm - that's what is important. You are making semantic/rhetorical points of no scientific import. If you claim it's an error that invalidates the mass balance discussion, I would consider you to be either sadly misdirected or deliberately disingenuous. If it makes you comfortable, insert the phrase "an amount equal to" before every CO2 amount, as in: Dikran - "That "bit more" has averaged about half of an amount equal to anthropogenic emissions" -- Dikran - There are some differences, in that isotopic uptake of plants differs between various carbon weights, and anthropogenic carbon has a different isotopic mix than stuff in the biological side of the carbon cycle. That's useful for tracking purposes. But yes, Dale is either quite confused or trolling.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Yes, the point about the isotptic differences is correct (but I didn't want to overly complicate things). I am interested to see how Dale will answer my most recent question. -
Dikran Marsupial at 06:53 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale wrote: "Nature is responsible in ratio between E_n and E_a, so in the example above, 70% whilst humans are responsible for 30%." So you are saying that in that year the natural environment caused 70% of the rise of 15 units of atmospheric CO2 that happened that year, even though it took 15 units of CO2 out of the atmosphere more than it put in? Hint: The natural environment is responsible for 100% of the uptake and we are responsible for (essentially) 0% of it. -
Dale at 06:43 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
KR, Dikran stated that ALL natural emission are removed and half of human emissions remain, which is just simply not true. Unless you are claiming that natural sinks can discern between natural and human carbon in the air and prioritise natural carbon over human carbon.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] It should have been obvious that I was talking about amounts of CO2, not the molecules themselves, that would be absurd. There is no mechanism by which the sinks differentiate between anthropogenic CO2 and natural CO2, nor is there a mechanism to differntiate between natural CO2 emitted last year and this, which would also be required under your misinterpretation! -
Dale at 06:41 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Nature is responsible in ratio between E_n and E_a, so in the example above, 70% whilst humans are responsible for 30%. -
Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale - You are making the classic Ship of Theseus error, confusing components with structure, or in this case amounts. An amount of CO2 equal to about half of anthropogenic emissions remains in the atmosphere. It doesn't matter whether those are all anthropogenically produced molecules, decayed plant matter, exchanges with the ocean, etc. - it's the amount that matters when discussing climate. To quote Heroclitus - "Ever-newer waters flow on those who step into the same rivers." Yet you still get just as wet... -
Dikran Marsupial at 06:35 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale So how much of the rise in atmospheric CO2 is the natural environment responsible for in your example? -
Dale at 06:26 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Okay let's look at it via numbers. Say for argument, E_n is 70 and E_a is 30. This makes a total of 100 E. Thus since we know on average ~50% of E_a is taken up, U_n must be 85 (E_n + (0.5 * E_a)). However due to mixture E_n and E_a are removed in ratio, unless you claim U_n is intelligent enough to discern the difference and remove all of E_n first. Thus by the numbers above, 85% of E_a is removed, and 85% of E_n is removed, which leaves total remaining E of 15 (0.85 * (70 + 30)) made up of 10.5 E_n and 4.5 E_a. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:08 AM on 17 August 2011Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
I should hold my tongue, but I put a lot of effort going through Postma's first paper (this is his second) and arguing with him on a denial site. It sounds like this paper is much like the first. That first spent page after page teaching standard climate science as if he had developed and derived it himself, while also constantly adding the words "thermodynamics," because that was his main contention, that simple thermodynamics explained everything without the greenhouse effect. Of course, the first funny thing was that for all he used the word "thermodynamics" over and over, he never actually applied much thermodynamics. He just started sentences with the phrase "Thermodynamics says that" followed by whatever point he wanted to a priori declare to be an unassailable truth. What was really amazing, though, was that all of those pages really watered down to two paragraphs where he "developed" the equation for an adiabatic lapse rate using gravity. He then substituted the actual observed lapse rate and tried to work downwards from the altitude with an average atmospheric temperature of 255K to the surface, which was magically (Ta da!) 288K, which "proved" that gravity caused all warming, not the greenhouse effect. The flaws in this are legion, but the main flaw was the bit of sleight of hand which allowed him to effectively prove that 2 + 2 = 4, and therefore 4 - 2 = 2, and therefore the greenhouse effect doesn't exist. All he did was to take observations of the temperatures at the surface and 5,000 ft, apply a linear equation created based on those observations, and then declare that since the equation computed the proper temperature of the surface by plugging in the temperature at 5,000 feet, then the greenhouse effect does not exist because the equation (and gravity!) explained all. It was simple insanity wrapped in a huge, complicated bow of "thermodynamics" and basic climate theory that had been developed by other people, but helped to make his presentation look brilliant and scientific. I can't bring myself to read his latest travesty. I'll let Chris do so, and laugh at the denial twits who think they're onto something. -
Dikran Marsupial at 06:07 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale wrote "I'll come back to that at the end of the steps. ;)" No, we had better deal with it now. If you disagree with that statement it means you must have misunderstood a previous step. If U_n > E_n it means that natural uptake was sufficient to take up all of the natural emissions for that year, as well as a bit more. That "bit more" has averaged about half of anthropogenic emissions. If you disagree with that, you need to explain your position. -
muoncounter at 06:06 AM on 17 August 2011Climate's changed before
That's one heck of a 'natural cycle!' And for those who accept that increasing temperature is necessary for increasing CO2 (the Salby effect), the 'its cooling' meme is blown. -
Dale at 05:58 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
@rustneversleeps, Unfortunately, Dale does. ;) @Dikran "U_n > E_n means that the natural uptake removes ALL of the natural emissions as well as ~50% of human emissions." I'll come back to that at the end of the steps. ;) But yes, sinks have removed more than the natural cycle puts in. -
dhogaza at 05:41 AM on 17 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
Well, it's OT but I can't resist ...unless I see rain on the radar
You don't see rain on the radar, you see rain on a false-color image generated by a model that interprets data returned by doppler radar ... -
Mythago at 04:27 AM on 17 August 2011Greenhouse Gas: It's not just about CO2
Second comment of the day. I have now revised several points to clarify and correct as has been advised to me by my friends. Hope it reads better than it did. Kev C -
Paul D at 03:52 AM on 17 August 2011Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
I'm not sure I agree with you Marco. But that is another topic. -
rustneversleeps at 03:48 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Crickets. -
DSL at 03:47 AM on 17 August 2011Climate's changed before
Good grief, DB, where did you get the second graph? I don't recall having seen it. That is almost painful.Response:[DB] I collect 'em, like Imelda Marcos does shoes...
-
Chris Colose at 03:31 AM on 17 August 2011Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect Part 2
I am open to that possibility...but Joe Postma is now posting comments on Judith Curry´s blog, and the quality of the comments are slowly making me a skeptic, or perhaps even a ¨denier¨ of that possibility. -
Marco at 03:29 AM on 17 August 2011Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect Part 2
Chris, I am going to disagree with your next to last sentence. Yes, it is wrong, but I am not sure it was intended to confuse casual readers. Let's accept the possibility that Joseph E. Postma simply does not have the intellectual ability to really understand what he is doing. The stupid, it sometimes hurts, but it really exists (I could show you a paper in which essentially nothing is right, most of which the author did not understand when I pointed it out (it actually got published in an otherwise reasonable journal (IF 2.8)). We'll have to live with people who seriously and honestly believe they are right, regardless of everything and everyone pointing out their errors. Their intentions may not be nefarious, they are just spectacularly wrong. -
CBDunkerson at 03:18 AM on 17 August 2011Climate's changed before
Fitz, there is an IPCC graph which shows different records overlapping. However, demonstrating that they align wasn't its intended purpose so the resolution is low and the records aren't all identified. The red is atmospheric, the green looks like it is probably Law Dome, and the purple must be Vostok. In any case, see the How reliable are CO2 measurements? page for more info.Response:[DB] There is this one; I'll look for others:
This one, showing the departure from the natural range of CO2, is a jaw-dropper:
To paraphrase the Bard: The Rate's the Thing...
-
Marco at 03:04 AM on 17 August 2011Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
This reminds me of how the electronic structure of atoms is taught: start with the Bohr model. Simple, elegant...but in essence wrong. It's just a better starting point than quantum mechanics and having to discuss orbitals, probabilities, and all that from the start. -
Mythago at 03:03 AM on 17 August 2011Greenhouse Gas: It's not just about CO2
The above posting is still being reviewed by a couple of my friends. They have picked me up on one or two punctuation errors, a couple of bad syntax errors and a few modifications that could make it more informative without much alteration. Aside from that I am still working on a follow up article with some further ideas as well as trying to present a more informative viewpoint to the everyday population who simply don't have time to read masses of technical and scientific data. So over the next couple of days I intend to edit the article to correct the oversights. Anyone who has seen a glaring mistake or thinks I could improve a point or two then please feel free to comment. Regards Kev C -
pbjamm at 02:45 AM on 17 August 2011Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
'Of course, this is never done in climate modeling or in more detailed analyses appropriate for scholarly literature, so it is more an exercise in complaining about undergraduate education than an attempt to correct what he calls a “paradigm” in climatology.' This made me laugh out loud. A great summary of the hard work of knocking down straw men. -
dana1981 at 01:40 AM on 17 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
"The short term forcasts for my area have been so miserably wrong that unless I see rain on the radar, I discount it."
Bastardi is probably Camburn's weatherman :-) The accuracy of models is off-topic here. As DSL suggests, if you want to argue about that, please take it to the "models aren't reliable" page. -
Dikran Marsupial at 01:12 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale you have missed an important point. It isn't just that the natural sinks remove ~50% of human emissions. U_n > E_n means that the natural uptake removes ALL of the natural emissions as well as ~50% of human emissions. The remaining ~50% of anthropogenic emissions is what has been causing atmospheric concentrations to rise. Back to the step by step: You agree that for the last fifty years natural uptake has exceeded natural emissions (U_n > E_n). Do you agree that this means that the natural carbon cycle has consistently opposed the rise in atmospheric CO2 as in each of the last fifty years it has taken more CO2 out of the atmosphere than it has put in? -
Fitz1309 at 01:10 AM on 17 August 2011Climate's changed before
I've recently come across a number of arguments suggesting that the ice core CO2 measurements are inaccurate as they can be contaminated or only show CO2 concentrations in one location etc. Is there any charts that show the data of the various ice core datasets laid over each other to demonstrate that they are in agreement with each other as you wouldn't expect the same problems to occur at exactly the same time periods at different locations around the world. Cheers -
DSL at 00:37 AM on 17 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
So you produce a model based on observation. The model outcome predicts that whatever the meteorologist says, the result will be the opposite. You act on this model by discounting the forecast completely. You then apply another model. You check the radar and use your proprietary software to predict the chance of rain. You then act on the model by carrying or not carrying your umbrella. I wonder how often your models are correct. 100%? 90%? Why don't you peruse the "Models aren't reliable" page to see how accurate temp modeling can be? This is entirely on-topic, since Bastardi uses models to predict short-term weather but denies that models will work for long-term climate. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 00:22 AM on 17 August 2011What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
BP's comment seems on topic to me. His question is "How much of the climate difference between the Pliocene and today is due to the closure of the former Panama seaway?" Step one in answering the question: find out how global ocean circulation changed. BP found a good 1998 paper on that. Next step: integrate this with modern climate models. Closure of the Panama Seaway during the Pliocene: implications for climate and Northern Hemisphere glaciation from ten years later is a good start.Abstract/Summary The "Panama Hypothesis" states that the gradual closure of the Panama Seaway, between 13 million years ago (13 Ma) and 2.6 Ma, led to decreased mixing of Atlantic and Pacific water Masses, the formation of North Atlantic Deep water and strengthening of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation, increased temperatures and evaporation in the North Atlantic, increased precipitation in Northern Hemisphere (NH) high latitudes, culminating in the intensification of Northern Hemisphere Glaciation (NHG) during the Pliocene, 3.2-2.7 Ma. Here we test this hypothesis using a fully coupled, fully dynamic ocean-atmosphere general circulation model (GCM) with boundary conditions specific to the Pliocene, and a high resolution dynamic ice sheet model. We carry out two GCM simulations with "closed" and "open" Panama Seaways, and use the simulated climatologies to force the ice sheet model. We find that the models support the "Panama Hypothesis" in as much as the closure of the seaway results in a more intense Atlantic thermohaline circulation, enhanced precipitation over Greenland and North America, and ultimately larger ice sheets. However, the volume difference between the ice sheets in the "closed" and "open" configurations is small, equivalent to about 5 cm of sea level. We conclude that although the closure of the Panama Seaway may have slightly enhanced or advanced the onset of NHG, it was not a major forcing mechanism. Future work must fully couple the ice sheet model and GCM, and investigate the role of orbital and CO2 effects in controlling NHG.
The next step is to look at papers that cite this one, using google scholar. -
CBDunkerson at 00:22 AM on 17 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
Camburn, while it is true that there are details of climate change impacts which cannot be proven, that does not change the fact that the overall framework and rough range of climate impacts presented by the IPCC and various other scientific organizations would ALL be admissable in court... while NONE of the rants and delusions of internet 'skeptics' would be. In the United States the determinant is the 'Daubert standard', which requires (among other things) that any scientific testimony be limited to matters which have undergone peer review and are widely accepted by the relevant scientific community. Only a handful of 'skeptic' claims meet the peer review requirement, and literally NONE of them meet the 'widely accepted' requirement. However, the fact that 'skeptic' 'science' would be inadmissable in court isn't really what I was getting at. Rather, I was going for the much simpler concept of 'testimony under oath'... which would preclude, or introduce penalties for, the many blatantly false things which 'skeptics' like Bastardi and Salby have been saying. To take your example... a climate scientist saying what they think will happen based on a model would never be perjury. It might even be admissable as scientific evidence (that is, to be considered scientifically established as opposed to just the individual's view) if it was solidly grounded. On the other hand, Bastardi explaining that 'the greenhouse effect violates the first law of thermodynamics' is provably false. There is no way he could get away with that in court. -
John Chapman at 00:15 AM on 17 August 2011Soil Carbon in the Australian Political Debate (Part 1 of 2)
How nice to read a description of what soil carbon refers to. Having read the oppositions document titled 'Direct Action' there was no description of what the method entailed. There was no suggestion as to how farmers or whoever would be paid for the capture of carbon, presumably other than by some form of extra tax - perhaps a carbon tax? -
Camburn at 00:14 AM on 17 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
DSL: Kinda off topic, but I will respond. NO, I do not take my umbrella with me. The short term forcasts for my area have been so miserably wrong that unless I see rain on the radar, I discount it. Forcast......no rain...it rains. Forcast........rain..it doesn't rain.Moderator Response: [Albatross] Yes it is off topic, additionally, your subjective, unsubstantiated assertions concerning the accuracy of weather forecasts for the Dakotas is very likely incorrect. Please limit your posts to discussing which of Basatrdi's assertions you either agree or disagree with. -
DSL at 23:57 PM on 16 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
Indeed, Camburn--that court theory you have is awful. Most of what happens in a court is based on probability and psychology (and often a kind of pseudo-psychology). Good grief, the doubt game again Camburn? Let's say Bastardi gives you a 70% chance for rain tomorrow. Do you take your umbrella with you? -
Camburn at 23:51 PM on 16 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
DB: What I wrote is true. You are smart enough to know this.Response:[DB] Camburn, whether I am smart or not is debatable. The individual components of climate science you lump-sum question are better discussed on the individual threads (many exist) which address them.
This thread is about Bastardi's "challenges" in accepting and presenting the science of climate change to the masses.
-
Camburn at 23:19 PM on 16 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
Throught history climate has varied considerably. We do not really know all the causes of this. Some may think they know, but in reality, it is unknown. TSI reconstructions have huge variations depending on the author. I see charts on here that are totally different than other charts written by scientists that are very qualified and think their chart is the correct one. I don't remember the author of the series on ocean PH, but it was an excellent series. Well presented. This is a valid concern that really can not be disputed. That would stand up in court. The other items of AGW would not.Response:[DB] "Throught history climate has varied considerably. We do not really know all the causes of this. Some may think they know, but in reality, it is unknown."
You offer unsupported opinion and conjecture only in your spreading of memes. You may deny what the literature and the state of the science state, but that doesn't change the fact that you do it without scientific basis.
Thus the denial.
Ultimately, this is going far off-topic. If you wish to "debate" minutiae, please do it on relevant threads, not this one.
-
dhogaza at 23:18 PM on 16 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
Camburn: "A model can't be used in court to project as that is something that may happen in the future, the different outcomes of the different models shows that it is a crap shoot. You can't prosecute someone for disagreeing what "may" happen in the future." People have been successfully prosecuted for negligently transmitting HIV based on the fact that the recipient *may* fall victim to AIDS in the future. Despite different models showing different risks of infection as a consequence of unprotected intercourse because we can't pin the risk down precisely, etc etc. I do hope your knowledge of science is better than your knowledge of law ... -
Camburn at 23:13 PM on 16 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
DB: Not a goalpost shift at all. Most of warnings of AGW are based on model outcomes. Most of the warnings are temperature related, which are based on model outcomes. The temp response is based on sensativity, which is still all over the place and I do not feel anyone really knows which number is the "correct" number. I think the crux of the whole of AGW should be based on PH of the oceans, the effects of lowering ph. This is documented, the cause well understood and incontrovertable.Response:[DB] Yes indeed it was a goalpost shift, for the reasons I stated. Deniers and denialists to this day, like Bastardi, deny measurable metrics of climate change. That is the point CBD was making. Broadening it is a goalpost shift.
-
Dale at 23:12 PM on 16 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
For the sake of the lesson I will retain questions till the end. But yes, we'd already concluded above that natural sinks remove on average ~50% of human emissions (as shown in the above graph). -
Camburn at 22:38 PM on 16 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
CBDunkerson: I agree, it should go to court. A model can't be used in court to project as that is something that may happen in the future, the different outcomes of the different models shows that it is a crap shoot. You can't prosecute someone for disagreeing what "may" happen in the future.Response:[DB] Nice goalpost shift, dragging models into the picture. CBD was referring to actual measurable and verifiable metrics, as you well know. Forcing reality to contort itself to the skeptics paradigm would entail violating nature and spacetime itself.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 22:15 PM on 16 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale Great, so we agree that if E_a > dC then we know that U_n > E_n. Lets look at the data. In the plot below, the blue line shows annual anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel use and land use changes; the red line shows the annual change in atmospheric CO2 calculated from the obsevations made at Mauna Loa. All three datasets are available from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre. The green line shows the inferred difference between natural emissions (E_n) and natural uptake (U_n). Note the plot is labelled a little differently such that dC = C', F_a = E_a, F_i = E_n and F_e = U_n.
Do you agree that E_a > dC for every year of the last fifty years (at least until 2006), and hence we know that for the last fifty years U_n > E_n?
-
Dale at 21:56 PM on 16 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
And equally valid, if E_a < dC then the right is also +, as well as if E_a == dC then the right is also 0. -
CBDunkerson at 21:01 PM on 16 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
The problem with the 'wind' explanation is that the average concentration of the ice pack is currently at an all time low of about 57%. Meaning that the wind forces which sometimes (e.g. 2007) act to create a low extent by causing the ice to 'bunch up' in a smaller area are less in evidence now than at any prior point in the satellite record. Basically, we've got a near record low extent even though the ice is more spread out than it has ever been before... because there is so much LESS ice. However, that won't stop the 'skeptics'. A few years ago the predominate argument they made was that the ice was NOT retreating. Indeed, it was 'recovering'. As that has become more and more obviously ridiculous I've seen an increasing tendency to go with, 'Oh, this is nothing special. We expected this all along. Just a natural cycle. Cycle of what? Well... nature. Duh!' Which is why the 'debate' idea for dealing with them doesn't usually work so well. They just go in and say nonsensical things and stick to them in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Yes, people thinking logically can then see how ridiculous their arguments are... but as we have seen in 'discussions' with 'skeptics' here, there are plenty of people who will respond to complete nonsense with approval of its unquestionable accuracy. Any venue where 'skeptics' are able to make things up with impunity will fail to win over the dedicated disbelievers. All they need is some shred of an argument for why what they want to believe must be right and they will hold to that even in the face of incontrovertible proof to the contrary. We've all seen it. That is why I keep saying these issues need to go to court. Put them in an environment where they are required to tell the truth and 'skeptics' have NOTHING to support their claims. -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:00 PM on 16 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale Glad we agree so far. So following from dC - E_a = E_n - U_n we can work out the difference between E_n and U_n without knowing anything about the values of E_n and U_n, provided we know dC and E_a. Specifically, if we know that the left hand side is negative (i.e. E_a > dC) then the right hand side must also be negative (i.e. U_n > E_n). Do you agree with this? p.s. sorry got subscripts wrong, should be fixed now. -
Dale at 20:52 PM on 16 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Yes I agree, it's a simple algebraic statement that the annual change less what we throw up there, is representative of the natural cycle. -
dorlomin at 20:45 PM on 16 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
Id be curious as to how the great professor Bastardi thinks that clouds keep the surface warmer at night without violating the first law of thermodynamics. -
dorlomin at 20:42 PM on 16 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
"Ice in the arctic could come close to an extent as low as 2007, with record low volume. What will Bastardi and others say then? A 'Natural variation'? " Wind, they say the wind is melting the ice. -
newcrusader at 20:26 PM on 16 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
When will the Public in the USA, as well as in AU- and elsewhere begin to ignore Fox and the likes of Bastardi? From my perspective- what do we need to see with dangerous violent weather to convince these deniers? Ice in the arctic could come close to an extent as low as 2007, with record low volume. What will Bastardi and others say then? A 'Natural variation'? -
alan_marshall at 19:32 PM on 16 August 2011Soil Carbon in the Australian Political Debate (Part 1 of 2)
Matt Holden @8 Along with Malcolm Turnbull, Greg Hunt is one of the few members of the Opposition to accept climate science. I praise them both for defending it. As climate action spokesman, Hunt’s task is not easy. After Tony Abbot overturned the Opposition’s previous bipartisan support for an emissions trading scheme, he had the unenviable job of stitching together a politically plausible alternative with inadequate funding. Hence the emphasis on soil carbon offsets, which Hunt believes he can acquire cheaply. I believe he has seriously underestimated the cost of the permanent sequestration of CO2 in agricultural soils, something I will explain in detail in Part 2. In the meantime, you might be interested that in his written response to me, Hunt stated: I would also note that soil carbon has traded at $1 per tonne in the United States. If Hunt thinks this figure means anything, he is sadly out of touch. He is quoting the US voluntary market, which has no fixed rules, and therefore nothing on which to fix a value. The Republicans, ideological allies of our Opposition, blocked Obama’s attempt to put a price on carbon. As a consequence, the voluntary market collapsed. The credits sold at $1 per tonne were dumped on the market at a fraction of their cost of production. -
Dikran Marsupial at 19:19 PM on 16 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale Thanks for engaging with the exercise, much appreciated. So we can re-express the conservation of mass by writing dC = E_a + E_n - U_n where dC is the annual increase in atmospheric CO2, E_a is annual emissions from anthropogenic sources (fossil fuel use and land use changes), E_n is total annual emissions from all natural sources and U_n is total annual uptake of CO2 by all natural sinks. This should be uncontraversial as it is merely a restatement of the first step in algebraic terms. Next, subtracting E_a from both sides, we have dC - E_a = E_n - U_n Do you agree that this is correct? -
Sceptical Wombat at 15:28 PM on 16 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
Debates are not a particularly good way of discussing science. If one debater feels free to invent facts as he goes along and the other feels constrained to stick to what she knows to be true then the former will almost certainly win the debate. However if anyone does feel inclined to debate any of the "skeptics" I suggest they read http://scientistscitizens.wordpress.com/maslin-v-morano-the-full-analysis/ first. -
skywatcher at 15:04 PM on 16 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale, everything you say is 'hypothetically speaking', 'speculating', 'maybe' or 'could', and none of it is backed up with evidence. Hypothetically speaking, some hitherto unknown natural cycle could drive rapid warming since the Industrial Revolution. Hypothetically speaking, faries could live at the bottom of my garden, too. Until you, or Salby, or anyone else can provide evidence for these magic natural cycles driving the rapid 20th Century warming, they remain merely fairies at the bottom of the garden. Scientifically, nothing you or Salby has said troubles climate science in the slightest, which can already explain very well the recent warming and its attendant variations.
Prev 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 Next
