Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 Next
Comments 77201 to 77250:
-
muoncounter at 10:58 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale#93: "I still ask, " Look it up. Posing a variety of questions just to give the impression that there is doubt is a FauxNews tactic. That wouldn't be skeptical. And do not suggest corruption; that violates the CP. -
Ken E at 10:49 AM on 17 August 2011Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect Part 2
Briefly glancing over the paper, i am reminded of a pasty fat nerdy-looking boy i once worked with who's parents likened him to the next Einstein. He had a remarkable gift for stringing together esoteric verbiage in his observations that dumbfounded a lot of the doctors in the facility. When they decided to test the child's actual aptitude they were surprised to find he scored quite low. And not to be a jerk but i saw that coming a mile away. The poor child was trying to use a false image of intellect to compensate for what had to be a horrible self-image in all other respects. The gimmick was people's verbal comprehension couldn't follow the onslaught of vocabulary words to recognize that he was really just spouting gibberish. His words could be strung together in a verb-follows-noun grammatical sense but they were never actually articulating any sort of logical point. He'd just kind of spout nonsense and act like he was operating at a level of sophistication mere mortals couldn't ever hope to understand and no one was the wiser. But ask him to solve a simple logic or math problem and he wasn't going to get anywhere. Point is, this guy MIGHT just be pulling a similar stunt. He jumps on known approximations for being flawed because well, they're approximations, then sticks in other concepts that seem so esoteric but don't actually apply, all the while throwing dense technical words together that don't actually add up to anything then foams at the mouth about violating laws of thermal dynamics. The guy is a [-snip-] trying to pass himself off as an emerging world authority who's exposed that everyone else is wrong. -
Dale at 10:48 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
muoncounter,Its also valid to speculate that the UN might be inflating the numbers too, but we should focus on the science and not potential corruption in those two bodies.I still ask, is a single value used to represent all power stations, or do they use all stations reported emissions?Response:[DB] "Its also valid to speculate that the UN might be inflating the numbers too"
Not here, not on this blog, not by you or anywho; not on my watch. Not gonna happen. Next time comment goesa bye-bye. Capiche?
Cf. Comments Policeeya.
-
Dale at 10:44 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Phillipe, I didn't include Loy Yangs CCS in the 500 GT/GW/year calculation, I based it on the full 1.1 GT/year figure. And yes Toms point that E_a offsets U_n which leaves some of natural CO2 in the air. -
owl905 at 10:29 AM on 17 August 2011Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect Part 2
The pro-pollutionist camp produces an endless supply of fractured science arguments. Co-incidentally with Postma squeezing strawman and quadratic equations into one package, the Galileo Group is running a parallel diversion. They've revived the nonsense about 'CO2 is not a Greenhouse Gas'. That got Sciam's attention: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-carbon-dioxide-is-greenhouse-gas Ever notice how Science wins every battle, and still loses the war?Moderator Response: [Sph] Converted inline link. -
Philippe Chantreau at 10:22 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale's last argument is feeble. CO2 CRC shows only 4 operational captures and 1 operational storage in Australia. My guess is that this number is likely to be even lower in China and India. The chance that it makes a substantial difference is close enough to zero to be ignored. I also think Tom Curtis has a good point in post #81 above. -
owl905 at 10:20 AM on 17 August 2011Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
He should write peace treaties.Response:[DB] Because this Postma doesn't deliver...?
-
Tor B at 10:12 AM on 17 August 2011OA not OK part 16: Omega
A few weeks ago I was asking about the CCD - Carbonate Compensation Depth. A website (thanks Google) connects this discussion (OA not OK #16) of CaCO3 solubility in the water column with the response of calcarious remains settling towards the bottom. Shells start to dissolve wherever Ω drops below 1 (the “lysocline”), and at a certain undersaturation (Ω =~.65 & .75 - Atlantic & Pacific) virtually all CaCO3 tests will actually dissolve (the CCD). Deposits of shells or coral on the ocean floor will begin to dissolve when the lysocline and CCD moves upward (due to OA) as long as the deposits are not protected from undersaturated fluids. From the link above: "the ocean's ability to take up atmospheric pCO2 is influenced by the balance of production and dissolution of calcium carbonate, and lifting or lowering the CCD has important consequences on the short and long term variations of CO2 in the atmosphere." Ominous - OA is definitely not OK! -
muoncounter at 10:09 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale#89: "complexity of the carbon cycle is not that simple in reality," Makes no difference: Look at the seasonal range of atmospheric CO2; at MLO, it's a range of about 6ppm from peak to trough. This hasn't changed much:
That's your natural cycle. Nothing in that cycle explains the increase from ~310 ppm to more than 390 ppm in under 50 years. If there were only natural cycles at work, we would see the seasonal and not the trend.
"if the actual human emissions are less than the estimated amount,"
You're speculating once again; you really don't produce any evidence that this is a significant concern. There are people who do this for a living; have you looked into their work? It will take a lot more than a generic 'if' -- it makes just as much sense to speculate that polluters under-report their emissions.
-
Dale at 09:43 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
In terms of the evidence presented in this thread, the cause is human emissions. But I do proviso that statement with "in terms of the evidence in this thread". The complexity of the carbon cycle is not that simple in reality, and the calculation methods of levels of emission and intake do raise some questions. For instance, how are human emissions calculated? In the link you provided above they state that they use UN energy reports. I ask what values they use to calculate emissions, because every coal plant is different in emission amount by a huge variance. As an example, two of my local power stations (near Melbourne) produce 1.4 GT/year in a 1600GW plant and 1.1 GT/year in a 2200GW plant. Obviously, emissions per GW is hugely different between these plants. Also, does the calculation take into consideration any CCS deployed at the plants? The 2200GW plant (Loy Yang A) uses algae CCS technology to reduce the 1.1 GT/year by around half (though admittedly the technology is still in testing and only operates about half the year for the last ten years). But you can see my point. If for example the calculation puts an arbitrary 875 GT/GW/year (the Hazelwood value) it does not represent at all the Loy Yang A calculation which ends up at 500 GT/GW/year. Does the human emission calculation take these things into consideration, or is it a calculation based on some arbitrary universal figure? This is important, because if the actual human emissions are less than the estimated amount, it throws a lot of other calculations out of whack, such as human impact on climate, temperature change, etc. Which also brings questions on how the natural in and out figures are calculated. How accurate to reality are they? -
Alexandre at 09:32 AM on 17 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
Hey, there's a cool prediction from Bastardi on this Climate Denial Crock of the Week video that could make a fine addition to the Lessons from Predictions series. It starts around 6:30 min into the video. -
Dikran Marsupial at 08:54 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale I think my use of "responsible for" is reasonable, as it would be reasonable to say that "my wife spends more than I earn and is responsible for the increase in our debts" (happily not actually true ;o). Your use of "responsible" however is not reasonable, as illustrated by the apparent paradox in your position highlighted by my last question. So the question is, given that the natural environment is known to have taken in more carbon dioxide than it emitted every year for the last fifty years, in what way is it the cause of the observed rise over that period? Common sense says that it isn't the cause, it has opposed the observed rise. -
Dale at 08:54 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
KR, Agreed that total amount is more important than source. My point really was that its untrue to say nature sinks all of its own and only half of human emissions. The ratios are irrelevant when the total weight is out of sync. -
Dale at 08:48 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Sorry I said less than above when I meant more than. -
Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale If that was an honest question, my sincere apologies. You have indeed been quite involved and reasonable in a discussion that 'skeptics' tend to avoid. I have repeatedly, however, seen the Ship of Theseus question (which molecule is which) inappropriately invoked up in mass balance discussions, on multiple threads and blogs. Since in regards to climate we're concerned about CO2 concentration, not the origin of individual molecules, claiming (as some have) that we aren't raising atmospheric concentrations based on the ancestry of those molecules is simply an incorrect view. Isotopic analysis is quite useful for determining the rates at which CO2 moves from one climate compartment (air, water, soil, plants, rocks) to another. But again, the relevant quantities for climate change are total CO2 concentrations and amounts, not origins. -
Dale at 08:46 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dikran, I think both of us used the word "responsible" incorrectly above. Nature did not cause an increase in my example. The total weight of emissions being less than the intake is the cause of the rise. If E_n had dropped by 15, then the rise would be zero. Again the total weight of emissions is the cause of no rise. -
Dikran Marsupial at 08:38 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale You appear to have missed my last question, which cannot be adequately answered "yes nature has taken out more than put in." My last question is repeated below.
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 08:37 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
If I'm going to be continuosly called a troll, I will just simply leave.Moderator Response: [Albatross] Please do not leave just yet. You are making progress on this matter. Dikran may well convince you yet. Everyone, please exercise maximum patience with Dale. And Dale, people would not get so frustrated with you if you a) Listened and b) Stopped making stuff up. -
Tom Curtis at 08:36 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale @71, in your example, you would agree that the presence of E_a is causing natural processes to absorb 10.5 units less of E_n than it otherwise would have. In other words, even in your pedantic example, human emissions are responsible for 100% of the increase, 15% by directly increasing the atmospheric concentration, and 85% by substituting for natural emissions that otherwise would have been removed.Moderator Response: [Albatross] Fixed bold tag -
Tom Curtis at 08:28 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Daly @78, I get rather [ -snip- ] just making things up on this forum. For example:"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."
In fact C14 decays into N14, and electron and an antineutrino. As protons (ie, hydrogen ions) are not a decay product, there is no possibility of forming methane from the decay of C14. C13, in contrast, is stable and does not decay. Consequently C12 is not the decay product of any Carbon isotope. -
Bob Lacatena at 08:12 AM on 17 August 2011Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
My personal favorite collection of arrogant jumbled words from Postma's latest diatribe:This, as opposed to the illogical direct comparison of said physically unique (i.e., different) metrics without qualification and the consequent arrangement of tautologies built up to superficially sustain and promote that original deception. Thus, there is absolutely no allowance nor justification for a back-radiative GHE whatsoever, in the reference frame of logic and Natural Philosophy. We will return to this ahead.
It doesn't get any clearer than that. -
Dale at 08:07 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
I apologise if my comment was taken as trolling but since I had been corrected for precision in the past I thought that was the culture here. And the meaning of "all natural emissions" is pretty clear. Please continue your lesson. To answer your last question, yes nature has taken out more than put in. -
Alexandre at 08:06 AM on 17 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
That first part about us being responsible for 3% of the atmospheric CO2 yearly increase is just incredible... How far does the scientific skills of Mr. "chief meteorologist" go? Addition and subtraction? Maybe not that far? -
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.
Prev 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 Next
