Recent Comments

Prev  1540  1541  1542  1543  1544  1545  1546  1547  1548  1549  1550  1551  1552  1553  1554  1555  Next

Comments 77351 to 77400:

77351. Dikran Marsupial at 22:55 PM on 15 August 2011
       Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
       muoncounter Absolutely, for the "natural variability" to be the answer then either it must be in response to an extrenal forcing (not much evidence for that) or a 400-year+ cycle in climate, that for some reason was not affecting the carbon cycle much until this particular cycle (good luck with that!). Either way it is difficult to argue that the carbon cycle can alter its own course any more than a pendulum can. However, in either case, the mass balance argument proves beyond reasonable doubt that the environment is anet sink and has been opposing the increase not causing it.
77352. muoncounter at 22:37 PM on 15 August 2011
       Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
       DM#33: There's an interesting chain of 'logic' here. A physical object altering its own course would seem to violate Newton's First Law, which requires an outside causal agent. One could speculate based on limited observation that a string pendulum, for example, alters its own course (it does not) and perhaps generalize to 'all oscillating systems alter their own course.' Hence, since weather patterns appear to oscillate, they must be altering their own course. But the natural tendency of such systems is to run down (a pendulum will stop, a spring-driven watch must be rewound); at least one Law of Thermodynamics guarantees this. So I have difficulty with an ongoing trend - especially one that may be increasing in magnitude rather than winding down - operating without some external forcing giving it a push. If nature alters its own course, wouldn't it therefore be in violation of its own laws?
77353. Dikran Marsupial at 22:22 PM on 15 August 2011
       Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
       muoncounter wrote: "To be a fair and balanced skeptic, one would have to withhold judgement on that until the data demonstrating a means by which nature alters its own course are presented. Did I miss it?" Well Dale has missed the fact that the data unambiguously shows that even if such a mechanism existed, it clearly hasn't "altered its own course".
77354. muoncounter at 22:18 PM on 15 August 2011
       Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
       Dale#30: "I'll wait to see his data... " That essentially means you disagree with the non-skeptic community who loudly proclaimed the alarming Blockbuster: Planetary temperature controls CO2 levels — not humans and the very insightful Wow. Have you expressed your skepticism (or at least your advice to withhold judgement until seeing the actual evidence) to cool off these hot-blooded alarmists? Or do you only express the cool logic of skepticism here? that humans are "almost entirely responsible" for climate change is, IMO, a bit silly, considering the power of nature to alter its own course To be a fair and balanced skeptic, one would have to withhold judgement on that until the data demonstrating a means by which nature alters its own course are presented. Did I miss it?
77355. Matt Holden at 22:14 PM on 15 August 2011
       Soil Carbon in the Australian Political Debate (Part 1 of 2)
       You all may be interested in an email exchange I had with Greg Hunt, the opposition spokesman on this stuff. Depressingly light on detail – what did I expect? But here are a couple of quotes: "We expect that the cost of buying back abatement will average $12 per tonne. We have allowed $15. And in the first year to ensure a fast start we have allocated enough to purchase 20[0] million tones at the conservative allowance or 215 million tonnes at our expected average cost." Then this, in response to my question about what they were actually intending to purchase: "A farmer could capture carbon in their soil, capture carbon in trees or in revegetation. A council could clean up their waste landfill gas or we could provide incentives to clean up a power station by converting from coal to gas …" Don’t know how much of that you get for $13 a tonne …
77356. Dikran Marsupial at 21:59 PM on 15 August 2011
       Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
       Dale That the carbon cycle has natural variability is well known - and as I pointed out in my first post on this thread is something that has been used to make the same incorrect arguments before (e.g. by Roy Spencer). The mass balance argument demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the natural environment has been a net sink and has opposed, not caused, the rising trend in atmospheric CO2 for at least the last fifty years. This point shows that natural variability of the carbon cycle cannot explain the long term trend. Unless you can address this point, your comments on Salby's paper have already been refuted, so please stop repeating them. p.s. sorry for the shouting, but Dale doesn't seem to be listening to this particular point.
77357. CBDunkerson at 21:57 PM on 15 August 2011
       One Confusedi Bastardi
       What I'd like to see is for climate scientists and/or other news outlets/politicians to very publicly call Bastardi and Fox News out for this. Accuse them of airing blatantly false information. Make an ongoing unholy stink about it and the fact that they continue to stand behind the false information despite being supplied with the facts. Because the only recourse the deniers would then have would be to sue for defamation/libel/slander... and there is absolutely no way they could win (at least in the U.S. court system) because the accusations being TRUE is an unbreakable defense. Even if they can prove that you made the accusations with the specific intent of damaging the reputation of the other party, it doesn't matter if those accusations were accurate. I really want to see this stuff end up in court... where there are penalties for making false statements. We've all seen that there aren't any drawbacks for denier politicians, news media, and pseudo-scientists spreading this nonsense... indeed, it benefits their careers. But get them in court and it is a whole different story.
77358. Doug Mackie at 21:38 PM on 15 August 2011
       OA not OK part 16: Omega
       The avoidance of heteronymns is not the reason: I refuse to take out the refuse just because you are busy trying to refuse the lights. (The initial comment was a hat tip to Tolkien and his aside about dwarfs/dwarves in the introduction to the now filming Hobbit).
77359. Dale at 21:37 PM on 15 August 2011
       Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
       My understanding of what Salby was presenting was an argument that the natural carbon cycle balance is variable. He said that human emissions have risen at a steady state, yet yearly increase in ppmv ranges from 0 to 3 (averaging around 1.5). Since the human line has little variance this leaves the natural cycle causing the variance. Rightly or wrongly he says current models assume an assumed balanced natural carbon cycle, when the possibility exists that it can actually go one way or the other and affect long term trends. History supports this in that CO2 was able to naturally increase and decrease without any help from us. But as I've said above, I'll wait to see his data before hanging or lauding him.
77360. Tom Curtis at 21:20 PM on 15 August 2011
       OA not OK part 16: Omega
       OT Doug Mackie @4, "Why not reeves?" Because reeves where rent/tax collectors, a term now only familiar in the modern derivative of a common form of tax collector, the Shire Reeve (Sheriff). Apparently the noun still survives with close to its original meaning in Canada (which I didn't know previously.)
77361. Keith Hunter at 20:54 PM on 15 August 2011
       OA not OK part 16: Omega
       @GlenT Consider the plots in Figure 15 as "typical" of one place in each ocean. The geographical trends are interesting. The saturation depth doesn't change a lot in the Atlantic, but becomes shallower in the Pacific from north to south. The real significance of these plots is how they determine where CaCO3 fossils accumulate on the sea floor. Recall that coccolithophores are plants so they only grow in the surface ocean where the light is. After they die, they sink into the deep ocean. If the sea floor happens to be shallower than the saturation depth, they will not dissolve - thermodynamics prevents that. If the sea floor is deeper, then they will dissolve, given enough time. Studies of deep sea sediments show that CaCO3 sediments dominate only in the submarine mountain ranges that are shallower than the saturation depth. I liken this to snow on mountains - it's only cold enough for the snow to persist high up on the mountain. The really deep parts of the ocean have very little CaCO3 in the sediments.
77362. Doug Mackie at 19:50 PM on 15 August 2011
       OA not OK part 16: Omega
       @GlennT Don't take the figures as the final word. Each ocean basin encompasses large variations in every parameter. The figures are for WOCE data from stations I chose randomly years ago as being 'representative'. I don't honestly recall what I was looking at to make that selection at the time but on my list of things-I-pretend-I-will-do-but-really-will-never-get-round-to is to collate and analyse such profiles for all the stations (and JGOFS, GEOSECS etc) and rework with projected CO₂. But hey, the data is freely available. Go to it. The next series depends on a few watched research kettles coming to the boil.
77363. Doug Mackie at 19:49 PM on 15 August 2011
       OA not OK part 16: Omega
       @Bern Sob. Has nobody listened? Just because a process is thermodynamically favoured does not mean it will happen instantaneously. Blog science happens when people stray from their expertise. Reefs (why not reeves?) are Ove's department over at climate shifts. But my non-specialist $0.02 is to remind you that corals are living organisms. That is they expend energy to maintain that thermodynamically non-equilibrium state we call life. They maintain and build reefs even though ambient conditions fluctuate significantly over daily, tidal, and seasonal cycles. There seems every likelihood that, for some little time at least, corals will be able to expend a more energy to build and maintain their reefs as ocean acidification progresses. Quite when that becomes unsustainable is the topic of current research. BUT I stress again that I am outside my comfort zone writing about the response of living coral reefs - go ask Ove. Or read his previous SkepticalScience posts). GBR 1, GBR 2, and GBR 3
77364. Tom Curtis at 19:34 PM on 15 August 2011
       Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
       Dale @27, it is mathematically possible that there exists a natural mechanism with two phases, in one of which all human emissions would have been absorbed without increase in atmospheric CO2; and in the other of which atmospheric CO2 would have increased by 100 ppm over 100 years regardless of human emissions, and that by pure coincidence the natural system switched from the first to the second phase approximately 100 years ago. If such a system existed, then indeed the rise in CO2 levels over the last one hundred years would not be anthropogenic, the mass balance argument not-with-standing. Therefore Salby should not be treated quite as we would treat somebody approaching us to show of their new perpetual motion machine. But I have listened to Salby's podcast. Not only does he not present evidence for such an extraordinary mechanism - he does not even argue for its existence. Rather he argues that the existence of a short term correlation between CO2 and temperature proves that the cause of the short term variation is also the cause of the long term trend. That is known to be a fallacious argument, and he presents nothing else. That leaves Salby not in the position of a discoverer of perpetual motion, but rather in the position of somebody purporting to disprove Special Relativity who has not bothered to adduce relevant evidence. It is certainly logically possible that he is correct. It is also logically possible that I should win 50 million dollars on the Lotto this weekend, and far more likely.
77365. Tom Curtis at 19:21 PM on 15 August 2011
       Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
       Crispy, you may wish to add to your homeworkd Indermühle et al, 1999 which discusses variation in atmospheric CO2 over the last 10,000 years: They ascribe the 15 ppm increase in CO2 concentrations over the course of the Holocene partly to deforestation, and partly to a rise in global sea surface temperatures. Such a rise is consistent with what is known about the Holocene Climactic Optimum (and should introduce due caution about overstating its extent) in that the high temperatures 8,000 years ago where primarily a Northern Hemisphere phenomenon, while the majority of the worlds ocean surface is in the Southern Hemisphere, which has been warming over that interval. The deforestation is ascribed partly to the desertification of the Sahara, but significantly (>50%) to the introduction and spread of agriculture. In other words, a significant part of the rise in CO2 levels over that period are anthropogenic. Indermühle et al cite Bacastow, R. B. "The effect of temperature change of the warm surface waters of the oceans on atmospheric CO2" Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 10, 319±333, (1996) and Takahashi et al, "Seasonal variation of CO2 and nutrients in the high-latitude surface oceans: A comparative study" Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 7, 843±878 (1993), to say:

       "A change of SST by 1⁰C causes a change in the surface ocean's CO2 partial pressure by 4.2% which translates into an atmospheric change of similar magnitude."

       That figure is consistent with the 10 ppm difference in CO2 concentration between the peak Medieval Warm Period and the minimum Little Ice Age values, for a temperature differential of just under 1 degree C, ie, consistent with various proxy reconstructions. What must puzzle anyone paying attention to the data is why, if the MWP only caused a 10 ppm excursion in CO2 concentrations, why did the only slightly warmer (to date) modern warm period cause a 120 ppm excursion in CO2 concentration (to date)?
77366. Crispy at 18:13 PM on 15 August 2011
       Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
       Thanks guyz. Partial pressure, Henry's Law, Archer et al and 'OA is not OK' parts one to eleventy-seven. I have my homework.
77367. MarkR at 17:39 PM on 15 August 2011
       Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
       18. keith , I haven't seen Salby's paper so I don't know. I'll be very surprised if it matches up with Bastardi's claims. Since that means he's breaking conservation of matter and that makes me (but apparently not Bastardi, Curry or Watts) very skeptical. 19. Crispy : for a very short answer, look up Henry's Law. Global temperatures have increased by 0.3% whilst partial pressure (related to concentration) has gone up 30%. It turns out that this pressure increase is enough to put plenty of CO2 into the oceans, which accounts for some of it. Without the increase in CO2 partial pressure (thanks to fossil fuel burning), the oceans would be taking up much less.
77368. Dikran Marsupial at 17:30 PM on 15 August 2011
       Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
       Crispy As far as I know there hasn't been a discussion of this specifically. The pre-indistrial carbon cycle was in a state of approximate dynamic equilibrium. The equilibrium is established by the various positive and negative feedbacks being balanced. If the system is peturbed, then the feedbacks will no longer be balanced, but in a way that tends to drive the system back to its equilibrium state. If that were not the case then the system would not have been equilibrium in the first place. In the case of the oceans, the carbon fluxes between ocean and atmosphere depend on temperature (higher temperatures -> more CO2 emission/less uptake) and the difference in partial pressures (more atmospheric CO2 -> less emissions/more uptake). So if temperatures increase, more CO2 is released from the first mechanism, but only until the resulting increase in atmospheric CO2 leads to more uptake from the second mechanism. That is why small temperature changes don't result in large CO2 emissions from the oceans. If atmospheric CO2 rises (e.g. due to anthropogenic emissions) then the additional greenhouse effect means that there is a bit more emission from the oceans, but this is dominated by the second mechansim, which reduces emissions because the greater CO2 concnetration in the atmosphere makes ocean uptake increase. I suspect the additional uptake is going into both the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere, but it will be the oceans that ultimately do most of the work, as the capacity of the deep ocean is vast, but the rate at which carbon is moved from the surface ocean to deep ocean is slow. See this paper for details.
77369. Bern at 17:29 PM on 15 August 2011
       Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
       Crispy: re oceanic uptake, I recommend you read the "OA is not OK" article series on here - it's giving a thorough overview of how & why the oceans are taking up CO2 from the atmosphere. I also understand that some research is showing that, yes, there has been some increase in biomass in some areas, but it's small compared to the oceanic uptake. I think there are two main reason things have been relatively stable for the last 10,000 years: 1) natural climate change is quite a slow process, by human standards - the rise from the last glacial maximum, while rapid by geological timeframes, took on the order of 10,000 years, twice as long as all of recorded human history (which is ~5,000 years); 2) the natural factors that induce 'rapid' natural climate swings (~10,000 year ones!) haven't been present - the Earth's climate appears to have spent most of the past 10 millennia in a quasi-equilibrium state, although some reconstructions suggest there was a gradual cooling trend from a peak ~8,000 years ago, which we've managed to completely reverse in just 250 years (mostly in the past century, and half in the last three decades).
77370. Dikran Marsupial at 17:08 PM on 15 August 2011
       Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
       Dale While the natural carbon cycle does contain sources as well as sinks, the mass balance argument (presented numerous times here on SkS, in the IPCC WG1 reports and numerous peer reviewed papers) rules out the possibility that sources exceed sinks over the past fifty years beyond reasonable doubt. I have heard his podcast and he presented no argument that would refute the mass balance argument.
77371. Glenn Tamblyn at 17:07 PM on 15 August 2011
       OA not OK part 16: Omega
       And WOW! There is a second series of posts on projections! How soon?
77372. Glenn Tamblyn at 17:05 PM on 15 August 2011
       OA not OK part 16: Omega
       Great series. The interesting figure here is Aragonite in the Pacific. Already at 1000 m and farely steep slope to the surface. This looks like where we will see problems first as the curve shifts left. How much do the curves vary within and around each basin?
77373. mandas at 16:28 PM on 15 August 2011
       Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
       I'm confused. Don't denialists claim that the globe is cooling, or that - at the very least - temperatures have not increased over the past decade? If so, how come CO2 is increasing?
77374. Dale at 16:26 PM on 15 August 2011
       Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
       Albatross, affecting the climate is not just limited to CO2. As to accepting what he says, without seeing his evidence that brought him to his conclusion I can't presume if he's right or wrong. But I do accept there are natural causes of CO2 which may lead to an imbalance. I can also entertain his claim about ice cores, though not without scepticism before I see his evidence.
77375. Crispy at 16:07 PM on 15 August 2011
       Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
       2 Dikran Marsupial: "BTW anthropogenic CO2 emissions do affect natural uptake and emissions; the reason that the natural environment is currently a net carbon sink is a response to rising CO2 levels caused by anthropogenic emissions." Has there been a discussion of that point here? I assumed some mechanism must be at play, since atmos C levels have been so steady for 10^5 years, prior to the last two hundred. Is there a gas pressure equation that dictates more oceanic uptake? Is all of the 15Gt going into the oceans each year? Or is all the extra plant food making things extra lush in the tropics? :)
77376. Albatross at 15:30 PM on 15 August 2011
       Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
       Dale @18, "That humans alter the climate is no argument. " But that is the very point that Salby is denying. Salby is claiming that our CO2 emissions are not driving CO2 levels. So he is stating from the outset that we cannot affect global temperatures by emitting CO2, b/c he believes that we are not responsible for the increase in CO2 or the warming that he alleges has caused the increase in CO2. Therefore he is denying the reality that is the theory of AGW, and so is anyone (like Watts) who agrees with his hypothesis. With that all said, I gather from your odd posts (and the quote) that you agree that the theory of AGW is real. Good. This thread is about the fatal flaws Salby's hypothesis, so please do not try and drag us all off-topic by being argumentative or floating red herrings or making strawman arguments. And DSL @24 asked you a very pertinent question about Salby's work-- do you accept it? I'll add another, do you, trying to be truly skeptical, see any potential flaws in his reasoning? Answer those directly (no obfuscating or hand waving) and you'll be staying on topic.
77377. alan_marshall at 15:18 PM on 15 August 2011
       Soil Carbon in the Australian Political Debate (Part 1 of 2)
       Marcus @3 I agree that the CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels vastly exceed that which can readily be sequestered by agricultural means. However, with the CO2 at 393ppm and rising, we are on a trajectory that will take us into the “red zone” within a few decades. A growing number of voices, such as Bill McKibbin’s 350.org are calling for the world to adopt a more ambitious target of 350 ppm. We are in an “overshoot” scenario. If we are ever to return to a safe level, we will need to sequester the excess CO2 now in the atmosphere. I want to thank you all for your feedback. Your comments have been thoughtful. Take another look on Thursday, when Part 2, looking at the political implications, will be posted.
77378. alan_marshall at 14:02 PM on 15 August 2011
       Soil Carbon in the Australian Political Debate (Part 1 of 2)
       adelady @1, lazyteenager @2 You are both right in recognising the virtues of charcoal / biochar, of which I am a big fan. It would be worthy of a separate post. The reason I have focused on soil carbon is its prominence in the current political debate in Australia. The first and greatest virtue of biochar for sequestration purposes is its stability. That automatically leads on to its second virtue, which is the ease with which the stored carbon can be accounted. The third virtue is the quantity that can be stored on a given area of land, and the fourth virtue, which it shares with soil carbon, is its enhancement of fertility. Indeed, the terra preta soils in the Amazon Basin cover great swathes of land, and suggest that the fertility of that area once allowed it to sustain a much higher population. Biochar is a stable form of charcoal produced from heating natural organic materials (crop and other waste, woodchips, manure) in a high temperature, low oxygen process known as pyrolysis. Click here for fact sheet. The by-products of the process are the gases carbon monoxide and hydrogen, which together can be synthesised into bio-fuel. It is not easy to get consistent figures for the cost of production of biochar. My estimate of $65 per tonne is based on the price of agricultural charcoal, offset for the value of bio-fuel. If anyone has a more reliable figure, please let me know. The potential of biochar was recognised and promoted by Australia’s previous leader of the opposition, Malcolm Turnbull. However, interest in the technology has been quietly dropped by the current opposition leader, who is not prepared to put serious money into mitigation.
77379. Bob Lacatena at 13:52 PM on 15 August 2011
       One Confusedi Bastardi
       3, muoncounter, Which only goes to show the old expression, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't drag him in against his will, drown him, cook him, and sell him as gourmet beef without the assistance of an entire Fox News news team (or at least Fox and Friends Frauds).
77380. Dale at 13:38 PM on 15 August 2011
       Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
       I thought my initial comment was obvious that I'm not presuming anything about Salbys work till I've seen the data.
       Moderator Response: (DB) Actually, you were calling out the SkS author as being presumptuous to do a takedown of Salby's work even though it isn't published yet (which reduces Salby to offering up unsupported handwaving blandishments in his public discoursing and also makes the "skeptic" community look quite foolish for buying the pig unseen).
77381. skywatcher at 12:56 PM on 15 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       Doug, as others have said, you're clearly making up an alternative universe here, and ignoring the physics and mathematics, and most crucially the evidence along the way. You should be aware that a major in physics and maths does not automatically confer an understanding about earth science or climate science, just as the reverse is true. You have been directed to a number of excellent initial sources of information by the patient commenters above. Have a read of them, and you can begin your journey into the world of real climate science. I admire the patience of people here dealing with you, but I am also disappointed that you have been allowed to totally derail a thread in which Kevin Trenberth at #68 took the time to answer queries regarding his opening article. It's kudos to SkSci that he did this as you don't often get a chance to exchange views with the most active climate scientists in the world, but a shame the discussion could not have continued from there. Up until that point I was learning quite a lot. I presume he's no longer reading this thread, but I appreciated both the article and his reply to some of the first 67 posts. Perhaps this is another example where a RC-like 'bore hole' or 'climastrology' thread into which to drop these kinds of persistently made up and irrelevant posts by DougCotton would be a good addition to Skeptical Science? The fish can be shot in the barrel in a place where they do not detract from interesting topics!
77382. DSL at 12:47 PM on 15 August 2011
       Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
       Dale, I never stereotyped you. I responded to the odd logic of your comments and your quite deliberate word choice. I could go a bit further than DB's quite adequate reply, since it's one of my areas of study, but I won't. You've provided nothing resembling a defense of Salby. Your short initial comment was responded to by DM, and you've done nothing but hem-haw and dance around since. What do you think of Salby's work, Dale? Do you accept it?
77383. alan_marshall at 12:40 PM on 15 August 2011
       Soil Carbon in the Australian Political Debate (Part 1 of 2)
       LazyTeenager @1 Mature forest is of course in equilibrium as far as the carbon cycle is concerned. It is important to preserve them as stores of carbon, but as you point out, sequestration only occurs in growing forests. In Australia, much of our eucalypt forest has been logged, so the secondary growth is a potential carbon sink. Eucalypts are fast growing, and include some of the tallest species of trees on Earth. So there is plenty of "upside". As far as the economics is concerned, my source is "The Cost-Effectiveness of Carbon Sequestration in Harvested and Unharvested Eucalyptus Plantations" by A. J. Richardson. On my website www.climatechangeanswers.org, I have published a cost comparison of carbon sequestration options. I have been a little more conservative than Richardson, estimating the cost of the unharvested eucalypt plantation option at $20 per tonne of CO2. That makes it cheaper than soil carbon, but the land cannot be used for other agricultural purposes. Your other point is also well made. It is estimated that between 70% and 90% of the carbon in crop residue is returned to the atmosphere within a few years, therefore involving minimal sequestration. That is why my post focuses on the gel-like humus, which degrades much more slowly, returning just 2% of stored carbon back to the atmosphere per year. (Forgive me, I am still searching for the scientific paper in which I recently read these figures.) Where land use switches to no-till practices, carbon levels will increase to a point where the fresh humus created each year is in equilibrium with that which is lost.
77384. muoncounter at 12:38 PM on 15 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       Doug#190: No one said anything of the kind; please try to read carefully. You, on the other hand, have denied the role of solar radiation in the energy balance of the earth. Good luck selling that! Now say goodbye for real.
77385. DougCotton at 12:31 PM on 15 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       ( -Snip- )
       Response:

       [DB] Mr. Cotton, as you have previously stated that you wouldn't be back and then rescinded that offer, and have continued (despite able advice to the contrary) to avoid supporting your position with actual physics-based mechanisms with roots in the literature, and since you have expressed being away for 2 weeks on business anyway, it is time for a break.

       I'll leave this up for a bit, then your SkS account posting privileges will be suspended until September.  You may then resume participating here, but you will still be held to the mandate of basing your comments on scientifically supported basis' and also to "not make stuff up".

77386. Dawei at 12:20 PM on 15 August 2011
       SkS Weekly Digest #11
       Hah! I think that's the first toon I've seen that actually made me lol.
77387. adelady at 12:19 PM on 15 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       One more try. Doug, we've referred to Science of Doom a few times. This page is helpfully titled "Confusion over the basics". It refers to just one of the sections on back-radiation and several other nice expositions on various topics. I've been through most of these myself. You may be like me and sign up for the "skip the equations" club. It makes my life easier - but - it does mean that I'm obliged to take experts at their word on the content and meaning of those equations. (and sometimes just sit back and watch admiringly when they argue about arcane minutiae I've decided not to expend effort on myself.) Either way, you're in for a fair amount of reading. And if you really want to be fully involved in technical discussions, you're in for a lot of detailed note taking and serious brain work.
77388. muoncounter at 12:17 PM on 15 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       DC#187: "I carefully chose the words "for whatever reason."" Yes, and empty words they are. "Physics tells us " You are using no physics. You are making things up on the fly to suit your preconceived notions. Your analogies are bogus. In other lines of work, that would be called 'fraud' (but not here, because of the Comments Policy).
77389. DougCotton at 12:11 PM on 15 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       #179 Muon: (a) There is as yet no scientifically proven theory (out of at least half a dozen suggested by various scientists and academics) which explains the natural variations in climate which are part of the historic record. Hence I carefully chose the words "for whatever reason." (b) It is irrelevant what you or anyone calls what I call the "break out" temperature. It is derived by extrapolating the linear trend of the downward temperature gradient from the core to the surface, and so it is the intercept of that trend line at the surface. (c) Physics tells us that the rate of terrestrial heat flow is not what is important - yes it is slow, simply because the rate of conduction of rock and clay etc is slow. So too is the rate of conduction of the heat through the glass in the room. It doesn't matter. There has been plenty of time in the life of the Earth. (d) If you or anyone is trying to tell me that the heat in the oceans is going to affect the heat under the whole of the Earth's surface including the core, rather than vice versa (as Physics dictates) then you are not correct.
       Response:

       [DB] Mr. Cotton, I simply cannot tell if you are being intentionally obtuse and evasive or merely relying upon natural ability and giftedness.

       In any event, you are completely and utterly wrong here.  I suggest starting at square one and grabbing a physics textbook for starters.  You are many years of study from being able to get a good handle on climate science.

77390. DougCotton at 11:51 AM on 15 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       ( -Snip- )
       Response:

       [DB] Please note my replies to you upthread in 180 and 184.  Tom has already expressed his frustration in dealing with your disingenuousness.

       Either follow the direction given or give it a rest.

77391. scaddenp at 11:45 AM on 15 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       Sigh - so know we have argument from Personal Incredibility? You have been pointed to papers, articles, had question patiently explained but no, it appears you prefer ignorance to actually finding the answer. You can "suggest" whatever, but I will stick to strong mathematical theory, rigorously tested against empirical data thanks.
77392. Bern at 11:35 AM on 15 August 2011
       SkS Weekly Digest #11
       newcrusader: that's what all the funding for 'skeptical' scientists is for. So long as there are 'climate scientists' who are preaching that global warming isn't happening, the deniers can point to that and say "but these experts said it wasn't happening!". As for the 'experts' themselves... well, it becomes difficult to prove criminal behaviour without any direct evidence that they knew they were wrong, as opposed to just being wrong, also that they knew their actions would result in significant damage or losses to others. Similarly, there is lots of circumstantial evidence that certain 'experts' were paid a lot of money to cast unsubstantiated doubt on claims that smoking causes cancer, but is it enough to stand up in a court of law? Then you need to have someone actually interested in prosecuting the case. Even if that happens, will they just hide behind the corporate veil, and have the company pay a fine while none of the individuals concerned actually suffer any direct consequences? That seems to be a common outcome - and, to me, is a key argument as to why corporations should not be classed as 'natural persons' legally - they don't share the risks that real people do, such as spending time in prison. Penalties are normally limited to fines, it takes something exceptional for the actual people within a corporation to be punished directly.
77393. DougCotton at 11:25 AM on 15 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       Tom: Re #181 Just briefly, then I must get on with business matters for 2 weeks: please read my #180 then note .. ( -Snip- )
       Response:

       [DB] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
        
       Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

77394. Bern at 11:18 AM on 15 August 2011
       OA not OK part 16: Omega
       Hmm... if I've understood this correctly, does this mean that deep coral reefs will start to dissolve first? I have to admit, that's a novel idea for me - I had assumed that increasing atmospheric CO2 would mean surface reefs would be affected first, but I guess that's just not so! Could this undermine some old, 'tall' reefs, leading to some rather dramatic collapses as their foundations literally dissolve away? I imagine any other islands or other pieces of land with significant carbonate content will also have this problem. Could be interesting (in the Chinese proverbial sense).
77395. Tom Curtis at 11:12 AM on 15 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       

       "Remember that, according to 2008 NASA diagrams, 5% of total incident insolation is conducted to the atmosphere (not radiated) and then drifts upwards by convection. This may take months to get to the top of the troposphere, for example."

       In fact it takes mere days for heat to get to the top of the atmosphere in its optically thick wavelengths by radiation, and mere hours by convection. Again Doug just makes things up with no attempt to check his assumptions against reliable sources. I do not find this game of wack-a-mole amusing. I participate in these threads to counter disinformation for the benefit of interested readers who have not made up their minds to believe anti-science rather than reality. If a denier comes along who just throws out falsehoods as fast as he can imagine them, I cannot keep up, and nor should I have to. We are frequently reminded that posting on Skeptical Science is a privilege, not a right. DougCotton is clearly intent on abusing that privilege. Can I suggest that in future his posts be simply deleted unless he backs every disputed or dubious claim with a reference to either a text book or the peer reviewed literature. For me it is a matter of both good manners and ethical necessity to take reasonable efforts to ensure that the information you provide is accurate (and to correct it when you discover it is not). I think that is a reasonable standard to expect of any poster on this site. I would go further. Anybody who does not accept the obligation to self fact-check shows by their actions that the truth of what they say is of no consequence to them. They value that truth at the same level as the effort they are prepared to expend to ensure that what they say is true, which in DougCotton's case is clearly no effort at all. At that point the question as to whether they are actively dishonest (ie, the knowingly tell untruths) or simply negligently dishonest (ie, they tell untruths because the cannot be bothered to make the effort of telling truths) is purely academic. They are enemies of truth regardless and have no place in public discourse. ( -Snip- )
       Response:

       [DB] A-step-too-far snipped.

77396. adelady at 11:07 AM on 15 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       This thread may have been annoying and irritating. But. I will treasure forever "data is not a Rorschach test".
77397. Tom Curtis at 10:56 AM on 15 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       DougCotton @176, data is not a Rorchach Test for you to read in whatever your preferred theory. It carries distinctive information which tends to confirm some theories, and invalidates others. In this case, the observed OLR clearly invalidates any theory that does not acknowledge that CO2 in the atmosphere has a warming effect on the surface. In fact, the observed data is logically inconsistent with any theory that does not include a warming effect from CO2. In order to continue your rorschach approach to science, you focus on the size of the reduction in Outgoing Long wave Radiation as proof that the down welling long wave radiation must be small. It never occurs to you to look at the down welling long wave radiation itself, or to accept its measured values, and the global estimates derived from those measurements. Well, here is some actual data. Anybody committed to following the data rather than imposing their view regardless of the data will clearly see the down welling long wave radiation is very significant: As can be seen, the down welling long wave radiation is large, particularly in the tropics. In Darwin in winter (June), it still has a mean value of 372 W/m^2. In summer (January) that rises to 430 W/m^2. You want to ignore that fact because of the size of the CO2 notch. As can be seen from the following simultaneous spectrums over Barrow Island (in the Arctic) the size of the CO2 notch is not a reliable guide to the amount of back radiation, and certainly does not determine the quantity of that radiation. That you should think so suggests you are again employing your absurd single layer atmosphere model. And just to prevent a confusion before it starts, the back radiation has not effect on the long term energy balance, which is governed by the net Top of Atmosphere energy balance. If Back Radiation is high, that just results in more convection carrying heat away from the surface - if it is low, that is compensated for by less convection. In the end the TOA balance governs all.
77398. DougCotton at 10:55 AM on 15 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       Just one more thing for you to think about for the next two weeks before I return... Note the conclusion of the quote in #167 about there being inadequate records of all the mentioned factors for climate models. This means that it is impossible to determine whether or not all radiation is escaping to space from empirical measurements of radiative flux, due to the inadequate information we currently have on other factors that could causes differences between incoming and outgoing radiation. I have put forward a sound physical argument (#176) as to why I believe all radiation is escaping. Remember that, according to 2008 NASA diagrams, 5% of total incident insolation is conducted to the atmosphere (not radiated) and then drifts upwards by convection. This may take months to get to the top of the troposphere, for example. The rate at which it does determines the temperature gradient of the atmosphere, not any supposed warming due to CO2 captures. You cannot produce any evidence that all radiation is not escaping, including that originating from the extra energy in any molecules which may have been warmed by CO2 captures. Carbon dioxide is but a small leaking dam at the foot of a mountain which can never cause the gradient of the creeks coming down to alter, and never cause a flood at the top.
       Response:

       [DB] "I have put forward a sound physical argument (#176) as to why I believe all radiation is escaping."

       Umm, nope, not so much.  You have spent many an electron detailing fanciful conjecture with no supportive physics.  In short, you are spinning yarns.  Fiction.  As in "making things up".

       This is a science forum wherein interested individuals discuss the science of climate and climate change.  Please spend some time trying to learn enough of it to carry on some 2-way dialogue with other parties here.

       Muoncounter asked you some excellent questions in number 172 above.  I will hold you to answering them before this can go on to other things.  As it stands right now, you are wasting others time due to a lack of interest in actually learning.

77399. muoncounter at 10:52 AM on 15 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       adelady#178: "Check the definition" Mr. Cotton doesn't need definitions; he prefers making stuff up (break out temperature?) For the rest, we could start with the fact that geothermal forcing is much much less than radiative forcing (its on a prior thread). So his 'small glass in a room/drop in a hot coin' analogy is yet another case of not enough fact, too much hot air. "Vary naturally for whatever reasons"? And this is what we are supposed to believe is physics?
77400. keithpickering at 10:50 AM on 15 August 2011
       Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
       Make it simple: Murray Salby is violating Conservation of Matter. His paper cannot possibly pass peer-review for that reason.

Prev  1540  1541  1542  1543  1544  1545  1546  1547  1548  1549  1550  1551  1552  1553  1554  1555  Next