Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 Next
Comments 77801 to 77850:
-
trunkmonkey at 01:33 AM on 8 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Scaddenp, I was in Utah where there is a Honnaker Trail formation that records sea level rise and fall, presumably in response to fluctuating southerh hemisphere glaciation, for th entire Pennsylvanian. I was interested because geologists have determined the fluctuation period over this vastly longer timeline to be 200,000 years, matching none of the Milankovitch cycles. I was delighted to run into Adam Maloof while hiking the trail. He is not convinced that the fluctuations are entirely due to glaciation, but he is carefully studying the formation using modern techniques. His work is in its early stages, but in a few years we should have a very good referedum on Milankovitch. In a subsequent email he noted that a worker in Russia using radiometric dating on a similar formation found a period of 400,000 years, matching the longest and most stable Milankovitch cycle, but as you know, this cycle seems to have no power at all in the Pleistocene. -
Tom Curtis at 01:27 AM on 8 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Sphaerica @192 - agreed. But the entire process can be understood as two steps: 1) Takes two water molecules, and produces four hydrogen ions and leaves an Oxygen molecule as waste. 2) Takes a CO2 molecule and those four hydrogen ions and produces a sugar, and a water molecule as waste. The net process consumes CO2 and water to produce sugar and oxygen. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:18 AM on 8 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
189, Tom, It should be pointed out that overall photosynthesis needs and uses H2O to create complex carbon chains. It does not, in aggregate, generate H2O as a "waste" product, as it does with O2. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:14 AM on 8 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
It's also important to recognize that photosynthesis is a rate limiting system. The ingredients (light, temperature, water, carbon dioxide, and oxygen as an inhibitor) are all necessary in the right proportions for any particular plant. The system is only as good as the component that is in the lowest supply. You can have optimal levels of everything else, but it only produces according to the least available component. To make it analogous to a robot factory, you can have zillions of arms, legs, heads, and CPUs, but if you only have 100 bodies, you can only make 100 robots. Increasing any one component to an optimal value does little good, particularly if something else is already below or even changes away from its optimal value, or any one component moves into very unproductive territory. In particular, no matter what the level of CO2, many plants will shut down photosynthesis if they are losing too much moisture (due to elevated temperatures or dry conditions) and so are unable to productively keep their stomata open to take in the required CO2. So it is ridiculously simplistic to focus on one element like CO2 and to say that more is better without bothering to focus on other factors. And, in fact, because different plants have evolved for different conditions, even more CO2 may not be in our best interests. As one example, Corn is a C4 plant that has evolved to live with less water and lower CO2 levels. A change in CO2 or an accompanying change in temperature and moisture could easily make other plants more competitive, and reduce corn crop outputs. The same applies to any crop or plant you can think of. Yes, more CO2, under the right conditions may be good for plants in general... but not the same plants that enjoy dominance in today's climate. -
Tom Curtis at 01:10 AM on 8 August 2011The Ridley Riddle Part Two: The White Queen
Captain Pithart @3, the fact that you found the article at Hockey Schtick is a bad sign. The triply cherry picked temperature graph across the top of their page clearly shows that they are intent on distorting data for the service of ideology. Putting that aside, Ridley's argument is an act of masterful misdirection. At the Earth's surface there are four great reservoirs of carbon, the Ocean, Soil, the biosphere, and the atmosphere. Of these the atmosphere is the smallest. Each is in approximate equilibrium with the others, such that an increase in carbon in one reservoir will result in an increase in the others. In addition, there are seasonal fluctuations in storage in the reservoirs, mostly related to the growth, fall and decay of deciduous leaves in the Northern Hemisphere. The 97% percent of CO2 that Ridley quotes consists almost entirely of flows from one reservoir to another. It is as though you where tracking the money trail of a criminal syndicate, and found they frequently transferred large amounts of money between four bank accounts. Such activity would be great for money laundering if the investigators kept their eyes firmly on transfers between the accounts. But a smart investigator would watch for transfers into those accounts from other sources, and out of those accounts to other locations. It does not matter how small a percentage of total transactions those external transfers constitute of the whole, it is they and they alone that tell you where the money is coming from, and where it is going. In the natural world, we know a lot about those external transfers of Carbon. We know that some carbon is carried into the ocean depths and forms sedimentary rock, which is then carried into the Earth's interior at subduction zones. We know a small amount is carried back in by volcanoes. And we also know a small amount is carried out by fossilization of animal and plant matter. That is it. That is all of the natural "external transfers" of carbon. We also know something about their magnitude. We know that the amount of carbon carried out by sedimentation and subduction approximately equals that carried in by vulcanism. We know that that amount is approximately 1/100th of the amount carried in by the burning of fossil fuels by humans. We know the amount carried out by fossilization is about one millionth of that carried in by the burning of fossil fuels. We know that the natural factors are in approximate balance, only increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere by 25 ppm over the last 8 thousand years, and that with a lot of help from deforestation, and agricultural methane production by human:
Clearly such processes are not the cause of the 110 ppm increase in CO2 content in the atmosphere over the last 100 years.
That is the result of human use of fossil fuels.
If you keep your eye on the "external transfers", that is blindingly obvious, with human consumption of fossil fuels representing approximately 99% of external transfers. So, with a clever piece of carbon laundering, Ridley tries to keep your attention completely focused on the internal transfers. It's a con game. Don't be fooled by it.
-
Bob Lacatena at 00:59 AM on 8 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
101, Norman, I'm not sure how your Omaha example can be taken to mean anything one way or another. A single, specific location over a period shorter than two years? Crossing the seasons? Including various ENSO events? That's like flipping a coin once, and then declaring that coins will always come up heads when flipped, because it did 100% of the time in your sample test. -
Captain Pithart at 23:12 PM on 7 August 2011The Ridley Riddle Part Two: The White Queen
ridley has a new article up in WSJ, full version at "Hockey Schtick". in it he states: »But then the total carbon-dioxide emissions from biological sources—animals, plants, fungi and microbes—dwarf those from fossil fuels and amount to some 800 billion tons a year. So although it is a myth that volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than fossil fuels do, the natural world far outpaces our cars and factories. Roughly 97% of the carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere each year is from nature, not human activity.« but he does note that Ian Plimer's opinion on volcanoes is fringe. p. -
critical mass at 22:54 PM on 7 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
As a latecomer to this thread, KL and BP need to answer the criticisms of Albatross and Rob Painting. Otherwise their ability to argue a case must be in question.Response:[DB] Not to pick on them unduly, but those individuals have a long history of selective focus when it comes to posting comments at SkS.
-
Andy Skuce at 13:24 PM on 7 August 2011Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
Michael of Brisbane @9 Tamino has a new post on this: Bag of Hammers II Gavin Schmidt had a comment, as well: ludicrous. We'll have to wait to see his figures and his text to properly take it apart. -
Andy Skuce at 12:52 PM on 7 August 2011The Ridley Riddle Part Two: The White Queen
According to Wiki: The term "naturalistic fallacy" is also sometimes used to describe the deduction of an "ought" from an "is" (the Is–ought problem), and has inspired the use of mutually reinforcing terminology which describes the converse (deducing an "is" from an "ought") either as the "reverse naturalistic fallacy" or the "moralistic fallacy." Yes, my usage was in this loose sense, which is not the original and more correct definition of the term. -
Norman at 12:49 PM on 7 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Albatross @ 96 I read the Zhou et al. (2010) paper you linked to. What the paper seems to be saying is that the ALL simulations (ones with both anthropogenic and natural forcing) could not match observed DTR. The model simulations did not have a large enough DTR. In this paper they talk about another paper Dai et al. (1999) which I looked up. This paper makes the claim that 80% of the observed DTR can be explained by a slight increase in cloud cover over the time of observation. From the Dai article (co-written by you friend Kevin E. Trenberth): "The historical records of DTR of the twentieth century covary inversely with cloud cover and precipitation on interannual to multidecadal timescales over the United States, Australia, midlatitude Canada, and former U.S.S.R., and up to 80% of the DTR variance can be explained by the cloud and precipitation records. Given the strong damping effect of clouds on the daytime maximum temperature and DTR, the well-established worldwide asymmetric trends of the daytime and nighttime temperatures and the DTR decreases during the last 4–5 decades are consistent with the reported increasing trends in cloud cover and precipitation over many land areas and support the notion that the hydrologic cycle has intensified." Link to Dai article. On a bigger scale number crunching. I have been entering daily High and Low temperature for Omaha, Nebraska for the past 626 days. I did the Daily high temp minus normal high temp and averaged the 626 days. I came up with -0.65 F. I also did the low temp = the low normal and came up with 2.48 F. The High temps are cooler while the low temps are warmer. Clouds explain 80% of this effect. -
Camburn at 11:48 AM on 7 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Actually, the process of photosynthisis is much more complicated than presented here, and requires interplay between more nutrients. The structural strength of cell walls etc are a huge component. This requires the micro nutrients at play. The optimum temp of optimum photosysnthis is plant dependant. As an example, wheat is what is called a cool season grass. Optimum growth is obtained at approx 76F. Corn is a warmer season type grass. Optimum temp is 81F. Rye grass is 71F. It is hard to pin an overall optimum temp for constructive vegetative growth as the window is in fact quit large. -
robert test at 10:59 AM on 7 August 2011The Ridley Riddle Part Two: The White Queen
"In his earlier books, Ridley mostly avoided the pitfall of the Naturalistic Fallacy, in which a natural is is confused with an ethical ought." Interesting that you link to the article on the naturalistic fallacy at Wikipedia. According to the article: "The naturalistic fallacy is related to (and even confused with) the is–ought problem, which comes from Hume's Treatise." The British philosopher G.E. Moore coined the fallacy and if I recall correctly from reading him more than 30 years ago, Moore doesn't talk about moral "oughts" at all. He is merely rejecting the idea that the concept of 'good' can be defined in terms of natural qualities such as pleasure or absence of pain. To define good (a non-natural property) in terms of a natural property is to commit the naturalistic fallacy. -
Tom Curtis at 10:24 AM on 7 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Clarrifying my 188, an oxygen atom is split of the CO2 in the reduction process, releasing water as waste. So Neilrick's original statement about the source of the oxygen molecules is correct. The essential point still stands, however. -
Tom Curtis at 10:17 AM on 7 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Neilrick @183, I'm no expert, but as glucose contains carbon, a source of carbon (CO2) must also be used in photosynthesis. Indeed, based on the generalized equation for photosynthesis, at least half of the oxygen released by the process must come from CO2: CO2 + 2H2A --light--> CH2O + 2A + H2O (where A is Oxygen in normal photosynthesis, and Sulfur in green sulfur bacteria) In essence the process could be understood as hydrogen being split from water by light, releasing oxygen as waste, and then the hydrogen reducing CO2, releasing half of the oxygen bound in the CO2 as waste. Moving to the essential point, regardless of the source of the oxygen, CO2 is still necessary for the formation of the sugar. Therefore higher concentrations of CO2 will make photosynthesis proceed faster, all else being equal. Of course, all else is definitely not equal in a warming world, as you point out. -
John Hartz at 10:14 AM on 7 August 2011Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
@Eternal Sunshine #10: Is there such a thing as "downlifting" music? -
Eternal Sunshine at 09:48 AM on 7 August 2011Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
I agree with Daniel J. Andrews that the background music is too loud - you might also reconsider the choice of music itself, which is a bad fit, IMO, no matter at what volume; what does this MOR uplifting tune have to do with the message that you're conveying? Nothing, I'd say. -
Muzz at 09:23 AM on 7 August 2011OA not OK part 14: Going down
The scientific discourse on this site is always interesting and there will continue to be plenty of interesting discourse into the future because the man-made CO2 being released into the atmosphere will continue to increase for many years to come. -
Michael of Brisbane at 07:53 AM on 7 August 2011Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
Yes, nice work John. (although I think the comparison to two of the greatest actors ever, is a slight s..trr..e..t..c..h, light-hearted as it may be) :) I visited SKS today with the hope of reading y'all's opinion on the forthcoming paper by Murry Salby. I know the paper hasn't been released yet, but it has passed peer review apparently. Please visit Jo Nova's site for more info. I'd like to know what the readers of SKS think. (maybe you'll start a series of "Salby's Slip-ups", or "Murry's Mayhem", "Murry's Mirth", or "Salby's Subterfuge"?)Moderator Response: [mc] Yes, the Salby talk came up, starting here. Subterfuge indeed. -
rockytom at 07:46 AM on 7 August 2011Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
Just say TH#2 and it was much better than the 1st. Keep at it and it will get even better. Each segment is about the right length for those with ASD. Tom -
muoncounter at 07:21 AM on 7 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
EtR#186: No, it means that during an approximately 2 year volcanic aerosol induced 'global cooling' event, a higher percentage of CO2 was taken out of the atmosphere, apparently due to conditions conducive to enhanced plant growth. Hence the obvious flat spot.
Your point in #184 refers to 'average temperature'; without further specification, that means annual average. Wouldn't it be more relevant to look at average temperature during the active growth season?
DB -- see #182.
Moderator Response:[DB] My bad...buttinski response withdrawn (I picked a bad day to stop drinking bourbon).
-
Eric the Red at 05:22 AM on 7 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Muon, Does that mean that 76F is not optimum for photosynthesis? I am not a biologist, so I was taking Neil's statements at face value. -
John Hartz at 03:56 AM on 7 August 2011Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
Given how intrinsic cycles are in the natural world and in the human experience, no one should be surprised that people gravitate to cyclical explanations of events. Unfortunately, there is nothing cyclical about mankind's release of C02 into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. Since the Industrial Revolution the rate of increase has been grwoing expnentially and, under a business as usual scenario, will continue to do so -- at least until the annual demand for fossil fuels exceeds what can be extracted annually. -
muoncounter at 03:20 AM on 7 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
EtR#184: "... a temperature increase would move plant life closer to its optimal temperature for photosynthesis" And yet we find the opposite: During the post Pinatubo cooling, the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 dropped markedly due to enhanced photosynthesis -- clearly seen as the early 90s flat spot on the familiar CO2 graphs. From Robock 2003, Enhanced forward scattering of incoming solar radiation caused by the Pinatubo aerosols increased the diffuse radiation reaching the surface and decreased the direct flux. This allowed plants to photosynthesize more of the time, increasing the CO2 sink ... model experiments showed that the cool temperatures over land following volcanic eruptions produced reduced soil and plant respiration globally and enhanced gross primary productivity in the tropics, both of which would also reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations. On a related note, temperature impacts maximum tree height, but not in a good way: The group used the same model to predict what would happen to tree height in the event of global temperature changes, and found that with an increase of 2 degrees Celsius across the country, the average height of the tallest trees would shrink by 11 percent. Conversely, a dip of 2 degrees Celsius would spur trees to sprout up by 13 percent. -
John Hartz at 03:14 AM on 7 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
@pirate #54: You simply cannot assume that the relationship between global temperature and CO2 concentrations that are observed over geologoical time (millions of years) must hold true in the extremely brief time-scale of hundreds of years. The time since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is a mere blink of the eye with respect to geological time. -
Daniel J. Andrews at 02:39 AM on 7 August 2011Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
John has a great voice for this so let the background music be a bit more background. It is a bit overpowering. Otherwise, looking forward to many more of these. --dan -
John Hartz at 02:32 AM on 7 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
For old farts like me who have diminished hearing, the background music is way too loud. Also. if Hugh Laurie can master an American accent in oder to play the title role in the TV series House, why can't John Cook do the same? -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:00 AM on 7 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Pirate @ 54... I'm very curious, what makes you think that climate scientists have not considered the CO2 lag? Again, you have to understand that one of the best understood aspects of global warming is the radiative effects of CO2. It seems to me that you are not clear on why CO2 acts as a feedback relative to natural releases of CO2, but also acts as a forcing when we add CO2 to the atmosphere. -
Eric the Red at 01:33 AM on 7 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Neil, Be careful with your argument. Much of the world's plant life is location in regions were the average temperature is well below 76F. Therefore, a temperature increase would move plant life closer to its optimal temperature for photosynthesis. Your water analysis is true wherever water is the limiting factor to plant growth. Other factors may be the limiter; temperature, sunlight, nutrients, even CO2. In areas where water is the limiting factor and evaporation outpaces precipitation photosynthesis will decrease. -
neilrieck at 01:12 AM on 7 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
To add insult to injury, many people walk around reciting this grade-school explanation of photosynthesis: "CO2 is converted into O2". A college-level explanation of molecular biology tells us that "all the O2" liberated by plants comes from the photolysis of water (this was proved by radioactive tagging). In this model, hydrogen liberated by the photolysis of water is combined with CO2 to produce glucose. O2 is discarded as waste. Why should anyone care about this detail? Answer: Higher CO2 levels will drive up atmospheric temperature which will increase evaporation. This will cause less H2O to be available for photosynthesis, and it is H2O which will be the limiting factor, not CO2. Less photosynthesis will reduce our food supply while allowing CO2 levels to rise higher. Speculation: to avoid a CO2 run-away effect, humanity may need to engage in a world-wide terraforming of Earth just to get the CO2 problem under control. -
Doug Mackie at 15:27 PM on 6 August 2011OA not OK part 13: Polymorphs - the son of Poseidon
mea culpa on that one. Keith pointed that out that in the proofing rounds several weeks ago. I thought I had fixed it. Recapitulated etchings here. -
pbjamm at 13:54 PM on 6 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
apiratelooksat50 @54 (haha) Seriously, this is not Rocket Surgery. CO2 levels increase following temperature increases. By your previous comments you accept this as true. Physics tells us that increasing CO2 levels will cause more heat to be trapped creating a feed back loop. Currently CO2 is LEADING temperature which is, according to data presented by you, unprecedented in the records. Put these facts together and you have temperature increasing due to CO2 levels which will cause CO2 levels to rise even more as it is released from whatever sinks it was trapped in in the previous cycles. Not too complicated even for a simpleton like myself. -
muoncounter at 13:20 PM on 6 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Eric#99: "I would say 91.5 is the new 90" Well, that's something of a start. "The current 100's are mostly weather" OK, so I'll quote the rest of Tobis' posting: Climate change is always in the future. What we are seeing is merely weather. It is in the nature of Climate change that you can never observe it because only weather is observable. So everything is fine, Austin will never have a string of days over 110 F, and even when we do it will be a coincidence... That guy's a hoot. -
Eric (skeptic) at 12:20 PM on 6 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
"100 is the new 90". Being generous (since lows warm more than highs) I would say 91.5 is the new 90 (at least in the US http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110629_newnormals.html The current 100's are mostly weather, helped along to some extent by AGW. The blocking high phenomenon behind the current extremes can be discussed on another thread, perhaps AGW-related but certainly debatable and too soon to see a trend. -
Keith Hunter at 12:08 PM on 6 August 2011OA not OK part 13: Polymorphs - the son of Poseidon
Small correction: radiolaria are Protozoa, i.e. animals (in fact the smallest of all animals), unlike diatoms which are photosynthetic. -
SEAN O at 11:56 AM on 6 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
DB, I was refeering to the first one, the second is new to me, but it explains all. -
SEAN O at 11:46 AM on 6 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
This thread jogged my memory and I found this at Arthur Smith's site: "Roy Spencer's six trillion degree warming" It builds on Barry Btickmore's early debunking. Key takeway from Dr. Smith: "It turns out you need to set the starting temperature to negative six trillion degrees in 993, in order to match Spencer's model for the 20th century. 6 trillion degrees. Wow. Now that's global warming!" url: http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/roy_spencers_six_trillion_degree_warming -
SEAN O at 10:51 AM on 6 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
@54 Moderator (DB) Tamino described the missing factor as the Atlanti Multidecadal Lebrechaun Oscillation (ALMO)Response:[DB] Do you mean like this one:
Or this one:
-
muoncounter at 10:01 AM on 6 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
pirate#55: "the lag must be considered. " It was. Note the key comment: Does temperature rise cause CO2 rise or the other way around? A common misconception is that you can only have one or the other. In actuality, the answer is both. Note the other key comment: Also, gotta love this quote from Deltoid in answer to the CO2 lag argument: See also my forthcoming paper: "Chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them". -
apiratelooksat50 at 09:16 AM on 6 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Honeycutt and DB @ 52 I never made a comment about the current CO2 levels other than to say that they are historical highs. And, yes there is a relationship between CO2 and temperature, but since CO2 lags the temperature changes it is likely that another factor is influencing both. That is not to say that CO2 does not have an effect on temperature, but the lag must be considered.Response:[DB] "it is likely that another factor is influencing both"
And what, prey tell, is this semi-mythical "another factor"? Physics, after all, must explain it, just as physics explains the feedback/forcing effects of CO2.
CO2 lags temps in the historical/paleo record for known, quantifiable reasons. None of which explain the recent rise in CO2 nor the recent rise in temps in the notable absence of other forcings.
The only thing you have going for you in your mission is wish-fulfillment.
-
scaddenp at 08:52 AM on 6 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
I fail to see the relevance of this. The natural forcing causing that past climate change is well known. The milankovitch forcings are entirely predictable, very slow compared to anthropogenic forcings, and from the published paper, not about to produce any changes, any time soon. Looking at past ice-ages cycles we can indeed see that the periods when an ice age ends is subject to wild variation in climate (YD, Heinrich events etc), but these appear to be related to ice sheet collapse and we lack evidence of such wild extremes in interglacials (like now). Furthermore, the milankovich cycles were still going on in pre-Pleistocene climates but didnt cause ice-ages. Best guess as to why? CO2 level too high to produce glaciation. -
muoncounter at 08:33 AM on 6 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Nice new graphic from NOAA, comparing daytime temp records to nighttime temp records. Of course, its only one month. Almost 9,000 daily records were broken or tied last month, including 2,755 highest maximum temperatures and 6,171 highest minimum temperatures (i.e., nighttime records). ... The statistics reported here only include weather stations with real-time electronic reporting, which accounts for about two-thirds of the locations. Final numbers should be available later in August. The ever insightful Michael Tobis has an interesting perspective: As I saw somewhere today "100 is the new 90". -
Glenn Tamblyn at 08:25 AM on 6 August 2011OA not OK part 13: Polymorphs - the son of Poseidon
Andy Naming rights: William Lawrence Bragg 1890-1971 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lawrence_Bragg. He and his father were pioneers in X-Ray Diffraction and X-Ray Crystallography, he was the youngest ever Nobel prize winner at 25 What he might have thought of Billy Bragg and his music, dunno? Doug's reference to Billy is certainly cryptic. -
muoncounter at 07:46 AM on 6 August 2011Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Dale#73: Defend your ideas; on this thread, the topic is CO2 causing warming. Other topics = other threads. -
Patrick 027 at 07:29 AM on 6 August 2011OA not OK part 13: Polymorphs - the son of Poseidon
Sorry. -
Dale at 07:29 AM on 6 August 2011Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Mods, I can't defend myself now?Response:There are threads to discuss denialism vs skepticism, but this thread is not one. If that is your wish, then please use the Search function to find one & place those comments there.
-
dana1981 at 06:00 AM on 6 August 2011Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
It's kind of astonishing that anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of basic climate science - let alone a climate scientist like Curry - wouldn't immediately see the many obvious flaws in Salby's argument (let alone advertising his talk as some sort of major revelation). -
Doug Mackie at 05:53 AM on 6 August 2011OA not OK part 13: Polymorphs - the son of Poseidon
Patrick, you are not adding anything. Please keep on topic. I will not have this thread derailed. -
Patrick 027 at 05:19 AM on 6 August 2011OA not OK part 13: Polymorphs - the son of Poseidon
lattice vs crystal - yes, but if if all these spheres are identical then the fig 8 top will form (if the third square layer is aligned with the first) an FCC structure with all spheres at lattice points (the lattice cell top and bottom faces are at 45 degrees to the box; the rest of the faces stand 'vertical' (assuming a downward view); if the third layer added in the bottom of fig 8 is aligned with neither the first nor second but the fourth layer is aligned with the first, you get the same FCC structure, but rotated so that it is a cube standing on a corner. Both FCC and HCC have coordination number of 12 and have the same density (because HCC would just have the third layer added to the bottom of fig 8 be aligned with the first - it would be at the same height above the first layer; all the hexagonal layers in either FCC (which I think has hexagonal layers in four different directions, each being a diagonal running between opposite corners of the FCC cube) and in HCC have the same packing density within themselves and the same spacing between layers); the number of spheres per layer shown in the figure doesn't indicate the density because they don't fully fill the box. I think the coordination number (for spheres of equal size centered on lattice points) in BCC is 8, and none of the spheres in a layer touch each other (if we're looking at layers parallel to the faces of the cubes); they only contact spheres in the layers above and below.Moderator Response: Patrick, please stay on topic. Future posts by you that are off-topic or irrelevant will be deleted. Thanks for your cooperation. -
Daniel Bailey at 05:17 AM on 6 August 2011Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
John N-G just posted this over at RC on Salby:"I was lucky enough to attend Murray Salby’s talk at the IUGG conference in Melbourne. The thesis is not quite so simple as a correlation between CO2 rise and short-term temperature variations, because he found corroborating evidence in the change of CO2 slope over time. This made the argument not so easy to dismiss out of hand, although Salby was extremely careful not to draw any conclusions in his public presentation. It was quite good sport to play “spot the flaw” in real time. Fortunately, the talk was the last of the session, and both Alan Plumb and myself chatted with him right afterwards. Aside from whether a statistical argument makes physical sense, it also must hold water statistically by being applicable beyond the time frame of model development. In discussing what his model would mean for past variations of temperature and CO2, it eventually became clear that he believed all paleoclimate data that supported his statistical analysis and disregarded all paleoclimate data that countered his statistical analysis, even though the latter collection was much larger than the former. Eventually I realized that if 0.8 C of warming is sufficient to produce an increase of 120ppb CO2, as Salby asserted, then the converse would also have to be true. During the last glacial maximum, when global temperatures were indisputably several degrees cooler than today, the atmospheric CO2 concentration must have been negative. That was enough for me."
[Emphasis added] Good enough for me, too.
Prev 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 Next
