Recent Comments

Prev  1550  1551  1552  1553  1554  1555  1556  1557  1558  1559  1560  1561  1562  1563  1564  1565  Next

Comments 77851 to 77900:

77851. Tom Curtis at 10:17 AM on 7 August 2011
       More 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.
77852. John Hartz at 10:14 AM on 7 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
       @Eternal Sunshine #10: Is there such a thing as "downlifting" music?
77853. Eternal Sunshine at 09:48 AM on 7 August 2011
       Climate 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.
77854. Muzz at 09:23 AM on 7 August 2011
       OA 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.
77855. Michael of Brisbane at 07:53 AM on 7 August 2011
       Climate 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.
77856. rockytom at 07:46 AM on 7 August 2011
       Climate 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
77857. muoncounter at 07:21 AM on 7 August 2011
       More 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).

77858. Eric the Red at 05:22 AM on 7 August 2011
       More 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.
77859. John Hartz at 03:56 AM on 7 August 2011
       Loehle 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.
77860. muoncounter at 03:20 AM on 7 August 2011
       More 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.
77861. John Hartz at 03:14 AM on 7 August 2011
       Climate 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.
77862. Daniel J. Andrews at 02:39 AM on 7 August 2011
       Climate 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
77863. John Hartz at 02:32 AM on 7 August 2011
       Climate 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?
77864. Rob Honeycutt at 02:00 AM on 7 August 2011
       Climate 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.
77865. Eric the Red at 01:33 AM on 7 August 2011
       More 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.
77866. neilrieck at 01:12 AM on 7 August 2011
       More 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.
77867. Doug Mackie at 15:27 PM on 6 August 2011
       OA 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.
77868. pbjamm at 13:54 PM on 6 August 2011
       Climate 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.
77869. muoncounter at 13:20 PM on 6 August 2011
       The 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.
77870. Eric (skeptic) at 12:20 PM on 6 August 2011
       The 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.
77871. Keith Hunter at 12:08 PM on 6 August 2011
       OA 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.
77872. SEAN O at 11:56 AM on 6 August 2011
       Climate 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.
77873. SEAN O at 11:46 AM on 6 August 2011
       Just 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
77874. SEAN O at 10:51 AM on 6 August 2011
       Climate 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:

       

77875. muoncounter at 10:01 AM on 6 August 2011
       Climate 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".
77876. apiratelooksat50 at 09:16 AM on 6 August 2011
       Climate 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.

77877. scaddenp at 08:52 AM on 6 August 2011
       Rising 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.
77878. muoncounter at 08:33 AM on 6 August 2011
       The 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".
77879. Glenn Tamblyn at 08:25 AM on 6 August 2011
       OA 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.
77880. muoncounter at 07:46 AM on 6 August 2011
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       Dale#73: Defend your ideas; on this thread, the topic is CO2 causing warming. Other topics = other threads.
77881. Patrick 027 at 07:29 AM on 6 August 2011
       OA not OK part 13: Polymorphs - the son of Poseidon
       Sorry.
77882. Dale at 07:29 AM on 6 August 2011
       Increasing 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.

77883. dana1981 at 06:00 AM on 6 August 2011
       Increasing 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).
77884. Doug Mackie at 05:53 AM on 6 August 2011
       OA 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.
77885. Patrick 027 at 05:19 AM on 6 August 2011
       OA 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.
77886. Daniel Bailey at 05:17 AM on 6 August 2011
       Increasing 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.
77887. Robert Murphy at 04:51 AM on 6 August 2011
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       "Spells? Sounds a bit like witchcraft to me." Or a touch of the vapors.
77888. Albatross at 04:48 AM on 6 August 2011
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       Muoncounter @67 and EtR @68, You know, Judith should really just step away form her keyboard-- she is continuing to make an utter fool of herself. These "huge increases in CO2 concentrations" that Curry is so excited about are a) transient and b> < 2 ppmv.
77889. Eric the Red at 04:18 AM on 6 August 2011
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       Stephen, It is not an issue of conservation of mass. Atmospheric CO2 is part of a complex equilibrium system. The CO2 that we are emitting does not remain in the atmosphere, but reacts according to the many natural chemical equations on this planet. If the amount we were adding was insignificant, then the environmental equations involving CO2 would use up the excess CO2 and form more products, keeping the atmospheric concentration relatively constant. Salby's own numbers indicate that nature is only using 45% of the excess CO2, with 55% remaining in the atmosphere. His assertion that CO2 is simply reacting to increasing temperatures would be more believable if it followed the recent temperature profile. However, temperatures have oscillated significantly during the past 130 years, while CO2 emissions have consistently increased.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Atmospheric CO2 is part of a complex equilibrium system, however it is a closed system and so must obey conservation of mass. Becuase of conservation of mass, the fact that annual rise in atmospheric CO2 being always smaller than anthropogenic emissions establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the natural environment is a net carbon sink and hence is opposing the rise in atmospheric concentrations, not causing it. Unless Salby et al can refute that argument, the paper shouldn't pass review.
77890. muoncounter at 04:07 AM on 6 August 2011
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       from jcurry's commentary: "huge increases in carbon dioxide concentrations caused by such things as spells of warming and El Ninos, which cause concentration levels to increase independently of human emissions." I wonder how these 'spells of warming' manage to both increase and decrease CO2 in sync with human economic activity, even down to as fine a scale as the day/night differences associated with weekday traffic (also here). And I can only marvel at how these 'warming spells' know to take the weekends off. Spells? Sounds a bit like witchcraft to me.
77891. Albatross at 03:57 AM on 6 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
       I highly recommend that everyone read Dr. Mashey's essay (here it is) which just appeared in "The Chronicle for Higher Education", it is relevant to this post. Some pertinent quotes from Mashey's piece: "People should be free to express their opinions, but not all opinions are equal, especially about science. Is it acceptable in CHE to state as fact that cigarettes cause no disease? Can one claim that the chemistry behind ozone depletion is a fraud? Can one state that the moon is made of green cheese? Can one say that astronauts lied about landing there and should be put in prison? Might Rush Limbaugh comment here, repeating his opinion that scientists should be “named and fired, drawn and quartered”? “Public flogging” was enough for Marc Morano of CFACT..." "Is there a dividing line between legitimate academic controversy and libel? If so, where is that line and who draws it? Academic controversy is not characterized by use of Nazi labels or exhortations that scientists be physically harmed. It is not characterized by baseless, wacky conspiracy theories about worldwide plots by mainstream science. Academic discussions involve data, facts, and justifiable, soundly crafted theories." "Some climate scientists have faced this politically based assault for years. Anti-science echo-chamber blogs amplify anger, yielding nothing like legitimate scientific discussion, and as a likely result scientists get death threats and dead rats left on doorsteps." We'll be very fortunate to get through this "debate" without losing a legitimate climate scientist to an untimely and unnecessary death at the hands of someone "inspired" by the rhetoric of Limbaugh, Monckton, Morano etc.
77892. Andy Skuce at 03:56 AM on 6 August 2011
       OA not OK part 13: Polymorphs - the son of Poseidon
       This is a great series, thanks, Doug. I'm learning lots. PS: If anyone figures out the significance of the last link in your post, can they claim bragging rights?
77893. KR at 03:51 AM on 6 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
       I cannot hear portions of the voiceover - the music is entirely too loud.
77894. dhogaza at 03:16 AM on 6 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
       "If you are really interested in two competing sites, read realclimate and Roger Pielke, they often present opposite sides to the same story" Yes, it's imperative that one support ones denialism by giving equal credibility to a site run by professional climate scientists, and one run by a *political scientist* whose grasp of climate science, to be polite, appears to fall so short of the mark that one might, if one were the suspicious type, suspect that he's not entirely honest.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] He may have meant Pielke snr (who is a professional climate scientist)
77895. Byron Smith at 02:55 AM on 6 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
       @#3 +1
77896. Albatross at 02:39 AM on 6 August 2011
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       How about we listen to what an expert, a real climate scientist, has to say: Comment from Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate: This has nothing whatsoever to do with attribution of the temperature rise. The response of the CC to temperature is a specific thing - and it doesn't matter if it is originally driven by Milankovitch and ice sheets (over the ice age cycle), solar and volcanic activity over the pre-industrial, or by human activity/martian fairies/the PDO or whatever today. ENSO is an internal source of temperature changes on short time scales, and Pinatubo is an external source of temperature change over a short time period - both are included in any modern period regression such as Salby must have used. And the sensitivity of the carbon cycle to such changes is noticeable, but small and nothing like enough to explain the 20th C change. But even without thinking about this that deeply at all, it is obvious that Salby is wrong - we have put more than twice as much CO2 into the air as has actually accumulated over the last 100 years. To posit that the rise is not anthropogenic implies finding sinks that have totally taken up the anthropogenic CO2 *and* new sources that have put half of it back again. Meanwhile, all the actual reservoirs have more carbon than they had previously. Furthermore, the 13C and 14C data (up until the bomb peak) support a predominantly fossil fuel source. And the O2/N2 levels are dropping at the rate expected (given that we are burning C, and taking O2 from the air). The idea that a poorly performed regression undermines all this is ludicrous. - gavin"
77897. Albatross at 01:57 AM on 6 August 2011
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       I do not know what is worse, Salby trying to sell this ridiculous notion, or people like Curry uncritically egging him on. It is clear from the Climate Etc. thread that Curry does not know what is going on. And Salby has not published a single paper on the carbon cycle that I am aware of. Really this is just smoke and mirrors and people like Dale lap it up to reinforce their denial. For example, one of the commentators to that advertisement for his talk (50% of which was about him, not the subject he is trying to speaking to) states: "But I thought the science was settled??" Now there is a true "skeptic, not. His mission has been accomplished before the paper has even made it though peer review. This is very, very likely just another Trojan paper to make people think "the science isn't settled so we don;t have to do anything". PS: "Skeptics" claim that temperatures have not warmed since November 1996, if Salby's hypothesis is correct then why have CO2 levels continue to rise, perhaps even accelerate since then?
77898. Rob Honeycutt at 01:53 AM on 6 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
       Pirate@44... I realize that is an EPA chart but it's not a very good one. For one, the CO2 scale is a bit funked out. It suggests CO2 levels have fluctuated between about 130-250ppm and I don't think that's accurate. 190-290 is more likely correct (IIRC). The second thing that is funky with that chart is the relative scales of temp and CO2. My suggestion would be to be more skeptical and see if you can find other sources that either support or disprove the accuracy of the chart. I find it ironical that you're using this chart to try to suggest that climate change is natural and CO2 is not having a strong effect. It's quite literally the relationship between temp and CO2 in the ice core records that help us understand the climate's sensitivity to CO2 forcing. But to understand that you're going to have to dig in and read a few actual research papers. The long and short here is, you're not being skeptical. You're looking for ways to deny what you don't want to believe.
       Response:

       [DB] Over the past 800,000 years, CO2 concentrations have never been above 298.7 PPM...until now:

       

77899. Alexandre at 01:52 AM on 6 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
       The soundtrack is sometimes a bit too loud for John's voice. I would tone it down a bit.
77900. muoncounter at 01:43 AM on 6 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
       EtR, Thanks. We agree on something at last. But Einstein was referring to experiments: No amount of experimentation can prove him correct, a single experiment can prove him wrong. Deeply philosophical; 'prove correct' is not well-defined in terms of scientific theory. We've all seen examples that a single scientist can be innocently wrong; or worse, can be bought, sold or otherwise persuaded to come up with questionable results. The existence of these 'outliers' proves little; it is their work that must stand scrutiny. Or as I frequently remind my students: If you really believe that your results are correct and everyone else is wrong, double check before you buy a ticket to Stockholm.

Prev  1550  1551  1552  1553  1554  1555  1556  1557  1558  1559  1560  1561  1562  1563  1564  1565  Next