Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Next
Comments 99101 to 99150:
-
muoncounter at 08:10 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
#35: By land sources, I refer to Anthropogenic use of fossil fuel. The northern hemisphere as a whole emits more CO2 than the southern, primarily due to the greater land area. If the global ocean is a primary CO2 source, I have difficulty understanding how places like the Azores, Easter Island, Bermuda, Midway, etc don't see it. See the flux maps and flux time series displays here for some comparative rates, organized by geographic setting. Also look at CO2 weather while you're on that ESRL site; you can literally see the seasonal cycles of atmospheric CO2. Oceans are complicated, as you well know. There are some comments and maps of locallized ocean sourcing in the deep southern hemisphere vs. sinking elsewhere on the ocean acidification threads here and here. -
Bibliovermis at 08:09 AM on 11 January 2011One-line rebuttals now available as flashcards for study or play
To further enhance linkability, the domain name sks.to is available from the Tonga Network Information Center for $100 (2 years @ $50). e.g. sks.to/change => skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm -
hfranzen at 07:51 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
Very nice! I had to think some about your last sentence - is the point that land sources are located primarily in ranges of latitude whereas the ocean as a source goes from the equator to the pole? -
muoncounter at 07:06 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
#25: "if you dodge the jab if he follows with a crushing uppercutwelling." Good one! However, look at the monthly records of atmospheric CO2 concentration at various monitoring sites around the world. Within a band of latitudes, there is no measurable difference between island stations and mid-continent stations. There are significant differences according to latitude. If CO2 is primarily sourced from the oceans, the former requires immediate mixing throughout the atmosphere; the latter says its not mixing. That's a TKO by contradiction. Land sourcing of CO2 does not face this problem. -
apiratelooksat50 at 06:54 AM on 11 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
I have a comment pertaining to GC's post @ 197. But, first I would like to know if there is an official AGW hypothesis so I don't get accused of being in error. Thanks.Moderator Response: This is the wrong thread for that. Look through the Arguments list to see if you can find a more appropriate thread. -
apiratelooksat50 at 06:49 AM on 11 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
From Roles of Volcanic Eruptions, Aerosols and Clouds in Global Carbon Cycle Gu, L., et al, University of California - Berkeley Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, "Roles of Volcanic Eruptions, Aerosols and Clouds in Global Carbon Cycle", 2001 After Mt. Pinatubo erupted in June, 1991 several observations were made by scientists. Ash and other particulate matter created a haze around the Earth in the upper atmosphere and effectively lowered the global temperature by about 0.9 degrees F. This is a clear case of cause and effect. (Less energy input into the system results in lowered global temperatures.) Also, the rate of which CO2 was added to the air was noticed by scientists to slow down for the next two years. From the article, "Many scientists previously thought the reduction in sunlight lowered the Earth's temperature and slowed plant and soil respiration, a process where plants and soil emit CO2. But this new research shows that when faced with diffuse sunlight, plants actually become more efficient, drawing more carbon dioxide out of the air." Again, a clear representation of cause and effect. (Diffuse sunlight leads to more efficient photosynthesis. Then, the more efficient photosynthesis leads to a drop in the atmospheric growth rate of CO2.) The lowered temperature also contributed to lower CO2 inputs to the system by slowing down plant and soil respiration. Cause and effect once again. Therefore, we have the dominant factors of a volcanic eruption and the resulting diminishment of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. The diffuse sunlight allowed plants to conduct photosynthesis more efficiently (uses CO2). The lowered temperature slowed down cellular respiration (produces CO2). While temperature and CO2 did respond in kind, neither factor was directly responding to the other. A clear case of an outside factor(s) influencing both dependent variables. Also, it should be noted that this rapid decrease in temperature that persisted for two years, is almost as great as the gradual change in global temperature being attributed to AGW over the last 150 years (0.9 versus 1.4). I don't recall any environmental catastrophes during that time perioid.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] You continue to take this thread off-topic. Pinatubo is well-researched and included in climate modeling. Your post has no apparent point. -
hfranzen at 06:48 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
Additional response to #12: It is important to distinguish in these discussions between an arbitrary process and a net process. It is logically impossible for the ocean to be both a net source and a net sink. One must decide upon a time scale, e.g. one year, and then one can ask two entirely distinct questions. 1.Does the surface ocean give off carbon dioxide at some times and in some places? The answer to this, as given by the major result above, is "without a doubt". 2. Is there a net gain or a net loss of carbon dioxide in the oceans? Here again the answer is certain - a net gain . This follows immediately from the known increase in the partial pressure of CO2 (the Keeling curve)and Henry's Law (and the resultant shifts in the CO2-bicarboante-carbonate equilibria). It is impossib;e to think about this problem without a clear understanding of what a net process is and how such a process is relaed to a definite time scale. -
Mila at 06:46 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
#28 sure, I just feel that kinetics arguments are more easy to grasp - but maybe just for me -
Ron Crouch at 06:25 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
Dr. Franzen could you elaborate as to the effect of adding organic carbon into the equation in the context of your response #10. Thanks. -
hfranzen at 06:13 AM on 11 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Response to #42: To what model do you refer? In what way is it fla]wed? In the broadest context all models are flawed by their very essence. The question is not whether or not they are flawed it is whether the flaws are sufficient ot negate the conclusion. Of course since I do no know to what model you are referring I cannot respond. But i might no be able to respond anyhow because it is essentially in criticising a model that you be specific about what the flaws are and how they effect the result. -
Phila at 06:05 AM on 11 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Using the things we don't know as an argument in favor of complacency would make no logical sense even if competent, peer-reviewed science supported doing so, which it certainly doesn't. Garbled that, sorry. I mean that it would make no logical sense even if the science were far more uncertain than it actually is. -
Bibliovermis at 06:01 AM on 11 January 2011One-line rebuttals now available as flashcards for study or play
The fixed numbers argument page already has short names for many of the arguments. A 404 redirect could be set up to use that table. e.g. skepticalscience.com/sun => skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm -
Phila at 06:01 AM on 11 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
gallopingcamel: As "apiratelooksat50" and others including myself have pointed out many times, the uncertainties are great. Your own rhetoric in this thread strongly suggests that you don't actually believe this. What you seem to believe — with an amazing degree of certainty - is that any potential negative consequences of AGW are negligible, or less dangerous than taking action. In the real world, "uncertainty" means that things could be worse than the best available science predicts. Using the things we don't know as an argument in favor of complacency would make no logical sense even if competent, peer-reviewed science supported doing so, which it certainly doesn't.Moderator Response: ... and discussion of that topic belongs on the Argument thread "The science isn’t settled." -
hfranzen at 05:48 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
Response to #12: To what wonderful news are do you refer? What I said was that the CO2 in the ocean responds to two "external" variables, namely temperature and partial pressure. The former, if it increases, forces the CO2 to come out of the ocean, if it decreases the ocean dissolves more. The partial pressure of CO2 also can serve to cause the process to go in one direction or the other. As long as it continues increaing more CO2 enters the ocean - sadly if we should ever get the partial pressure to decrease the result is that CO2 will then enter the atmosphere from the ocean. I cannot see that I am neglecting either of the things that you say I am - read it again. -
hfranzen at 05:38 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
Response to #24: I appreciate the help but cannot for the life of me find the errors you point out. I am looking at my orginal submission at the top of the page. I know I am a lousy proofreader so I definitley need all the help I can get! -
ahaynes at 05:31 AM on 11 January 2011One-line rebuttals now available as flashcards for study or play
Tom, I agree that shorter URLs would help, as would longer one-liners, which are short in order to fit on the argument one-liners webpage (link). But unless John wants to add more fields to his DB for these, it's probably not worth the effort to cobble them up separately. -
hfranzen at 05:24 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
Response to #22. There is a fundamental divide between reasoning from thermodynamics and reasoning from kinetics, Your discussion about bicarbonate and carbonate (I ignore carbonic acid - to my mind it is more aptly described as hydrated CO2 - the only disticntion between dissolved CO2 and carbinic acid is that in the later case there must be identifiable species with one water moleclule attached to the CO2 as oposed to a cage of water molecules with some leaving and some entering the cage over time.)At any rate, the species are all included in the thermodynamic treatment and the temperature deoendence is also. That's how I was able to arrive at a total carbon dioxide solubility as a function of tamperature, which is the main result of what I presented. -
Alexandre at 05:24 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
gcnp58 #25 It´s difficult to say "skeptics don't say this". They claim anything that would suggest emissions don't have to be cut. That includes "skeptics" implying the chemistry above does not take place, like Monckton here on page 47: "this minuscule and chemichally-irrelevant perturbation". So yes, I'd say that Franzen's post does address skeptical claims. -
hfranzen at 05:16 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
Response to #25 Good points! -
skywatcher at 04:58 AM on 11 January 2011Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
Superb archive and thanks for the resource. Tamino has a great knack of providing both accessible and robust statistical analyses, and it is gratifying to know that at least some of his earlier work has been recovered. I did a search for his 'Riddle Me This' post which in the past I used to link to on many occasions to rebut the 'global warming has stopped' arguments. It has been lost from Tamino's site but an archived copy of it appears here. It is well worth a look, as is one of his very recent posts here which is in a slightly different way an update to 2010, though only using annual data and GISS. The earlier post included multiple sources at monthly resolution which made it so powerful. I do not know if climatechangepsychology has other of Tamino's more recent lost posts, but may be worth a closer look, googling Tamiono specifically at that site brings up quite a few hits.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Thanks, I'll look into Tenney's site for more Tamino posts archived there & add them to the main post above when I get the chance! -
GCNP58 at 04:56 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
I agree with everything you've written concerning the CO2 system, but most skeptics (I mean the ones that are smart enough to be engaging, at least a little bit, until they become delusional anyway) I've seen using the "CO2 is coming from the ocean" meme don't use a strict inorganic chemistry approach. Instead, they focus on circulation, and ventilation of the deep water, which has very high DIC concentrations, leading to high aqueous-phase pCO2. When this water is brought to the surface, there is a very high sea-to-air CO2 flux (which is why atmospheric pCO2 rises during la Nina (lots of deep water brought to the surface) and decreases during el Nino(Peruvian upwelling mostly shut off)). So, clever skeptics then use this to argue that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is not coming from the surface water, but deep water that is brought to the surface. In this case your steady-state thermodynamic argument is useless, and you have to be willing to discuss how we know that upwelling isn't responsible (isotopic signatures yadda yadda, I'm sure there's a post on that here somewhere). Don't take this as a criticism, but people relying on your reasoning had better also read up on the isotopic signal as well, because it doesn't matter if you dodge the jab if he follows with a crushing uppercutwelling. -
MattJ at 04:22 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
'Restraint' looks like the wrong word. 'Constraint' looks better. And there is no such word as 'restaraint'! "the observed quantity of dissolved of boric acid yields" needs to be fixed, too. It is hard enough to follow the chemistry without such grammatical errors and/or omissions of substantives. -
Alexandre at 04:17 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
Gish gallop. I did not know this expression. Very descriptive. -
JMurphy at 04:03 AM on 11 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
Chemist1 wrote : "...climate is the averaging of weather over a minimal timescale. Some are comfortable with 30 years, others 100 and others try and look at paleoclimate extending 400,000 or more years ago. 30 years is just a drop in the bucket in terms of climate." Hey, this sounds like a good game - 'make up your own climate definition (depending on what you want, or don't want, to see'. I would like 'climate' to mean an average of approximately 42.13 years, to two decimal places. Why ? Why not ? An even better idea, though, is to ask for definitions from the organisations that actually know what they are talking about : like the World Meteorological Organisation. Shall we ask them ? What do they say ? The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). I wonder why ? Let's see what the UK Met Office have to say : Thirty years was chosen as a period long enough to eliminate year-to-year variations. Oh well, scrub my 42.13 years - I'll go along with the experts. -
Mila at 03:57 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
#21 being a chemist I am used to see things molecule by molecule so with a lot of simplification: 1. every fraction of a second billions of billions of CO2 molecules leave ocean 2. every fraction of a second billions of billions of CO2 molecules enter ocean 3. with such huge numbers chance is not important, only averages count 4. if CO2 was the same as nitrogen or oxygen, situation would be simple, the only force keeping the CO2 in ocean would be week intermolecular forces (van der Waals) - the higher temperature the faster are molecules moving they do not spent enough time together and so it is not so advantageous from energy point of view to stay in liquid 5. CO2 dissolves in water to carbonic acid which is very weak but still acid and so neutralization comes to picture and it quickly starts to be rather tricky as also these reactions depend on temperature 6. but as long as you do not find a reaction which would be accelerated with increasing temperature (and faster than decreased solubility of gases with temperature) and which would transform CO2 to something insoluble which would drop to the ocean bottom you have to be aware of the possibility that with increasing temperature ocean as carbon sink will be less efficient 7. but of course the major driving force for carbon removal is biological pump (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_pump); actually one of reasons behind ice ages is that in time of ice ages was less water in atmosphere -> more dust -> biological pump more efficient as oceans far away from lands were fertilized -> 190ppm of CO2 in atmosphere -> less warm -> less moisture - more dust ... 8. and that is the main problem with science, I wanted a short break from programming and so started a replay after 10 minutes of writing I have not mentioned a lot of arguments which would be useful to mention , wrote from top of head and did not think about arguments much so the replay may contain a few factual mistakes but at least you may see another chemist view ;) -
Albatross at 03:48 AM on 11 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
GC @197, "You have it backwards. It is up to the proponents of AGW to make better case for the hypothesis." No, you have it backwards GC. In science one can prove nothing; it is not mathematics. One can, however, refute or disprove something. The scientific case for the theory of AGW has already been made-- it has evolved from the knowledge and understanding integrated over more than 100 years and across multiple disciplines. Now if you wish to refute it or disprove the theory of AGW, then the onus is on you to present credible, coherent and reproducible scientific evidence to the contrary. They have been trying to do so for over 100 years now (Spencer Weart's book provides an excellent overview) and so far all attempts to do so have failed. Those opposing the theory of evolution have run into the same problem again and again. The fact that in the past global SAT lead CO2 is well understood, is entirely consistent with the science and also demonstrates that CO2 is in fact an important regulator of global SAT (as was also recently demonstrated by Lacis et al. 2010). Additionally, that observation does not, however, preclude CO2 from being a major climate driver when we rapidly increase it to its highest levels in potentially 15 million years. Even Christy, Lindzen and Spencer agree that doubling CO2 will warm the planet-- that is increasing CO2 will increase global SATs. However, believe (rather wishfully some would argue) that climate sensitivity is low. But that is a subject for another thread. In closing GC, if you or a graduate student or scientist can disprove the theory of AGW, then I see a Nobel in your future. -
hfranzen at 03:32 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
Response to #16. It is my understanding that geophysicists explain the ice ages using the Milankovich cycles, i.e. pertubations of the earth's tilt and ellipticity mainly caused by Jupiter's mass. The gist of my argument is just this: CO2 cannot be thought to just pass from the ocean to the air without some driving force. The driving force for it to enter the oceans is clear - increasing partial pressure. But in the other direction the only possibility I can see is increased temperature. And the calculation of the chemical equilibria involved, invoking the necessary condition of eletro neutrality, show that only about 14 micrmoles are released from a kilogram of water when the temperature is raised by one degree. In other words as the ocean warms locally (say during the day) a small amount of CO2 will be released locally. But the ocean will be cooling elswhere (when it's day in one place it's night in another) and therefore, as ythe quation shows, for each degree of cooling 14 micrgrams dissolve. In other words the ocean is constantly "breathing" CO2 in and out, the net change is zero and the air wovement, i.e. wind, homogenizes the gas phase. -
Mila at 03:31 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
The Marine Inorganic Carbon Cycle by Frank J. Millero Chem. Rev., 2007, 107 (2), pp 308–341 DOI: 10.1021/cr0503557 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cr0503557 provides in depth discussion. see: http://imars.usf.edu/~carib/Public/Millero_2006_2007/Millero_review_Article.pdf if you have no access to paid version -
JMurphy at 03:23 AM on 11 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
gallopingcamel wrote : "What we know about climate change is vastly exceeded by what we don't know. Those who express certainty that CO2 is driving modern climate come across as zealots rather than scientists." 'What we know about cosmogony is vastly exceeded by what we don't know. Those who express certainty about the origins of the universe come across as zealots rather than scientists.' Help - we can't know everything, let's give up or call those smarty scientists zealots for being so clever and all, pretending they know more than the rest of us. By the way, previously you went on at length about what you are doing to convince yourself of AGW - if such an end result is possible with you. What similar work have you done to convince yourself of the merits of cosmogony and evolution ? -
hfranzen at 03:20 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
Response to #9. I am highly interested in seeing your argument that the second law is violated by global warming. Please be aware that I taught graduate und undergraduate thermdynamics for nearly 50 years and have thought extensively about GW for the last ten. That is not meant to scare you off - just to provide you with information that might help you to frame a response.Moderator Response: But all such discussions *must* occur on the appropriate thread, not this one. Use the Search field at the top left to find that Argument containing "law." -
hfranzen at 03:17 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
Response to #13. Thank you. Excellent analogies for what I am trying to do! -
hfranzen at 03:16 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
Response to #6., "Lartge amounts...of CO2 and CH4 can be addd with no net temperature change" is simply not true. I have noidea where thisd notion came from but both CO2 and CH4 are sbsorbers of infrared radiation in the earth's Planck region and the aborption will increase because of the increase in participation by the many rotational levels available to both. Read the article in the recent Physics Today. Therein are described planetaru absortions (e.g. Venus) that greatly exceend anything here on earth. It is my understanding that the surface temperature on Venus is sufficently high to melt lead mainly due to its CO2 atmosphere. -
Martin at 03:13 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
If I have understood your post correctly, it is difficult to change the amount of CO2 in the oceans because it takes a lot of energy to change the temperature of the ocean including the deep (how deep is deep?) ocean. How does one then explain the end of the ice ages? I thought the end of an ice age was triggered by a change in the earth's orbit around the sun and then the warmed ocean started outgassing CO2. And this in turn would have led to increasing temperatures, and so on. I'm not able to calculate how much the ocean would have warmed by a change in the earth's orbit. But after reading your post, it seems to me that the ocean would not have warmed sufficiently for there to be significant CO2 outgassing. Something seems to be missing here? Or perhaps it's just me who is missing something? -
michael sweet at 03:09 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
Chemist 1: I read several pages of your reference at #12 and it appears to support Dr. Franzens position. It describes the ocean as complicated on the page you cited, but on page 62 it estimates ocean uptake of CO2 as 2 Gt per year. It certainly does not say that AGW violates the first and second law of thermodynamics, as you claim. You need to find a reference that actually supports your position, not one that contradicts what you are asserting. If you cannot find a reference that supports your position perhaps you should reconsider. -
Bibliovermis at 02:59 AM on 11 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
gallopingcamel, Those who express certainty that the scientific community hasn't considered [x], [y], or [z] come across as zealots rather than skeptics. -
Chris G at 02:54 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
#5 Chemware, I'm sure I don't want to know, but from where does your friend with the ocean heat theory think that the energy to heat the ocean is coming from? Or, what has changed in the last 1-2 hundred years that should give the ocean so much extra energy? I mean, the oceans are warming, but not by 12 K. You could also say that they are loosing heat less rapidly just as well, it depends on how you want to look at it, but the physical science is the same. I'm having trouble grasping how someone who should have a good working knowledge of heat content and conservation of energy could be thinking that the oceans are heating spontaneously. -
Rovinpiper at 02:48 AM on 11 January 2011Humidity is falling
I was reading in Mark Bowen's book Censoring Science about the Vostok ice core. It says, "Methane, like carbon dioxide, rose and fell with temperature, whereas dust tended to go the other way. This made sense, as methane and carbon dioxide levels fell and the air cooled, it would have lost water vapor through feedback and become drier and more dusty." Yet, I also recall reading in a US Army Southwest Asia (Middle East) manual that as the temperature increases in summer the soil dries. Without water to hold it down dust goes into the air. So in that case warmer air is dustier. How can we be sure that increased levels of dust in layers of an ice core indicate lower humidity? -
Chris G at 02:37 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
Chemist1, Look, Dr Franzen is describing the arc of a falling object as a parabola, and you are interjecting air resistance as a function of altitude, temperature, and humidity. Besides, it's more accurately an arc-segment of an ellipse. Yeah, we know there is more to it than what Dr Franzen describes above, but as he stated, it's a starting point. Unless you really feel that a student should be taught drag coefficients for various shaped bodies and how drag varies with atmospheric composition and approximately with the square of the velocity at the same time that they are taught about projectile paths using the mechanics of gravitational constants (which aren't constant, btw), your points are extraneous. You can get a working estimate of what a throw rock will do using a parabolic curve and 9.8 m/s^2, and you can get a working estimate of CO2 exchange between air and sea with the above. -
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 02:32 AM on 11 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
gallopingcamel The case has been made. It is accepted by the majority of climate scientists and by scientific bodies around the world, and is supported by a huge body of evidence coming from many disciplines. Up to you now to show where it's gone wrong if you think it has, and substantiate it with data analysis, not hypothetical musings. -
gallopingcamel at 02:23 AM on 11 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Anne-Marie Blackburn (#194), you said: "Do you have evidence, as published in the scientific literature, that the theory of anthropogenic climate change is fundamentally flawed?" You have it backwards. It is up to the proponents of AGW to make better case for the hypothesis. -
gallopingcamel at 02:11 AM on 11 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
archiesteel (#193), Enough of the straw man approach. It may surprise you when I assert that CO2 "always" correlates with climate as it affects the energy balance through the well understood process of capturing long wavelength radiation. Where we diverge is in the magnitude of the effect in relation to other things that influence climate, such as water vapor, clouds, aerosols, cosmic rays etc.. What should be red flags to those of you who are so sure that CO2 is the magic bullet of climate change is the inability of the modelers to explain past climate change and their lack of predictive powers. As "apiratelooksat50" and others including myself have pointed out many times, the uncertainties are great. We are trying to measure changes of a few tenths of a degree in measurements that oscillate over very wide ranges from night to day and summer to winter. What we know about climate change is vastly exceeded by what we don't know. Those who express certainty that CO2 is driving modern climate come across as zealots rather than scientists. -
Chemist1 at 01:54 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
hfranzen that is wonderful news since the bodies of water are major C02 sinks. If there is no release or no net release and oceans can absorb so much C02 due to things like algae and various biological life, then the buffering capacity is truly remarkable.But wait what do you make of this: http://books.google.com/books... It seems in your calculations you neglect temperature and regional effects on C02 release and absorption in bodies of water. -
hfranzen at 01:48 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
Response to #8. Please read my discussion in GWPPT6 on my web site hfranzen.org. If you find any errors there please let me know. -
Chemist1 at 01:47 AM on 11 January 2011The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate
Hansen predicted near snow free winters as did other climatologists. Hansen predicted larger sea level rise, far higher than is being now reported. Gore based his estimates and charts on Hansen's work. Hansen designed 3 different models of future temps all of which were off, but 2 were way off and were terms possible scenarios.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Please provide linked sources to these claims Hansen supposedly made. Unsupported assertions doth not convince. -
hfranzen at 01:45 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
I was explicit about this dealing with an inorganic model of the ocean surface. I was not, and cannot, deal with the whole ocean. It is my thesis that we need elementary models that catch the essence of the problem in order to communicate with skeptics. If the only models put forth require that one go into all of the myriad details we will, I fear, fail to communicate except with eachother. Thus this piece is simply a response to the deniers. many of whom still maintain that the oceans are respnsible for the increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. What is demonstrated here is that a very simple model of the ocean, but one that catches the essence of the surface ocean inorganic chemistry because it includes all of the restraints, clearly shows that the average ocean does not give off carbon dioxide. The major point is that deniers (and many others) discuss the ocean-atmosphere interaction as though the carbon dioxide were simply free to pass back and forth without restraint. Most discussions of the topic fail to discuss the charge balance restraint. A striking point to me is that sitting in my office and working with established thermodynamic data (which are available worldwide in numerous texts and compilations) I can demonstrate using only the ,easured pH and the partial presssure of carbon dioxide hat some 90+% of the dissoved carbon dioxide is present as bicarbonate nad thus that the majority of what is in the ocean is of terrestrial origin. The only point that need be made about averages (and this is also the answer to the deniers who confuse weather and climate) is the if one averages over an earth-year they get an average temperature which means that if the local temperature increases at one place and/or time it will necessarily decrease in another. -
Chemist1 at 01:43 AM on 11 January 2011The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate
The issue here is even climatologists who study climate for a living have a very limited understanding of climate. The biggest misunderstanding is the assumption that we can know what the global mean temperature is in the first place. We do not have technology as of yet that can do this. We cannot know for sure what the temperature deviations have been either.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You are prolific in your incorrectness, aren't you? See the left-hand column on every page? The thermometer-looking thingy? All your objections have been dealt with already on this site. Start by doing a little reading first. Use the search function if you have questions to see if your questions have already been dealt with on Skeptical Science. Odds are they have. You continue to betray your lack of understanding with every comment you have made thus far. Thanks! -
Chemist1 at 01:36 AM on 11 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
JMurphy climate is the averaging of weather over a minimal timescale. Some are comfortable with 30 years, others 100 and others try and look at paleoclimate extending 400,000 or more years ago. 30 years is just a drop in the bucket in terms of climate. (-edit-)Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] 30 years or more is the typical standard used. Depending on the datasets and methodology used determines the length of time needed for a time series to be robust. JMurphy was trying to help you gain understanding in this matter and has ably demonstrated a robust understanding of climate science here over the years. Future inflammatory remarks will be deleted. -
Chemist1 at 01:33 AM on 11 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
The planet is about even between warming and cooling so there is no net temp change, or one that is neglible at best. It can be either very minor cooling or very minor warming.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Incorrect. We are now a bit over 2 degrees C removed from a glacial period (we are in an interglacial right now), with an expected further temperature rise of about 2-3 degrees (or more) C expected by 2100. Not a minor matter at all.
-
Ken Lambert at 01:29 AM on 11 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
#64 keithpickering Well we have the log equation for forcing F.CO2, but do we have equations for all the other terms (cloud albedo etc) and the climate response feedbacks? eg. We know S-B if we know the effective radiating temp which is then dependent on the temp difference across the atmospheric column which is dependent on the WV + ice feedback etc etc etc. If we take the forcings from Dr Trenberth's Fig 4 (August09 paper) the net warming imbalance is 0.9W/sq.m. The net is what is important here - not any one forcing. If these forward temperature projections are worth anything, the forward forcings must be knowable to a reasonable degree of accuracy. -
Chemist1 at 01:21 AM on 11 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
The equilibrium problem model is flawed.
Prev 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Next
