Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 2336 2337 2338 2339 2340 2341 2342 2343 Next
Comments 116751 to 116800:
-
walter crain at 01:22 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
john, thanks for the article. and thanks for keeping track of and offering context/rebuttals for all the skeptics' false arguments. on this topic - the extent of the consensus - i've been bugging gavin over at realclimate to start a "list of jims" (similar to biologists' list of steves) named for james hansen. could you give him a nudge? -
Ian Forrester at 01:15 AM on 23 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
JohnD, at a cost of about $4,000,000 per hectare, how many farmers do you think will be able to convert their fields in such an optimum manner? Any news of any hydroponically grown wheat? Any data on how the price of tomatoes has probably sky rocketed since this technology was started (or how much government subsidy went into it)? A similar piece of nonsense was built in Canada a number of years ago and was a financial disaster once all the government subsidies were removed. You are dreaming in technicolour matey. Time to come down to reality. -
Spencer Weart at 01:00 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Although I am personally "convinced by the evidence" and am surprised at the number who are not, I have to admit that this paper should not have been published in the present form. I haven't read any other posts on this; the defects are obvious on a quick reading of the paper itself. Here's what I saw: Many scientists might have been "unconvinced by the evidence" and yet chosen not to volunteer to sign a politicized statement that "strongly dissented" from the IPCC's conclusions -- which is the only criterion the authors of the paper had. What if they weakly dissented or are just, like many scientists, shy about taking a public stand? You don't have to invoke groupthink, fear of retribution or all that. The statistics are certainly interesting, but must be interpreted as "2-3% of people who have published 20 climate papers are willing to publicly attack the IPCC's conclusions." That is, to me, a surprisingly high fraction, although I think it can largely be attributed not to the scientific process but to the unfortunate extreme political polarization, which can induce blindness... on both sides. -
sleepership at 00:57 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Its amazing that the small few-under 5% have so much power. This surely shows the far right agenda still has many believers who listen to those in the 'scientific community' who have limited credibility and still look at the enemy anyone who disagrees with Rush or Beck. -
snapple at 00:54 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
I also wrote about this today and have a link to the full PNAS article. http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2010/06/proceedings-of-national-academy-of.html http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf This link may change because it is the early edition. -
Rob Honeycutt at 00:54 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
I just don't buy the "funding bias" argument. There are definitely real scientists who are genuinely skeptical of AGW out there who are getting funded. Doesn't Svensmark currently have a large project going at Cern? Lindzen continues to publish. As do Christy and Spencer. This is not the issue at all. Coming up with a project that is rational and counter to AGW would be quite difficult at this point with as much evidence as there is to the contrary. Again, extraordinary claims.... well, in this case, would require extraordinarily tolerant funding. -
Berényi Péter at 00:47 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
#2 omnologos at 23:38 PM on 22 June, 2010 read the comments by Pielke Jr, Curry, Christy please Yes, do that, all of you. A New Black List by Roger Pielke Jr.
And this one.
Comments On The PNAS Article “Expert Credibility In Climate Change” By Anderegg Et Al 2010 by Roger Pielke Sr.
"The Anderegg et al paper is another in a set of advocacy articles in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (see and see). This paper illustrates more generally how far we have gone from the appropriate scientific process."
It is always good to know how things work (as opposed to how they'd be supposed to).
-
KR at 00:38 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
One of my favorite quotes (Bern, I suspect you were thinking of the "extraordinary evidence" quote?) regards the outliers, the scientists (and non-scientists) who go against the trend, and whose theories are claimed by some to be trampled by the conventional wisdom: "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan If you are forced to retract a paper, well, that means your paper was wrong, that clear mistakes have been pointed out. Nobody makes that kind of admission of error without proof - if there isn't clear proof of error, bad data, incorrect methods, etc., the paper will remain in the marketplace of ideas, and will be cited (or not) based on it's perceived worth. -
caerbannog at 00:28 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
The cited statistics are compelling, but, in all areas of peer review science, there is a publication bias favoring agreement with conventional wisdom -- likewise a similar funding bias. In a scientific environment where such an overwhelming majority of scientists favor a certain point of view, one can readily appreciate how difficult it would be to obtain funding or publication of ideas and data contrary to those of the predominate school of thought. This is a point that should not be ignored. Scientists who challenge the consensus are often shut out of journals or even worse, forced to retract papers they have managed to get published. Just ask Dr. Andrew Wakefield. He's more than happy to tell folks all about how he's been repressed by the corrupt scientific establishment. ;) -
caerbannog at 00:21 AM on 23 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get the CO2 lag
Dietze, 1997.... hmmm..... According to Sourcewatch, Peter Dietze is an electrical engineer, not a climate scientist. He has published no climate-science research in the peer-reviewed literature. Citing someone like that isn't likely to convince the science-savvy participants here. Electrical engineers who know nothing about climate science but still consider themselves climate-science experts are a dime a dozen. I know a few personally. They may be experts in their own narrow specialties, but they have little appreciation of the limits of their expertise. -
Bern at 00:17 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
The other way to look at it - yes, there have been times in the history of science where a very small group went against the conventional wisdom, and were shown to be correct. Very few times, though. In the vast number of cases, the majority have been right, and the small group way off base. For me, it comes down to the preponderance of evidence for the pro side, and the significant lack of evidence for the nay side. And saying "but XX doesn't *prove* AGW is happening" is not proof that it's *not* happening, although that seems to be a common argument. At this point, given the rather unevenly stacked evidence, I would say that the anti-AGW faction are making extraordinary claims, and we all know what Carl Sagan had to say about those! @Arkadiusz - how many members of that committee of Geological Sciences work in the field of climate research? -
Dennis at 23:58 PM on 22 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Deniers will try again to move the goalposts on how the scientific process works and reaches a consensus. We will hear that these guys publish and are cited because of money and "conventional wisdom" while the "truth" is shouted down. We will hear yet again about how a small number of individuals doing "real" research are the only ones who know what is really going on. But this argument really means that the entire scientific process from grants to peer-review to the editorial boards of the publications they read are all really in a corrupt conspiracy. I wish the deniers would just come out and say that, because I can't think of any other logical conclusion. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:50 PM on 22 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
"The thousand profound scholars may have failed, first, because they were scholars, secondly, because they were profound, and thirdly, because they were a thousand." — Edgar Allan Poe, The Rationale of Verse ... and that I could finish my writing ..., but ... Not so long ago (2002) 98% of scientists claimed that: LIA = bacteria = rats = the Black Death ... And what happened (after 2002)? ... ... of course two constituents of the center of the puzzle ... Me in place of "thousand" one Lindzen is enough, maybe I would add Pielke ... ... and from my country, I will add dozens of scientists from the Polish Committee of Geological Sciences - Polish Academy of Sciences, who officially say: that now it is nature that decides, not man-made ... -
Berényi Péter at 23:41 PM on 22 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
Guys, there is no merit of Bayseian or whatever technique until basic concepts are set straight. I have already explained to you why logarithmic dependence of UHI extends well below "rural" population densities, based on IPCC TAR WG1 2.2.2.1 and actual local UHI studies. I have also explained why it matters. Now I have pulled US historical population data for the 48 states of the contiguous US from the U.S. Census Bureau site and USHCN v2 monthly data from CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center), a GZIP-compressed file of the average of bias-adjusted mean monthly maximum and minimum temperatures (with estimates for missing values), as it is explained in the readme file. Both datasets cover the 110 year period of 1900-2009. As the Census Bureau site's presentation of data is a bit convoluted, it took some time to collect all the annual data. I've put it here as a gift for you. Then I've computed both temperature (t) and log population density (d) trends for each state. As part of temperature trend is clearly explained by population density trend, I've looked for a value c for which the area weighted sum of (t'-cd')2 over all 48 states is minimal. It turns out the optimum value for c on this dataset is 0.238°C/doubling, which is huge. But it is not outside the range indicated by multiple UHI studies. Without UHI correction temperature trend for the lower 48 states is 0.657°C/century while the actual trend with proper UHI adjustment is only 0.139°C/century.
The US Census Bureau has population data down to county level. The exact location of USHCN stations is also documented. I leave it to you as an exercise to do it in a much more detailed way and also check the IPCC claim of UHI logarithmic dependence on population density. If it is done right, it can be published in the peer reviewed literature. I have no more time to spend on this issue, it's not my job.
-
omnologos at 23:38 PM on 22 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
I guess the uncritical acceptance of such an abysmally-low-quality of a paper says a lot about Skeptical Science (read the comments by Pielke Jr, Curry, Christy please). You would be definitely better off by sticking to Monckton... -
LWeisenthal at 23:37 PM on 22 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Skeptics claim "no funding without a cause." The cited statistics are compelling, but, in all areas of peer review science, there is a publication bias favoring agreement with conventional wisdom -- likewise a similar funding bias. In a scientific environment where such an overwhelming majority of scientists favor a certain point of view, one can readily appreciate how difficult it would be to obtain funding or publication of ideas and data contrary to those of the predominate school of thought. (I'm not a denier, but I've had a lot of discussions with deniers -- the preceding arguments are always made). - Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA -
Ken Lambert at 23:14 PM on 22 June 2010Astronomical cycles
DougB #94 and kdkd #95 "The jump of about 7E22 Joules in a 2 year period is most likely an instrument offset error. Take out the jump and the OHC is pretty flat for the whole 16 year period - and the more accurate Argo data from the 6-7 analyses starts to converge on a flatter trend over the last 6 years (Fig 2)." Go and work the numbers for yourselves and show me my error. I also note that most sea level charts show a flattening of SLR from around 2005-2008 eg. see Fig 3 of: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf Then they happily report a rise from 2008-2009 to put the SLR back on the 3.2mm/year trend from 1993-2009. Of course 6 years a ridiculously short period according to kdkd when SLR and OHC is flattening and there is a 'lack of warming', but one year is fine to get the SLR back on trend, when the trend fits the AGW theory. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:12 PM on 22 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get the CO2 lag
"misunderstanding" - in past and future ... Probably the "biogeochemical cycles", that processes are, however, decisive - biological feedback. It's biosphere determines the amount of CO2 in the assessment. Hence, shortening, often for thousands of years, a cool ocean does not equal - a little CO2 in the atmosphere (and vice versa) ... ... "In IPCC scenarios it is assumed that far more fossil reserves would be burnt than is physically recoverable. Using an eddy diffusion ocean model, the IPCC HAS GROSSLY UNDERESTIMATED the future OCEANIC CO 2 uptake. Hardly coping with BIOMASS response and taking a double to treble temperature sensitivity, all this has led to an IPCC error factor of up to an order of magnitude." (Dietze, 1997, continuous update - 2010). -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:10 PM on 22 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get the CO2 lag
Once again, about how ... ... with great certainty, John Cook says: "As the ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls. This causes the oceans to give up more CO2 into the air." "So the CO2 record is entirely consistent with the warming effect of CO2. In fact, CO2 warming explains both the dramatic changes in temperature in the Earth's past and how temperature change ..." Glacial – interglacial atmospheric CO2 change ..., Skinner, 2006: "Although it is clear that changes in atmospheric CO2 have remained tightly coupled with global climate change throughout the past ∼730000 years (Siegenthaler et al., 2005), the mechanisms responsible for pacing and moderating CO2 change remain A MYSTERY. The magnitude of the marine carbon reservoir, and its inevitable response to changes in atmospheric CO2 (Broecker, 1982a), guarantees a significant role for the ocean in glacial – interglacial CO2 change. Based on thermodynamic considerations, glacial atmospheric CO2 would be reduced by up to 30 ppm simply due to the increased 5 solubility of CO2 in a colder glacial ocean; however this reduction would be counteracted by the reduced solubility of CO2 in a more saline glacial ocean and by A LARGE REDUCTION IN THE TERRESTRIAL BIOSPHERE under glacial conditions (which would release carbon to the other global reservoirs) (Broecker and Peng, 1989; Sigman and Boyle, 2000). The bulk of the glacial – interglacial CO2 change therefore remains to be explained by more complex inter-reservoir exchange mechanisms, and the most viable proposals involve either the biological- or the physical “carbon pumps” of the ocean. Indeed it appears that whichever mechanism is invoked to explain glacial – interglacial CO2 change must involve changes in the sequestration of CO2 in the deepest marine reservoir ..." Quantifying the roles of ocean circulation and biogeochemistry in governing ocean carbon-13 and atmospheric carbon dioxide at the last glacial maximum, Tagliabue et al., 2009, "Overall, we find that while a reduction in ocean ventilation at the LGM is necessary to reproduce carbon-13 and carbon-14 observations, this circulation results in a LOW net sink for atmospheric CO 2. In contrast, while biogeochemical processes contribute little to carbon isotopes, we can attribute over 90% of the change in atmospheric CO 2 to such factors. The lesser role for circulation means that when all plausible factors are accounted for, over half [!!!] of the necessary CO 2 change remains to be explained. This presents a SERIOUS CHALLENGE TO OUR UNDERSTANDING of the mechanisms behind changes in the global carbon cycle DURING THE GEOLOGIC PAST." Modelling atmospheric CO 2 changes at geological time scales, François et al., 2005 ; "Long-term carbon cycle models ARE STILL IN THEIR INFANCY. The major areas for improvement in these models ..." The scope of our ignorance (The low CO2 glacial ocean as a reverse paleo-analog for the future high CO2 ocean, Heinze, 2009) and the uncertainty is huge: Climate–Carbon Cycle Feedback Analysis: Results from the C4MIP Model Intercomparison (2006) - 29 authors analyzed through 11 models as well as changes to the absorption of CO2 into the oceans and soils as a result of warming. Variance, difference in the results (Figure 1) as the land for the year 2100 is 17 Gt C / year (!), the oceans: 7 Gt C / y! Building on this area of uncertainty for the calculation of positive feedback for p.CO2 - it's just a misunderstanding ... -
CBDunkerson at 22:20 PM on 22 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Fun with illogical formulae; Month(n) CO2 = Month(n-1) CO2 + 0.22*(Month(n) Anomaly + 0.58) Ergo, if the temperature Anomaly were fixed at -0.58, atmospheric CO2 would remain unchanged. Month(n) CO2 = Month(n-1) CO2 + 0.22*(-0.58 + 0.58) Month(n) CO2 = Month(n-1) CO2 Note that this is anomaly, rather than actual temperature. So, as the temperature climbs during Summer the atmospheric CO2 level would remain constant so long as the temperature was always 0.58 below the baseline used in the satellite temperature record. Thus, per the formula, rising temperatures do NOT cause atmospheric CO2 to increase... only rising temperature ANOMALIES do that. Somehow, incredibly, the flux of atmospheric CO2 is PERFECTLY correlated to the variation from average monthly temperature over an arbitrarily determined period. If a point 0.58 below that satellite record baseline is followed then atmospheric CO2 never changes... meaning that the satellite temperature baseline is somehow directly tied to atmospheric CO2. Thank goodness UAH picked the years they did to compute the baseline. Had they used a different time period we'd never have uncovered this magical correlation. -
Ned at 20:14 PM on 22 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Lon, I have no idea why you are quoting that passage. If you think it's a response to something from my comment, you'll need to be more explicit about what part of the comment it's a reply to. I would appreciate a straightforward response from you on the following points. Do you now accept that: (1) Almost all the explanatory power of your model is contributed by a constant representing the mean monthly linear increase in CO2 independent of variation in temperature. Temperature contributes very little to your model, and can be dropped or replaced by other variables with almost no change in the results. This is clear from the structure of the model itself, and was also shown visually here and here. (2) As a result of (1), the statement that "[this] simple model can be used to show that the rise in CO2 is a result of the temperature anomaly" is an incorrect interpretation of your model. This was the central claim of your post at WUWT, and it's quite clearly wrong. If you agree that it is wrong, just say so (it would be nice to update or retract the post over at WUWT too). If you do not agree, you have a Herculean job of explaining to do. But in either case, please stop avoiding the issue and just address it! -
Marcus at 19:05 PM on 22 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get the CO2 lag
LOL David. Yeah, I meant <300ppm. Sorry, had a bit of a brain-fart, as the saying goes ;)! -
johnd at 18:37 PM on 22 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
Marcus at 11:51 AM, this transcript of a "Landline" program may interest you, the proof you were asking for. I'm surprised you were not aware of it, being involved in agriculture and all that. "Landline" is a weekly ABC produced program devoted to agriculture related stories. Most likely the tomatoes you eat come from this 8 hectare glasshouse near Adelaide, where the tomatoes feast on CO2 levels four times ambient levels. What must be puzzling for you, given your comments about C3 and C4 plants is that tomatoes, like wheat are C3. An Australian grower has been at the forefront of glasshouse CO2 enrichment from quite early on, so perhaps more of the food you've been consuming over the years than what you realise, has been produced under these conditions. It is more common than what you obviously realise. Feasting on four times more CO2 -
JMurphy at 18:14 PM on 22 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
johnd wrote : "Despite the gloom and doom preached by those for whom the last drought is always the worst on record, for the current generation, they see that perhaps things may have been worse for their grandparents." I'd love to see some examples (and I'm sure you must have some, having stated that) of people baselessly claiming 'the worst drought on record'. -
Lon Hocker at 17:05 PM on 22 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Ned: I guess you didn't read it either: "The second free parameter used to match the CO2 concentration and temperature anomaly, 0.22 ppm per month per degree C of temperature anomaly, has a clear physical basis. A warmer ocean can hold less CO2, so increasing temperatures will release CO2 from the ocean to the atmosphere. This releases about 1440 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. This release would roughly triple the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. We have seen what appears to be about a 0.8 degree temperature rise of the atmosphere in the last century and a half, but nowhere near the factor of three temperature rise (should have been CO2 rise). There is a delay due to the rate of heat transfer to the ocean and the mixing of the ocean. This has been studied in detail by NOAA, http://www.oco.noaa.gov/index.jsp?show_page=page_roc.jsp&nav=universal, and they estimate that it would take 230 years for an atmospheric temperature change to cause a 63% temperature change if the ocean were rapidly mixed." Sorry, maybe you got tripped up by the typo. That was caught in one of the comments. -
David Horton at 15:51 PM on 22 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get the CO2 lag
Um Marcus, <300ppm? -
Marcus at 13:20 PM on 22 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get the CO2 lag
My apologies Joe Blog. What I meant was that-at least as of the Quaternary Era (about 3 Mybp)-we've been in a relatively CO2-constrained environment (>300ppm), & this is why we've not had a runaway waring event since then. Apologies for the confusion! -
Philippe Chantreau at 13:14 PM on 22 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
I'm not dismissing it, I think it is minor. As you said yourself, if the additional carbon is to become additional biomass, it will need additional nitrates, phosphates and, most important of all, water. There is no miracle soution for these. And as Marcus pointed, crop plants will experience competition from weeds equally boosted by the extra CO2. Weeds are hardy, they endure tough conditions, they can make due with little water and do not need fertilizer. The warmth is also likely to benefit all sorts of insects and fungi, some of which are already difficult to control.I said that the exuberant optimism shown by some concerning the CO2 "fertilizing" effect is not warranted at present, I stand by that statement. -
HumanityRules at 12:41 PM on 22 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get the tropospheric hot spot
"satellites and weather balloons have trouble detecting the magnified trend" It's a strange choice of words. It sort of sort of suggests that the magnified trend is there it's just that we fail to detect it. Really if you were being balanced here you would say we have looked with the best technology possible and detected no long term warming, followed by the caveats you mention. This may seem trivial but it's the sort of thing that worries me about climate science. It comes under the category of concluding too much from the data. This was discussed a little in a previous post about Scafetta's work. It's something I see in peer-reviewed work on both sides of the arguement. "But if you cannot accept this evidence, to be strictly correct, what you are is a moist adiabatic lapse rate skeptic." ......or you wish to critically assess the information in front of you. Again it seems a fine and proper thing do when it's Scafetta's work but tainted with irrationalism and oil money when directed at others. "A number of teams have used different techniques to account for the biases affecting weather balloon data. The various methods find a similar result - when the biases are adjusted for, the result is closer to the expected moist adiabatic amplification (Titchner 2009, Sherwood 2008, Haimberger 2008)." I don't have time to read these paper so I'll just ask a question. Again in relation to Riccardo's recent post. He seemed to dismiss Scafetta's mathematical trick by showing his own trick could be used to generate just about any result he wanted. Wouldn't it also be the case that these 3 mathematical tricks could probably generate any result you wish. It all depends on what are your initial assuptions about the data? -
scaddenp at 11:29 AM on 22 June 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
"noted German theoretical physicists" - noted for an imaginary second law? Note also posts on Science of doom and Halpern et al above for a formal response. -
Marcus at 11:20 AM on 22 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
A few points Humanity Rules. First you show the tonnes per hectare that SA crops are yielding, but my experience is that this is as much the result of increasingly intensive farming as it is better yields from individual plants. I'd be interested to see what the cost/hectare of the crops are over this same time period. Second, yes nitrogen-& water-are the limiting factors in plant growth, & guess what the biggest cost to farmers is? Nitrate fertilizers &-increasingly-water. Yet we have the Victorian DPI telling us that crops grown in high-CO2 conditions not only have a lower protein content, but are also more nitrogen hungry. So this means increased costs to farmers. Then, of course, there's weed control-because crop plants aren't going to be the only plants enjoying an increased biomass under high CO2 conditions. Lastly, its interesting to note that the grasses (upon which the bulk of our agriculture depends) evolved in the "carbon constrained" Quaternary period-before which ferns dominated. This suggests that grasses are ideally suited to a low-CO2 regime (which makes sense given their use of the C3 pathway). -
David Horton at 11:13 AM on 22 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
#81 humanity rules - no doubt at all that improved varieties, improved soil cultivation, access to massive fertiliser inputs, weed control methods, and so on have increased yields in SA and no doubt elsewhere in Australia. But hey, you don't think something might be happening on the far right of your graph, do you? -
Tom Dayton at 10:55 AM on 22 June 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Val, the responses to those incorrect claims are in this page above your comment, including the items referenced by the post. If you have questions after reading those, then please do ask here. But please read those first. -
Ned at 10:50 AM on 22 June 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
val majkus, you're not at all "off topic" -- this thread is basically explaining why Gerlich and Tscheuschner are completely wrong. The report you cite mostly just repeats the same errors and misinformation from G & T's original claims. -
Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Lon: No it wouldn't rise forever, it would asymptotically head for a saturation value. According to your model, it would. It doesn't matter what other speculation you included in your post. Any conclusions you draw that do not come directly from your model are completely irrelevant. Your model is what it is. If you are going to claim that your model has physical relevance, then you need to explain the specific conclusions of that model. Perhaps you can explain the relevance of an anomaly of -.58, and why your model shows no CO2 change for temperatures stabilizing at that point, yet shows a constant change for all other temperatures. Why does the ocean cease to absorb or release CO2 at that precise temperature? Your last comment also highlights a key issue with your original post: your conclusions and discussion of physicality do not logically follow from what your math shows. What it is is blind speculation with a dash of numerology. You've shown you are capable of performing the math, but not in interpreting the meaning behind what you have calculated. I suggest you swallow your pride and take some time to understand what Ned and others are trying to tell you. -
HumanityRules at 10:47 AM on 22 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
86 Philippe Chantreau Proteins are made of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen. Life on earth is often described as "carbon-based". I agree with you that nitrogen is important and often limited, that is why farmers use nitrate fertilizers. I'm not sure anybody is suggesting trees won't grow if the CO2 level is less than 400ppm. Trees in the pre-industrial Holocene is not incompatible with the idea that post-industrial CO2 levels may change the rate of growth of plants. CO2 was relatively stable and homogonous. With a relatively stable resourse like this it makes no real sense to talk about it being limiting. It is what it is, it never really changes. A plant cannot adapt or respond to a resourse that is constant, temporally or spatially. It cannot move into or be excluded from ecological niches because of it's response to CO2. Yet in present times this particular plant resourse has changed. It's interesting to consider how plants will respond to this change. This isn't skeptical science, the implication of it might temper the worst disaster scenarios, but thats not a reason to dismiss it. -
Ned at 10:33 AM on 22 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Lon writes: No it wouldn't rise forever, it would asymptotically head for a saturation value. Clearly, you need to reread the original posting. Lon, your model says that if T_anom stays constant at any value above -0.58, CO2 will rise linearly without bound. If it stays constant at any value below -0.58, CO2 will decrease without bound (eventually becoming negative!) You may say that this wouldn't happen in the real world. But "e" is obviously correct in stating that this is what happens with your model. I note that we're now at 100 comments (48 since you joined) and you have still not addressed the primary points of this thread. * Your model doesn't prove what you said it proves. You appear not to understand how your model actually functions. * The actual meaning of your model (not your misinterpretation of it) is something scientists have known for decades and is discussed in the IPCC AR4 report. * The oceans are currently a net sink, not a net source, for CO2. -
val majkus at 10:02 AM on 22 June 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
I'm not a scientist so forgive me if I'm off topic There is a lay explanation of the physics underlying climate alarmism. KE Research, a German public policy consultancy firm, prepared the report based on interviews and editing assistance from noted German theoretical physicists Ralf D. Tscheuschner & Gerhard Gerlich, authors of the peer-reviewed paper Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics, and numerous other climatologists, physicists, and scientists at http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/rescue-from-climate-saviors.html Conclusions of the report include: The terms “greenhouse effect” and “greenhouse gas” are misnomers and obstruct understanding of the real world. Earth has a natural “cooling system”. If the planet warms, it will automatically raise its cooling power. An increase of earth temperatures is only achievable if the heating power is stepped up: first to “load” matter with more energy (i.e. to raise temperatures) and then to compensate for the increasing cooling, which results from the increase of IR radiation into space. CO2 and other IR-active gases cannot supply any additional heating power to the earth. Therefore, they cannot be a cause of “global warming”. This fact alone disproves the greenhouse doctrine. The “natural greenhouse effect” (increase of earth temperatures by 33°C) is a myth. IR-active gases do not act “like a blanket” but rather “like a sunshade”. They keep a part of the solar energy away from the earth’s surface. IR-active gases cool the earth: 70% of the entire cooling power originates from these molecules. Without these gases in the air, the surface and the air immediately above the ground would heat up more. The notion that a concentration increase of IR-active gases would impede earth’s cooling is impossible given the true mechanisms explained above. As a consequence the very foundation of the “Green Tower of Climate Dogma” crumbles. Computer models alleging to forecast warming based on “greenhouse effects” are worthless, and any speculation about the “impact of climate change” accordingly dispensable. Since the greenhouse hypothesis has been disproven by the laws of physics, it is only a matter of time until the truth becomes public opinion. Does anyone have any comments on the contents of that report? -
Lon Hocker at 09:55 AM on 22 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
e: No it wouldn't rise forever, it would asymptotically head for a saturation value. Clearly, you need to reread the original posting. -
Marcus at 09:47 AM on 22 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
John D, this comes from the DPI Website you linked to (did you even READ it?!?!): "Now, the caveat there is that you can see increases in yield, but you also have to have sufficient water and nitrogen still to grow the crop and considering changes in climate, if this area of Australia, for example, has decreases in rainfall then we may not see the responses to be quite that dramatic in the future." Also this: "Now, other results that are important to the agricultural industry is that we see a decrease in the plant nitrogen content. Now, nitrogen is a fertiliser, it’s what causes the green part of the plants to be green and that’s important…what happens is that translates into less nitrogen in the grain, which is less protein. So that interacts directly with quality issues and the wheat industry would be quite interested in understanding that. So, the nitrogen content, the protein content goes down and we’re seeing that very consistently. However, what’s interesting is that the total nitrogen extracted from the soil increases and that’s because there’s more biomass. So it’s just pulling a lot more nitrogen and that has potential impacts to future farming in terms of fertiliser requirements." It certainly doesn't sound as positive as you're trying to make it-even with the guy putting a more positive spin on it than the researchers who did the trial. *Yes* their was a 20% increase in *total* biomass, but there was no statistical difference in grain yields for most varieties-suggesting the bulk of the biomass is going into stems, roots & leaves, not seeds. Also, he tells us how protein levels in the plant are decreasing, but nitrogen use has *increased*, which means that farmers will need *more* fertilizer just to retain existing protein levels. So, again, how is that a benefit to the farmers. Still, once again I've strayed back into the area of plant food, & it's clear that you're determined to spin these results as positive, in *spite* of the more cautionary language of the people running the trial-so for the sake of my sanity, I think I'll just ignore any further comments from you, & leave it to others to try & set you straight. -
Marcus at 09:32 AM on 22 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
Argus. Who is it that you think is funding all of these so-called "skeptic groups"? Who do you think spends all that money on lobbyists to ensure most governments do as little as possible to encourage such things as energy efficiency, fuel efficiency & renewable energy technology? How else do you think the fossil fuel industry continues to enjoy massive tax-payer subsidies-whilst they scream Blue Murder at even the slightest mention of subsidies for the renewable energy sector? Some countries have bucked the trend though. In spite of your attacks on Denmark & Germany, they have substantially reduced their total & per-capita CO2 emissions via a combination of increased renewable energy use & better energy efficiency (Germany has one of the lowest per-capita levels of energy use in the Western World, but enjoys a per-capita GDP on par with most other Western nations. For the record, Argus, I use public transport to get everywhere, am very energy efficient & source the bulk of my electricity from renewable sources-as do many of my friends. However, in spite of all of my efforts, I feel that I'm making little to no progress in the face of such a well organized & well-funded anti-mitigation campaign! -
Doug Bostrom at 08:50 AM on 22 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
JohnD, just to get calibrated here, are you in favor of a global, unplanned, decentralized and happenstance experiment w/the global atmosphere to see what happens to our food supply? Is this a thought experiment for you, or is it something you're anticipating as imminent? Regardless of your personal inclinations for or against hubristic accidents, for those who don't choose to participate in such an experiment, what words of wisdom do you offer? For instance, should crops found to have an adverse response to some combination of increased temperature, more or less moisture and more C02 be moved under domes, put in climate-controlled conditions? How will we pay for such adjustments? If a farmer now successfully growing a suite of crops of his choice and in the location of his choosing finds his choices constrained or removed, is forced to undergo costs to adjust to the new reality we're creating, how do you see the finances of such a situation being handled? Presumably you're ok with seeing your taxes increased to help with adjustments? Alternatively, you'd be ok with being impoverished? What's your personal preference? -
johnd at 08:12 AM on 22 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
Philippe Chantreau at 02:26 AM, the yield increases don't just happen at the levels you indicated, but are happening all the time. Whilst most interest is in trials at higher levels of CO2, trials have also been done with lower levels of CO2 which indicate that growth at about 280ppm would have been about half of present day growth levels. -
johnd at 08:06 AM on 22 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
Marcus at 13:38 PM , a decade may be a lifetime of experience to some, but especially in the agricultural sector, a lifetime of experience, plus that of their parents, plus that of their grandparents, merely gives a glimpse of the cycles and changes that drives the the whole industry. Despite the gloom and doom preached by those for whom the last drought is always the worst on record, for the current generation, they see that perhaps things may have been worse for their grandparents. Those having generations of experience to draw upon also recall some of the bad advice offered up by "scientists" at various times, especially with respect to chemical use, where what was portrayed as the latest breakthrough became the worst nightmare. Nowadays the average participant in the sector is better educated and better informed and better able to spot carpetbaggers. With regards to your concerns over the varying responses of different varieties, what did you expect? The scientists, as well as most well informed interested observers know that the various varieties all have different responses to different conditions, hence the range of varieties trialled. This knowledge is not only what drives the continual development of new varieties, but the usage of them. Perhaps this link from the Victorian Department of Primary Industry (DPI) sums up the official view of the trials. They see a 20% increase in yields, but most interesting is their view of CO2 being a fertiliser for plants. Obviously some will cherry-pick the negative aspects, but there doesn't appear to be any problems that are substantially different to those that have been overcome in the past as the science, and techniques developed have allowed productivity to continually increase. National wheat Free Air Carbon dioxide Enrichment (FACE) array -
kdkd at 07:26 AM on 22 June 2010Astronomical cycles
Ken #92 You're repeating yourself here. Essentially your argument seems to be about claiming that noise is signal. You appear to be claiming that a poor quality, highly complex measurement model is strong evidence against AGW. For such a complex noisy system, 6 years is a ridiculously short period of time in which to attempt to draw strong conclusions. If you want your argument to appear to have substance you'll have to do much better than fiddle with the minutae of a large coherent data set at the end of the series. -
Joe Blog at 07:21 AM on 22 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get the CO2 lag
Marcus at 11:05 AM on 21 June, 2010 "My understanding of the reason why there hasn't been a runaway warming event in the past 72 million years is because the pool of available CO2 has been that present in the total biosphere during that entire period (around 280-300ppm). That is to say, even at the height of every past interglacial, the maximum concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been less than 300ppm." Marcus, i think you would find that what you have written is true for the 2.5mybp, and in all probability out to around 15mybp... but i think you would find that at around as little as 45-50mybp, it was around 900ppm(when ice first started forming on Antarctica) It was continental drift that killed the last hot house and brought the globe into the present ice house, and basically it lead to a gradual burial o carbon from this period(45mybp) until 2.5mybp when the planet went into its glacial interglacial cycles, with the co2 around that 280-300ppm. -
How Jo Nova doesn't get the CO2 lag
gallopingcamel, The problem with Hocker's argument was that he was taking a correlation and using that to make a causative argument (even worse, the things that he claims are causative are not part of his correlation). When it comes to CO2 lag scientists make no such claim. The models for temperatures and CO2 level change over these time periods are built up from physics, the historical data only acts as a confirmation of the predicted relationships. This is the appropriate way of using correlations: as evidence for a particular physical explanation, not the source of explanation itself. In this case, the historical data is consistent with what is predicted by the physical models: according to the models there should be a lag, so the lag supports the models. As such, if you want to criticize the models you'll have to address the physical assumptions, not correlations in the historical data. Otherwise, you are making the same error that Hocker is making. -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:03 AM on 22 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get the CO2 lag
dhogaza.... Actually, I just went back and was looking through Knutti 2005 and they say in the introduction, "Atmospheric CO2 is prescribed directly in the idealized scenarios used here, other forcings are not considered." So, they get 1.4C to 6.5C without other forcings. -
Doug Bostrom at 04:47 AM on 22 June 2010Astronomical cycles
Ken Lambert I know that it's rhetorically important to focus on hypothetical, undemonstrated errors in the XBT-ARGO transition. Putting aside that thesis for a moment, is it your claim that -no- heating has been observed in the ocean over the instrumental record period? -
Doug Bostrom at 04:30 AM on 22 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
Some food for thought and actual dollar numbers concerning public policy response, fears about the costs of mitigation may be found here: The Price to You for Modest Climate Action The article briefly describes the results of EPA's best effort to put a price on mitigation efforts resulting in significant changes to risk probabilities arising from increased C02 in the atmosphere. The nut of the article: In the absence of new policies, the EPA estimates that we have a 1 percent chance of keeping global warming below the 2 degrees Celsius goal set by the international community, by the year 2100. The probability that temperatures would rise by then above pre-industrial levels by as much as 4 degrees Celsius is 32 percent. With the passage of the American Power Act — in conjunction with assumed policies adopted by other G8 countries — the probability of staying below the 2-degree threshold increases to 75 percent. In exchange for this, the EPA predicts a “relatively modest impact on U.S. consumers.” The $79 to $146 figure, the annual average across the lifetime of a phased-in energy program through 2050, is modeled on a number of factors: the increased cost of energy with a price on carbon; the increased efficiency of items that consume energy; the behavioral decisions people will make as a result of both of these factors; as well as the impacts on wages and the revenue from emissions allowances that will be returned to households. For purposes of comparison, for privately purchased insurance of various forms we currently spend a little over $550 USD annually for every person on the planet. The EPA report may be viewed here: EPA Analysis of the American Power Act in the 111th Congress (pdf)
Prev 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 2336 2337 2338 2339 2340 2341 2342 2343 Next
