Recent Comments

Prev  618  619  620  621  622  623  624  625  626  627  628  629  630  631  632  633  Next

Comments 31251 to 31300:

31251. Jubble at 00:24 AM on 26 February 2015
       Telegraph wrong again on temperature adjustments
       

       I have just posted a complaint on the Telegraph website on this article.  We will see how it is taken.

31252. BBHY at 23:39 PM on 25 February 2015
       Climatology versus Pseudoscience book tests whose predictions have been right
       

       Thank you for writing this book. I have read so many, many predictions of the "coming mini ice age", etc from the like of Joe Bastardi and many others. They get a lot of play in the media, but it seems that nobody ever comes back later and confronts them with these failed predictions after we have yet another Earth's hottest year. 

31253. Dikran Marsupial at 22:10 PM on 25 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Red Baron, the factor you describe is already taken into account by the IPCC (and all other carbon cycle researchers) and it is described as "land use change emissions" (as pointed out above by scaddenp).  You can get data on on this from the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Centre (CDIADC).  One of the most surprising things I found out about climate change when I first looked into it just how late cumulative anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel use finally overtook those from land use change.  The answer turns out to be about 1965. 

       

31254. Nick Stokes at 19:36 PM on 25 February 2015
       Telegraph wrong again on temperature adjustments
       

       That gives a good view of distribution of adjustment effect. I made a Google Maps gadget here, where you can color stations according to adjustment trend effect, though you don't get the color shading picture. It also lets you link to the GHCN data pages.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Activated link.

31255. Rob Painting at 19:26 PM on 25 February 2015
       Climatology versus Pseudoscience book tests whose predictions have been right
       

       Jose - ain't it weird how the high CO₂ levels predominantly seem to be affecting the cognitive abilities of those of a certain political persuasion?

31256. Tom Curtis at 19:01 PM on 25 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Just one more point, one of the factors showing it is the consumption of fossil fuels leading to the increase in atmospheric CO2 has been the reduction in the O2 content:

       

       As can be seen, given known emmissions from fossil fuels, measured delines in O2 and increases in CO2 concentration, the equations only balance if the combined effect of LUC plus natural uptake by the land (vegetation plus soils) decreases the CO2 concentration over the period of measurement.  That is consistent with total anthropogenic emissions from LUC being positive, but only if they are less than natural sequestration by vegetation and soils.  That is again inconsistent with RedBaron's thesis.

31257. Tom Curtis at 18:53 PM on 25 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       RedBaron @220, with respect, your anonymous, non peer reviewed analysis consisted of a map showing the proportion of the land surface currently under agricultural production.  But now you want us to give a pass on that analysis, and question the expert, public and peer reviewed analysis of the IPCC based on your say so?  I think you have radically disparate standards of evidence depending on whether or not you agree with a theory.

       Further, you simply neglect the force of the case as presented by the IPCC.  The IPCC shows changes in reservoirs with 90% uncertainty intervals.  Specifically, changes are as follows:

       Atmosphere + 240 +/- 10 GtC

       Ocean  + 155 +/- 30 GtC

       Fossil Fuels - 365 +/- 10 GtC

       It follows that the change of all other reservoirs combined (ie, vegetation plus soils) is 30 +/- 33 GtC from that information alone (assuming the data is independent).  Calling into questin the partition between soils and vegetation in no way allows the sum of change in soils plus vegetation to exceed those limits.  So, until you find the evidence that the ocean is absorbing CO2 at several times its rate as reported by the IPCC, you do not have a case.  Indeed, looking at the uncertainties, it is more likely that vegetation plus soils have increased in CO2 content than that they account for even 20% of the atmospheric and ocean increase, let alone most of it.

31258. scaddenp at 18:34 PM on 25 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Redbaron - your quote applies to potential scenarios in the future, not to current source of CO2 in the atmosphere. I am not sure why you think there is a fixation with forest in the carbon budgets given the soil carbon storage in grassland is well known. The change in grassland is explicitly calculated. While land use change is part of AGW, the evidence to date is that is small compared to fossil fuel burning. The check on the calculation is the carbon isotopic concentration in the atmosphere. You need a massive change in carbon fluxes for this to be significant compared to FF.

31259. RedBaron at 17:29 PM on 25 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       @ scaddenp & Tom Curtis,

        I am well aware of the IPCC report and the charts. I even think most of it is relatively good. There are however several flaws that change the overall picture. This for example is potentially quite flawed.

       "It is very likely, based on new experimental results {6.4.6.3} and
       modelling, that nutrient shortage will limit the effect of rising
       atmospheric CO2 on future land carbon sinks, for the four RCP
       scenarios. There is high confidence that low nitrogen availability will
       limit carbon storage on land, even when considering anthropogenic
       nitrogen deposition. The role of phosphorus limitation is more uncertain.
       Models that combine nitrogen limitations with rising CO2 and
       changes in temperature and precipitation thus produce a systematically
       larger increase in projected future atmospheric CO2, for a given fossil
       fuel emissions trajectory."

        

       another flaw is the fixation with forests. The primary historical carbon fixation is not forests. It is grasslands. The fixation is not in vegetative material, but rather exudates. Forests do have a moderating effect, especially as seen now with a new balance being made as fossil fuels emissions increase. But ultimately the long term effect of forests is near neutral, as a much higher % of the products of photosynthesis are above ground. A relatively small % is sequestered, because ultimately above ground and near surface carbon compounds are released in the short term carbon cycle by way of the processes of decay. So you get a net effect of maybe 2% +/-? Depending on how long a time frame you look? Grassland sequestration is completely different. Those grasses and forbs sequesture as much as 37% directly deep in the soil by direct exudate production. The carbon is sequestered far longer than near surface and above surface carbon. In the thousands of years if undisturbed. That's why historically molisols have far deeper A horizons with much higher SOC than alfisols (even old growth forst alfisols).

       But, while only about 1/2 the land suface is under agriculture and there are still forests, the grassland/savannas of the world (primary terrestrial carbon sequetration of the Earth) are largely either extirpated like the tallgrass prairie, or under poor management and no longer functioning as a carbon pump. Pretty much all of it is gone. So the secondary buffers (forests) are helping to take away 1/2 the excess carbon from fossil fuels. But the primary terrestrial buffer to the carbon cycle is nearly completely gone or disfunctional due to poor management.

31260. Tom Curtis at 14:52 PM on 25 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       RedBaron @217, adding to scaddenp's response, here is the graphic showing reservoirs and fluxes of CO2 from the IPCC (Fig 6.01):

       

       Fluxes are shown in by the arrows, reservours by the boxes.  "Natural" (ie, preindustrial) values are shown in black, changes since the preindustrial in red.  Units are in terms of Petagrams of Carbon per year for fluxes, and Petagrams of Carbon for reservoirs, with a Petagram equalling 10^15 grams, or a billion tonnes of Carbon (Gigatonnes).

       So, looking at the reservoirs, we see that the combined atmosphere/ocean reservoir has increased by 395 Gigatonnes of Carbon, while vegetation has decreased by 30 gigatonnes of carbon, and fossil fuel and cement stocks have decreased by 365 gigatonnes of carbon.  That is, the combined effect of land use changes and the CO2 fertilization effect has resulted in only 8.2% of the total increase, with fossil fuels accounting for the rest.

       The total emissions from fossil fuels and cement manufacture is well known.  For it to be even matched by emissions from LUC, you need a new, and very large reservoir to store the excess CO2.

       There is additional evidence that the primary source of the increased CO2 comes from fossil sources.  Of these the most important is the decline in C14 concentrations.  Another is that there is a very strong correlation between cumulative fossil fuel emissions and CO2 concentrations:

        

       Over the period of observations at Mauna Loa, that correlation is 0.9995 with an r squared of 0.999.  That correlation actually decreases slightly when emissions from LUC are included, probably because estimates of those emissions are not as accurate as those for fossil fuels.

31261. scaddenp at 14:00 PM on 25 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Change in Land use is accounted for - see the IPCC report. Your thesis is not compatible drop in O2 and isotope ratio of CO2 in atmosphere. Some discussion of that here. I think you may be underestimating the role of oceans in CO2 cycling compared to land. You can get references to studies doing the maths of CO2 accounting from the IPCC WG1 chapter 6.

31262. RedBaron at 13:50 PM on 25 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Here is what I believe you are missing. You claim: "Humans are emitting more than twice as much CO2 as what ends up staying there. Nature is reducing our impact on climate by absorbing more than half of our CO2 emissions." It's true. But we have also degraded the ecosystem services by ~1/2 as well...with modern factory farming style agriculture. The hocky stick isn't fossil fuel emissions, it's agricultural degradation of the soils, particularly carbon. Sure emissions also help somewhat, but even without a single fossil fuel drop, degrade the ecosystem services and we get global warming. It is us doing the harm, so it is AGW. But you guys are looking at the wrong source. Here is your evidence:

       http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1209_051209_crops_map.html

31263. Glenn Tamblyn at 11:39 AM on 25 February 2015
       OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
       

       Patrick

       Notice also in the summary in the post, the reference to chapter 16, that the key value - Ω - depends on both carbonate ion concentrations and calcium ion concentrations. The paper scaddenp referred you to is discussing issues with calcium ion availability in fresh water and the mussels need to evolve an active pumping mechanism to collect calcium which isn't commonly available in fresh water.

       Sea water in contrast has large amounts of calcium in it - thats where all the dissolved minerals end up.

       The chemistry of calsification is significantly different between fresh water and sea water.

31264. scaddenp at 11:19 AM on 25 February 2015
       OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
       

       This paper discusses the process for fresh water mussels. In short, they have evolved for it and the organisms pay an energy cost to do so. Like much about AGW, it is not the absolute temperature or the acidity that is the issue - it is the rate of change.

       If the intent of your question is suggest that OA cant be that bad, then a quick search of google scholar on effects of ocean acidification will yield numerous papers documenting observed issues. I'm sorry but questions like this reek of trolling. If you have issues, then please cite some science backing your position.

31265. Patrick Moore at 10:16 AM on 25 February 2015
       OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
       

       I'd be interested to know why it is possible for species of freshwater mussels and clams to calcify and produce shells at pH 4-5, whereas it will be difficult for saltwater species at pH 7.5?

       Moderator Response:

       [Rob P] - see this recent SkS post on ocean acidification - Corrosive Seawater, Not Low pH, Implicated As Cause of Oyster Deaths. Producing shells is somewhat problematic when the marine organism is dead as a result of ocean acidification (carbonate undersaturation).
       
       Factor in the knowledge that ocean acidification is implicated as a kill mechanism in three of the 5 major extinction events, and that current ocean acidification is proceeding at a rate that is likely unprecedented in 300 million years, and there are legitimate reasons to be concerned.

31266. Kevin C at 09:39 AM on 25 February 2015
       Telegraph wrong again on temperature adjustments
       

       uprightsquire: Here's a different version of te 50 year plot. White centred does highlight the zeros nicely, although I have to make a missing cells grey to distinguish them, which I think is less intuitive. I stuck with blue-red, because I want to see whether the adjustments shift the trend towards cooling or warming.

       

       You can now see the predominantly upward adjustments as soon as you enter the US (I presume due to the change from glass to electronic thermometers), in contrast to the mixed changes elsewhere and the predominantly downward adjustments in the Arctic.

31267. uprightsquire at 08:21 AM on 25 February 2015
       Telegraph wrong again on temperature adjustments
       

       IMO, those trend maps are not presented ideally.

       Particularly, 

       Use of Blue-Green-Yellow-Orange-Red means its hard to easily determine the regions with smaller values.

       Blue and Red are associated with temperature. This graph measures something related to, but not, temperature. I.e., Blue on this graph doesnt mean its cold, or even decreasing temperature.

       Describing the colours are warm / cool, similar issues to the use of blue / red. We're not really talking about temperature here, so temperature related adjectives to decribe the colours isnt ideal.

       Suggested alterations:

       Colors other than Blue/Red. Perhaps pink and purple.

       Going colour (-) ->white (0)- colour (+) (eg Pink - light pink - white - light purple - purple) makes it easier to determine relative and absolute differences.

31268. Jose_X at 08:14 AM on 25 February 2015
       Climatology versus Pseudoscience book tests whose predictions have been right
       

       I don't think human civilization (or humans) have ever lived in co2 levels this high. It's been millions of years since it was this high, right? Human society came about during historically cold temperatures, right? Also, aren't there studies that show our performance in critical thinking problems goes down significantly when exposed for a period of time to co2 levels even as low as 1000 ppm? We do better with CO2 levels that are at "historical lows" ("low" judging by evolution of all life on the planet and not just of humans).

       No offense, but I think we should be more concerned about human optimal performance than plant optimal performance.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] This is off-topic for this thread. Anyone else wishing to respond to the commentator should set an example and respond on an appropriate thread. You can post a pointer to that comment here.

31269. Patrick Moore at 06:09 AM on 25 February 2015
       CO2 lags temperature
       

       Above you state: "The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls. This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, releasing it into the atmosphere."

       How does this jibe with the ocean acidification narrative which postulates that in a warmer world with a higher CO2 atmosphere the ocean will absorb more CO2 and become acidic?

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Your question on ocean acidification is dealt with in the 18-part 'OA is NOT OK' series, written by subject matter experts in that field, as summarized in Parts 1:
       
       http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mackie_OA_not_OK_part_19.html
       
       And Part 2:
       
       http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mackie_OA_not_OK_part_20.html
       
       If you have questions, place them on the appropriate thread and the subject matter experts will respond to them.

       [PS] Its about equilibrium - outgassing from warm ocean is something for centuries in future. The above links give the details.

31270. Patrick Moore at 06:06 AM on 25 February 2015
       Climatology versus Pseudoscience book tests whose predictions have been right
       

       I suppose refusing to discuss climate with people who have some skeptical thoughts is a good defence mechanism, but surely not all skeptics resort to personal attacks. My reason for being skeptical is the both temperature and CO2 are close to historical lows, 14.5C and 400ppm, and we are told they are too high. Plants do best at 1600-2000ppm which is about the average level over the millenia. So I only discuss facts and you could have an intelligent discussion with me.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Please address your concerns on the appropriate thread.  For example, your statement about plants is best addressed here.  Also, in this venue the inherent presumption is that participants here make factual statements based on the evidence (itself based in the primary literature appearing in peer-reviewed reputable journals).  Starting off with

       "So I only discuss facts and you could have an intelligent discussion with me"

       is a red flag. 

       Further, please provide a reference citation for these claims:

       "both temperature and CO2 are close to historical lows"

       Please familiarize yourself with this site's Comments Policy before continuing further.

31271. swampfoxh at 05:23 AM on 25 February 2015
       Climatology versus Pseudoscience book tests whose predictions have been right
       

       I wonder if we should be spending less time on those who deny the science of "global warming" and just proceed to rally those who know what is going on?  My ex business partner, with whom I have always had the best of relationships simply refuses to look at the science.  She maintains that John Casey, et al, has the "real answers" on climate change and everybody else are just a bunch of left wing propagandists trying to get rich on carbon trading schemes.  So, I don't talk to her about climate anymore.  It is probable that the vast majority of the human race will follow the fate of the Roman Empire or that of the Incas and thereby drag the rest of us into a climate hell.  But, it seems to me we are looking at a climate hell anyway, so we may as well try to place "our fellow travellers" into as many decisionmaking places as possible before the roof falls in. Then, maybe some of our (distant) offspring will survive the Sixth Extinction.   

31272. Glenn Tamblyn at 04:30 AM on 25 February 2015
       Telegraph wrong again on temperature adjustments
       

       Nice work Kevin.

       And wow! The earliest research into Time of Observation Bias goes back to 1890!

31273. jja at 02:24 AM on 25 February 2015
       Telegraph wrong again on temperature adjustments
       

       This is beautiful, lucid and dedicated work!  It will be invaluable to have these tools in the public sphere as China's economic slowdown and air pollution reduction programs continue to impact Aerosol emissions.  We are already seeing the precursor of this effect on globally averaged temperatures and in a potential PDO shift to a positive state.  Subsequently temperatres are set to rise, possibly at an extreme rate not seen since the mid 1970's.
       
       I would ask all to consider that the Public Relations industry works in concert with ideologically aligned media outlets to cultivate a common narrative.  This has been well documented.  This narrative is one that has been developed through scientific analysis of future trends and their potential impacts to client's business models.  In this realm, then, it is clear that the current coordinated attack on station-level adjustments is an attempt to define the narrative in preperation for this near-term rapid warming.
       
       In view of this, a rapid response, backed with similar narrative placements, is absolutely vital if there is going to be any successful mitigation efforts in the next decade.   The rate of warming that will be experienced in the near term will show whether the indirect cloud forcing and ECS values were both understated in the models.

31274. John Hartz at 02:17 AM on 25 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #8
       

       Re SkS rebuttals of Willie Soon, we sometimes fail to see the forest for the trees...

       This “it’s the sun” claim is an extremely popular argument with climate change doubters — according to the website Skeptical Science, it is the second most popular anti-global warming argument of them all, second only to “climate’s changed before.” So is there any truth to it? After all, regardless of who supports his research, if Soon is actually right on the substance then we may be getting all worked up about global warming for nothing.

       No, the sun isn’t driving global warming by Chris Mooney, Energy & Environment, Washington Post, Feb 23, 2015

31275. wili at 23:17 PM on 24 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #8B
       

       RC now has a post on "The Soon Fallacy"

31276. Daniel Bailey at 22:40 PM on 24 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #8
       

       "My point is that going after funding simply VALIDATES what deniers assert all the time"

       Deniers bewail many things, some of which are true and some are untrue.  There is evidence that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, there is evidence that human activities are driving the warming of our world...and there is evidence that Soon's funding was predicated upon "deliverables"; then the specific nature of the deliverables is fair game.  And the failure by Soon to divulge his remunerations and links to industry is also fair game.

31277. alby at 21:30 PM on 24 February 2015
       Missing Arctic warming does contribute to the hiatus, but it is only one piece in the puzzle.
       

       It is possible to have a graph with the same data as the last graph but covering latitude 0-70?

       Because I see that Gleisner method is performing quite well on Arctic lat. (see fig. 4 and 5 looking > 70N) but the conclusion of their article curiously is that "the dominating causes of the global temperature hiatus are found at low latitude".

31278. Tom Curtis at 20:58 PM on 24 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #8
       

       jgnfld @10 & 11, perhaps you should read my comments again.  Particularly the sentence where I say:

       "For example, there is no evidence that Willie Soon stated opinions he did not hold in order to gain funding."

       There is evidence, however, that he gained funding because he held (or at least, was prepared to propogate) certain opinions.  If the deniers want to turn that around and say that there is no evidence that the 97% of climate scientists state opinions they do not hold, but that they gain funding because of the opinions they hold, they are still left grasping at straws to explain why 97% of climate scientists disagree with them.  As in so many areas, we can have a reasonable discussion of the problems in certain funding methods, whereas the deniers cannot, for the deniers require a reason to believe that 97%  of climate scientists are not guided by the evidence, and such a reason does not exist.

31279. jgnfld at 20:41 PM on 24 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #8
       

       Added (or can a mod merge?): Going after appalling overt personal actions and behaviors is totally fair game as well. That would include (apparent) dishonesty in declarations of conflicts of interest and possibly the use of the word "deliverables" depending on surrounding context. I hope journals, in particlar, would look very carefully into this matter.

31280. jgnfld at 20:27 PM on 24 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #8
       

       My comment seems highly unpopular(!), but I think the main point was partially missed except perhaps by Mal. My point is that going after funding simply VALIDATES validates what deniers assert all the time. I simply think that is a serious strategic error, personally.

       
       WRT Mal's point, as you know it is an article of faith among deniers that what you know to be true, that funding agencies are arms-length, is not at all the case. Funding agencies are controlled by various agendas to produce specific results. That means the message to the broader public from science is that Soon is biased because of funding and the message to the public from deniers is that science is biased by the funding. It is this (seeming) parallel logic that the broader public hears that worries me. Especially when going after his (supposed) scientific statements is so easy and direct.
       
       Is this a totally senseless worry?  It's not that I am not appalled by certain behaviors on his part.

       Moderator Response:

       The use of "all-caps" is akin to shouting and is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.

31281. Mal Adapted at 11:39 AM on 24 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #8
       

       jgnfld @1:

       Going after Willie for funding is a mistake that I wish this site would not commit. It plays right into the hands of deniers who claim that ALL scientists are just saying what the funders want to hear.

       When science-deniers claim that ALL all scientists are just saying what the funders want to hear, they are implying that all funders want to hear something in particular.  It gives reality-based people the chance to expose the obvious flaw in the denier's logic: while it's no secret that a funding sources like Southern Company Services is protecting its investments, why would, say, the National Science Foundation be biased one way or another?  At all times, the difference between the obvious profit motive of fossil-fuel investors, and the clear public interest behind sources like NSF, can to be highlighted.  I recommend this piece by John Timmer of arstechnica as an example of how it should be done.

       Moderator Response:

       The use of "all-caps" is akin to shouting and is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.

31282. wili at 11:09 AM on 24 February 2015
       A melting Arctic and weird weather: the plot thickens
       

       Another consequence of Arctic melt? barentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2015/02/new-sinkholes-appear-yamal-12-02

31283. Tom Curtis at 10:39 AM on 24 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #8B
       

       Stephen Baines @22, well summarized.

31284. Tom Curtis at 10:37 AM on 24 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #8
       

       jgnfld, a small addendum to my prior post.  You say:

       "It simply is a mistake in my opinion to go after him for funding sources as pretty much every other comment has done. Go after the science."

       The fact is that Soon has not published a paper recently (SFAIK), but that his funding is in the news.  Ergo it is no surprise, and no problem that comments discuss what was in the news.  If the comments had equally focussed on his funding after a post criticizing one of his papers, you would have had a valid point.

       Unfortunately, there is no such post on SkS (contrary to my prior impression and claim in the preceding post), although there are posts directly assessing the general thrust of his arguments that do not mention him by name.

31285. Tom Curtis at 10:27 AM on 24 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #8
       

       jgnfld @1 and @6, providing a link to a story that is in the news in the weekly digest hardly constitutes "going after" Willie Soon.  It is in the news, and it is relevant to the public debate on climate change.  Further, as it is going to be in the news, it is worthwhile discussing the issue to make sure we know which claims are justified, and which are not.  That includes defending Willie Soon from claims that are unjustified, but which have been made by some people.  For example, there is no evidence that Willie Soon stated opinions he did not hold in order to gain funding.  Rather, he sort and gained funding from people who liked the opinions he was known to hold.  In another example, a clause in the contract relating to his funding from Southern Company Services has been interpreted as allowing Southern to review and request ammendments to his research, wheras interpreted in context it allows Southern that right only with respect to publicity for Soon's research (ie, press releases and the like).

       Of course, the same process does find ethical issues with Soon's funding arrangements.  Directly, and most obviously is Soon's failure to disclose the source of his funding, even where explicitly required to do so by conditions of publication in journals.  Also of concern is his failure to deliver on the explicit research contracted for, but substituting general anti-AGW research and conference appearances as adequate substitutes - a substitution accepted as adequate by Southern.  While this does not suggest Soon was expressing opinions he did not hold, it does suggest that he and Southern understood the funding to be for opposition to AGW rather than for some specific piece of research.

       I entirely agree with you that these points should not be the main focus, or even a major focus in discussion of Willie Soon's work.  As purportedly scientific research, it stands and falls on the science - something more than adequately addressed at SkS as pointed out by the moderator.  That they are not a major focus, and not relevant to the validity of the research, however, in no way implies that it should not be discussed.

31286. Jim Hunt at 10:18 AM on 24 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #8B
       

       Wili @24 - Probably it was me with the cough!

       Thanks should of course also go to Kevin Anderson, Peter Cox and Exeter Uni for permission to use the recording. I'm not aware of a potential transcript, though Kevin's slides are available. See the final paragraph at my link. Any volunteers here for producing a transcript? I'm a bit busy with Booker at present!
       
       There are rumours that a professional video of the seminar might be on the way, but if so I haven't seen it yet.

31287. wili at 09:58 AM on 24 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #8B
       

       Jim Hunt: Cool! So was it you that had the cough?

       I just don't do hardly any long distant travel any more (except a few longish bikerides, and a hundred mile trip I'll take with my wife as a deal for her to go vegetarian). My daughter and I have gone vegan. I'm trying to figure out how I'm going to reduce my next 10% (at least) from my emissions. Perhaps work on tightening up the house further and arrange to do more gardening. I count activism toward this, but I've taken a temporary break after getting burned out/frustrated.

       I agree that this is the takeaway quote. I said something similar at various sites where I posted your video.

       Thanks for making that recording and for making it available. Did you say that there is a transcript coming?

31288. jgnfld at 07:47 AM on 24 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #8
       

       Re. Moderator's Comment. I thoroughly agree. Do address his pseudoscience here and in the literature.
       
       What I disagree with is going after him for his funding sources. All this does is validate denier claims about how science works. Scientific publishing and communication must stay above that level as much as possible even though we all know corporate monies at the very least nibble around the edges of many big money fields all the time (can you say "big Pharma"?). I have worked at Memorial University for 3.5 decades which had a bit of a problem with a big money researcher publishing in the BMJ a while back as many may know. But the money was not the point, the science was.

       It simply is a mistake in my opinion to go after him for funding sources as pretty much every other comment has done. Go after the science.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Do you blieve it was a mistake for SkS to address "Climategate"?

31289. John Hartz at 06:54 AM on 24 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #8
       

       From today's edition of the Climate Nexus broadcast email Hot News:

       Big Money for Denier Research: Wei-Hock "Willie" Soon, a scientist favored by climate deniers, received over $1.2 million from energy industry companies, lobby groups, and billionaires for his research 'deliverables,' new documents show. Soon pushes the widely-discredited theory that the sun is responsible for climate change, not greenhouse gas emissions. He appears to have violated the ethical guidelines of at least eight journals by his failure to disclose this conflict of interest. Soon, often described as a 'Harvard astrophysicist,' has a doctoral degree in aerospace engineering and is employed by the Smithsonian Institution at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. (News: New York Times $, Guardian, InsideClimate News, Science Magazine, Tech Times, Mic, ThinkProgress, The Verge, Boston Globe $. Commentary: Mother Jones, Kevin Drum column, Discover Magazine, Tom Yulsman column)

31290. michael sweet at 06:32 AM on 24 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #8
       

       I am sorry, the organization that funds hidden donations is called Donors Trust, not Donors choose.

31291. Jim Hunt at 06:00 AM on 24 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #8B
       

       Wili @6 - Since it was my surf camera that recorded the video you link to, my thanks for posting it here! Perhaps I might elucidate the question you pose to us all by quoting my own main takeaway from Kevin Anderson's recent seminar:

       We can't do [2°C] with low carbon supply. We can't make the changes quick enough. You have to do something with our demand for energy, and that is very, very unpopular amongst all of us, all of our colleagues, all the policy makers, so basically the whole world, all the high emitting parts of the world, which is only a small proportion, none of us like this at all, and that's why we don't really like the science.

       By way of example, Prof. Anderson does in actual fact practice what he preaches. He has recently arrived in Iceland following a 3 day sea journay through force 11 winds!

       
       https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/569848672529342464
       
       How many of the other attendees at the "Earth 101" conference in Reykyavik do you suppose can say the same?

31292. michael sweet at 05:13 AM on 24 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #8
       

       It is concerning that the supporters of Willie Soon have recently chosen to pay him off through Donors Choose.  That is an organization that is designed to make it impossible for people to determine who is influencing the people they finance.  If all of Soon's money had come from Donor's Choose it would be difficult to show that they were in charge.

       Hopefully as these issues get more vetting in the press rules will be passed to make Donor's Choose and their like release who is financing them.  I for one am not holding my breath waiting for that change.

31293. One Planet Only Forever at 01:31 AM on 24 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #8
       

       The comments on the NY Times article include some hints of how the people who create and try to prolong any success of deception or misrepresentation of what is going on (including "Climategate"), will respond to this.

       There are posts indicating that the focus should be on the impressions of scientific merit of the creations of the likes of Soon, not the actual validity of it just the public perceptions of it, and there should be no consideration of the potential motivations of the likes of Soon or awareness of the connections between the participants in the creation and dissmination of information like Soon's.

       And that type of irrational defense will work in the minds of people who have personal interests that motivate them to uniquely filter each piece of information to maintain their preferred beliefs by establishing perceptions of validity. And such a person would make no connections between contradictory beliefs they hold or the irrationality of such beliefs if better understanding things would challenge their preferred beliefs and interests.

       I have my doubts that Willie Soon (and the people who fund his creation of reports, and the powerful people who refer to and rely on his creations), have duped themselves about what they are doing. I believe it is likely they are well aware of the unacceptability of what they are doing. And I believe that all parts of the chain from the "funding fathers of the creations like the Kochs" through to the "Loudspeakers like Inhofe and Fox News pontificating and disemminating the creations " are connected and aware of the full chain of unacceptable pursuers they are a part of.

       Hopefully the exposure of this case of attempted cover-up and deception will lead some of those who were easily impressed by past actions of the participants in this group to question the validity of what they had previously allowed themselves to believe about this group. However, anyone who still holds perceptions of validity related to "Climategate" cannot be expected to change their mind.

31294. Stephen Baines at 01:29 AM on 24 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #8B
       

       So Tom, 

       What you are saying is that Soon knew what Southern wanted in spirit, research that supported a certain position. The evidence for this is that, when he couldn't give them something that directly matched what he was contracted to do, he put forward some items that he knew would suffice because they challenged the IPCC consensus in some way.  He broke journal COI rules in the process, under some self-delusional or explicitly nefarious guise of objectivity.

       Hmmm.  I agree that passes the smell test...in that it stinks.  Every funding agency I know would mark that as unethical at the least and outright misconduct at the worst.  I'm still not sure his opinion is for sale, in that he once had an opinion and changed it opportunistically to become rich. But that is neither here nor there considering your analysis.

       To find a silver lining...What I find heartening in the whole debacle is how few scientists have betrayed their rationality given how easy it would be to get money with few strings attached.  When people say money corrupts, I hold up the consensus on climate change as an indication otherwise.

31295. jgnfld at 01:22 AM on 24 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #8
       

       Going after Willie for funding is a mistake that I wish this site would not commit. It plays right into the hands of deniers who claim that ALL scientists are just saying what the funders want to hear.

       I have no problem with journals withdrawing his articles because he broke the contracts which require disclosure.

       Most important though, is to use the scientific method, that is to stick to his science as published and show how it is wrong and to make sure the peer review process is clean. Both can be done and that really is the way to go.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] If you insert "Willie Soon" into the SkS search box, you will find that the SkS author team has already thoroughly debunked Soon's published pseudo-science.

31296. Stephen Baines at 17:25 PM on 23 February 2015
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       rjs

       You are making this too complicated.  Human metabolism can only be a net source of  CO₂ if human biomass decreases.  Its conservation of mass.

       But of course human biomass is actually increasing, so if anything human tissues are a net sink of CO₂ from the atmosphere - i.e. we are taking CO₂ up from the atmosphere into our bodies on the whole.

       Also, the amount of biomass in human tissues is miniscule (<0.1Gt C by my calcs) compared to that in trees and soil anyway (2000-3000 Gt C) or in the atmosphere (~800 Gt C), so any change in human biomass has little effect on the atmospheric CO₂.

31297. Tom Curtis at 17:15 PM on 23 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #8B
       

       Further on Willie Soon, in his report to Southern, says:

       "The goals of this research project have been completely and successfully executed with the following list of deliverables:"

       Among the "deliverables" listed are:

       1) Temporal derivative of Total Solar Irradiance and anomalous Indian summer
       monsoon: An empirical evidence for a Sun–climate connection, which does not acknowledge the funding by Southern, despite the journal requiring that:

       "All authors are requested to disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest including any financial, personal or other relationships with other people or organizations within three years of beginning the submitted work that could inappropriately influence, or be perceived to influence, their work. See also http://www.elsevier.com/conflictsofinterest."

       Variation in surface air temperature of China during the 20th century, but I cannot determine from the abstract if the conflict of interest was acknowledged.

       2) Research to date on Forecasting for the Manmade Global Warming Alarm, a report prepared as evidence for testimony to Congress by its principle author (not Soon).  The conflict of interest is not acknowledged.  More importantly IMO, the report contains no reference to "sun", "solar", "tsi", or any term related to solar forcing.  The overt purpose of the funding from Southern was to publish two papers, one on solar influence on temperatures in the United States, and one on solar influences on temperature in China (from the ammendment to the agreement).  The second article under point (1) satisfies the ammended agreement, but the article on the US was never published.  (In his report on that phase of the agreement, he does mention papers on Polar bear populations as "deliverables" that "completely and successfully execute" the agreement.)

       The complete absense of reference to solar forcing, however, shows that the "Research" report was not even tangentially connected to the overt purpose for funding.  It is, however, directly connected to providing a smokescreen for fossil fuel interests.  Apparently Soon understood that that was what Southern was interested in, and was prepared to provide it.  The closer look at the documents means I have changed my mind.  These documents are prima facie evidence that Soon sort funding, and recieved funding not for research, but to provide a voice opposing AGW.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Thank you for digging into this matter further and for letting the evidence determine your position. 

31298. rjs at 16:35 PM on 23 February 2015
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       I wonder if the treatment of human respiration here has ignored a couple of points. Two things to think about:

       1) Our collective breathing is a year-round phenomenon that is localized to inhabitted areas, whereas plant conversion of CO2 from the atmosphere to organic matter is seasonal and localized to less densly inhabited areas; the locales and anual timing of our breathing are different to the locales and seasonal resperation of growing plants. So that could mean an uneven distribution of atmospheric CO2, even if it is relatively transient due to weather patterns.   Is the warming effect of such transient areas of higher CO2 concentration more signficant than the assumed warming effect of plantery average CO2 concentration?

       2) Imagine a sealed, underinflated balloon containing water and air. If we heat the ballon up, the same amount of water still exists within it, but now more of the water is in the form of water vapour, not liquid water. There is still a steady state exchange of water vapour to liquid water and back, but more of that water is in vapour form when it is heated up compared to the oringinal underinflated balloon. Similarly, as breathing organisms, we have increased the volume of atmospheric CO2 because there are more of us breathing now than 200 years ago. If 5 or 6 billion of us stopped breathing permanently, then yes, plants would relatively quickly collect the atmospheric CO2 and return it to the soil as humus or store it in woody material. But as long as we keep breathing, we are like the heated balloon - more C is in gaseous form (CO2), and less is stored as organic matter.  And it may not be correct to state that our bodies compensate by sequestering CO2 in our own organic flesh and blood because we ourselves are not static - we grow and then we die, so in addition to the billions of us living, there are also billions of us decomposing, and as cemetary availability decreases, we will increasingly shoose cremation which releases our stored carbon instantaneously.

       So overall, I think the question of whether our breathing contributes to GW is still open.  I'm more inclined to think that it does contribute directly, and that contribution is not insignificant, yet other factors such as lifestyle are greater contributors.  

       Perhaps someone can do some numbers just for fun.  Assume: 1) all the current atmospheric CO2 due to human breathing can be approximated by five years of human exhalation - this is based on the arbitrary idea that over 5 years, global plant communities could convert our hot air to organic matter; and 2) all that human-respiration CO2 captured by plants would be held indefinitely out of the atmosphere due to the undisturbed process of plant growth and soil growth that would take place if we all stopped breathing.  With these assumptions, how much atmospheric CO2 do 7 billion humans generate over a period of 5 years, and how does that amount compare to the current total atmospheric CO2 quantity?

       Note: just a quick point on food production techniques. Soil degradation and subsurface compaction result in less organic matter (humus) in the soil, thus C that was previously stored in the soil has been and continues to be released as a consquence of our agricultural methods.

31299. Stephen Baines at 15:27 PM on 23 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #8B
       

       I will say that I am appalled that the Smithsonian has Soon on their books.   It's a big ungainly place, for sure, but that august insitution should have standards.  (I was going to say higher standards, but Soon's arguments don't credit that much. ) The idea that thoe standards may be for sale is sickening to me.

31300. Stephen Baines at 15:24 PM on 23 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #8B
       

       I agree with TC on this.  There is not enough information to prove that Willie Soon is selling his science to fossil fuel companies, as opposed to the fossil fuel companies seeking out someone of the "right" opinion.  He may have strongly held beliefs that align with the fossil fuel industry for a number of reasons — he really likes the sun, he really hates the CO2 crowd, he is politically motivated, he thinks his garden will grow better.

       It also doesn't really help to simply discredit his science simply because it is associated with the FF industry, because that makes it OK (in the minds of the antigovernment black helicopter brigade) to discredit mainstream climate because it is funded by agencies trying to justify their own existence.  Arguments by association are only convincing to those already aligned on either side, and will generally do little to convince those on the fence.

       What we should note is that Soon is just flat out wrong on the science of climate change. There really is no other way to put it, and there is no way to look at the data without realizing it.  The money he receives completely distorts the process of science, keeping alive his groundless ideas in the public sphere like a voodoo doctor animates zombies.  Plus, he is dissembling, breaking conflict of interest disclosure rules common to journals.  That is the truly destructive thing at the core of this debacle.

Prev  618  619  620  621  622  623  624  625  626  627  628  629  630  631  632  633  Next