anna v (11:10:39),

If you are refering to the ‘ocean acidification’ collection, I find this material interesting & important, because it casts a very large cloud over the assumption that ocean-habitat contributions in the model-algorithms are solidly based and reliable.

You should have said so. People cannot guess intentions, particularly on the net, and few people will go to the trouble of checking through a long list of links. It sounded like a big offer for the defense of OA ( Aside, that is Olympic Airways usually, :))

Hope this helps. ;-) ,/i>

Ted

The study is complex. At no time did I or the study suggest that that terrestrial plant life behaved like rocks.

I apologize for that out of context phrase, it was not bowed to your post or to something you would have said. Sorry, Martin.

From the article you suggested:

Here is an interesting study. It says in part:- MartinGAtkins (10:44:49)

On the other hand, when the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is low, those plants release the CO2 fixed in malate through decarboxylation in the perivascular bundle sheet cells.

Fortunately, plants are not rocks.

The study is complex. At no time did I or the study suggest that that terrestrial plant life behaved like rocks.

I will read the paper at more in more detail in the morning. Meanwhile it is only an interesting subject for study.

I think the links that you are looking askance on were compiled & offered, as examples of and to underscore certain weaknesses of climate-models (and by extension, to suggest a general immaturity of these software-tools).

If you are refering to the ‘ocean acidification’ collection, I find this material interesting & important, because it casts a very large cloud over the assumption that ocean-habitat contributions in the model-algorithms are solidly based and reliable. I think in fact the assumptions made about ocean habitat in the models are essentially a shot in the dark … and the ocean acidification investigations underscore the uncertainties all across the marine domain.

Likewise, I (and others) discussed the changes in relative plant respiration (botanical CO2 emissions, which are huge) with varying atmospheric CO2 levels, because the models again make assumptions about what this value is … assumptions which ongoing research, fraught with qualifiers like “may” and “might”, serves to put on dubious footing.

I am citing these materials, to show there is too much uncertainty in central elements of the climate models for the results obtained from them to be taken as anything resembling conclusive.

I apologize that the discussion-train became opaque. Where I think it started getting confusing is in the replies to Smokey (18:50:58). He/she asked for certain ‘negative evidence’, and I replied on basically another track … showing where I think climate models are making improper (formal) assumptions.

Hope this helps. ;-)

Ted

Paul Sheehan, the author of the opinion piece on Ian Plimer’s book, is a senior journalist for the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH). The SMH has in my opinion been the leading Australian print MSM vehicle for promoting green policies and propaganda including AGW.

I found his piece to be very brave and a rare display of intellectual honesty from that mob. Professor Plimer’s book must have had a big impact on Mr Sheehan for him to question his orthodoxy. I have ordered the hardback copy this morning online from the publisher http://www.connorcourt.com/catalog1/

It remains to be seen what sort of response Mr Sheehan will receive from his colleagues, brothers-in-arms and the rabid left-wing letter writers that populate the SMH’s letters page., I don’t think it will be gentle.

Regards

Michael

REPLY: see main page for this article – Anthony

They are correct in the sense that any system, of which the model is a true representation ought to behave like the model; well actually verse vicea; the model should behave like the system that it is a model of.

The problem with “Climate models” or “Global Circulation Models” which is what they really are; is that they are not models of any plent that we know about.

The models only tell you what the elements that you put into the models are going to do in the future. They can tell you nothing about the effects of aspects of the real system which you do not represent in the models.

Since the most ardent GCMers agree they do not correctly account for clouds (and who knows what else), then they clearly are not modles of this planet, nor should they behave like this planet does; since the planet includes every single aspect of its construction.

When the models are models of this planet, then they will behave like this planet does; and we are a long way from having a model of this planet, since the ones we have don’t even properly account for the single most important “green house” component of the atmosphere; namely water (in all three phases it takes in our atmosphere.

Fiddling with trend lines and standard deviations is not going to overcome the lack of a model which doesn’t have an analog of the three phases of water, that are a permanent part of earth’s atmosphere.

George

They hope that this is a turning point in the weather and Spring is finally here.

Obviously they’re still suffering from hypothermia. Our computer model shows that spring arrived four weeks ago. Some one tell them they are wrong.

We present recent observed climate trends for carbon dioxide concentration, global mean air temperature, and global sea level, and we compare these trends to previous model projections as summarized in the 2001 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC scenarios and projections start in the year 1990, which is also the base year of the Kyoto protocol, in which almost all industrialized nations accepted a binding commitment to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The data available for the period since 1990 raise concerns that the climate system, in particular sea level, may be responding more quickly to climate change than our current generation of models indicates.

I certainly hope you are not designing any bridges, Frederick.

Can anybody reconcile with this ?

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_etal_science_2007.pdf

From the article you suggested:

This partial closing of the stomata under elevated CO2 can allow the plants to acquire more CO2 with less water loss. Lower plant water loss (higher water use efficiency) can result in increased soil moisture.

C4 plants rely on a physiological adaptation: Hatch and Slack cycle. It’s a cellular metabolic cooperation mechanism which allows them to survive without atmospheric CO2 making use of the CO2 dissolved in the tissue liquids through the enzyme phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase, which works quite well under low concentrations of tissue CO2, especially when plants are forced to close their stomata for avoiding loss of water. On the other hand, when the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is low, those plants release the CO2 fixed in malate through decarboxylation in the perivascular bundle sheet cells. Fortunately, plants are not rocks.

“When is Positive Feedback Really Negative Feedback?”

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/when-is-positive-feedback-really-negative-feedback/

“…
But you engineers are indeed correct: When we climate researchers talk about positive feedback, what we are really talking about (in electrical engineering terms) is weak negative feedback.”

If you know electronics, electrical power, steam plants, basic physics, etc, and are having a hard time with climate-feedback discussions – read this post! ;-)

Thanks!

All your links are full of “may” , “might” and “research”.

Research is good, but it means that nothing much is known.

Also people so much worried about the anthropogenic CO2 ( that according to AGW theory stays in the atmosphere for centuries) should have another look at the numbers in the carbon cycle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

There are 750 GigaTonsCarbon naturally in the atmosphere, and the fossil burning adds another 5.5 , i.e. 0.7%. Which according to AGW stays there for centuries.

Whats the fuss? That is why everything is full of “mays” and “mights”.

Actually they are not always in the same direction, Larry. Often the older temperature data is made cooler so that the rate of temperature increase is made steeper and more alarming. Ain’t climate science great?

Here is an interesting study. It says in part:-

The adjustment of plant water budgets played an important role in several responses observed in the experiment. Higher levels of atmospheric CO2 can cause plants to partially close leaf pores (stomata) through which CO2 enters leaves for photosynthesis and water vapor escapes to the atmosphere. This partial closing of the stomata under elevated CO2 can allow the plants to acquire more CO2 with less water loss. Lower plant water loss (higher water use efficiency) can result in increased soil moisture.

http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/Dukes/JRGCE/chamber.html

“ocean acidification” (aka, OA)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
http://www.ocean-acidification.net/
http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080521105251.htm
http://co2.cms.udel.edu/Ocean_Acidification.htm
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/Final_acidification.pdf
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/31/ocean-acidification-and-corals/
http://planetsave.com/blog/2009/03/29/experts-say-ocean-acidification-is-a-planet-changer/
http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249
… etc.

Wow! Thanks!

@Phil.

In your response, you came up with one citation. What did it say? It said that if CO2 makes the oceans more acidic, then juvenile lobsters might have a shorter carapace length.

That’s contemplated into paleobiology. When the concentration of calcium carbonates in Sea water diminishes, an adaptive change takes place on size; “baby” and adult lobsters will be shorter and their carapace (exoskeleton) density won’t change. It has been observed in fossil records. Lobsters won’t disappear; they just will be shorter.