I’m taking the weekend off, as I need to do some climate unrelated work, which is physical, and always good for the soul, and I need to spend time with my family, who often get neglected due to the amount of time I put into this blog.
Guest posters are welcome to post stories.
Feel free to discuss topics within site policy.
Heard today that Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to run for POTUS in 2016. He said he’s ready to start lobbying to change the Constitution and also preparing a lawsuit.
Clearly he’s not content with running Califailure into the ground.
I’ve added some Antarctic ice and sea data level analysis since I last posted in a weekend thread.
http://www.climatechangedebates.com
Still planning to add more kinds of analysis and eventually add wildfire, drought, hurricane data, as well as make it look prettier and eventually add graphs. Slow work in progress, feel free to critique.
Edohiguma says:
October 19, 2013 at 12:05 pm
“Heard today that Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to run for POTUS in 2016.”
Dis shall be de moment ven se ocean stopped to rise and se planet began to heal. Kome viz me if you vont to live.
Peer Review.
Not climate related but interesting. A biologist called Michael Eisen, at UC Berkeley and an Investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute says in his own words:
“In 2011, after having read several really bad papers in the journal Science, I decided to explore just how slipshod their peer-review process is. I knew that their business depends on publishing “sexy” papers. So I created a manuscript that claimed something extraordinary – that I’d discovered a species of bacteria that uses arsenic in its DNA instead of phosphorus. But I made the science so egregiously bad that no competent peer reviewer would accept it. The approach was deeply flawed – there were poor or absent controls in every figure. I used ludicrously elaborate experiments where simple ones would have done. And I failed to include a simple, obvious experiment that would have definitively shown that arsenic was really in the bacteria’s DNA. I then submitted the paper to Science, punching up the impact the work would have on our understanding of extraterrestrials and the origins of life on Earth in the cover letter. And what do you know? They accepted it! ”
http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1439
The Coming Unobtanium Crisis
As retirement draws ever closer, I’ve arrived at a new means of supplementing my income, and hopefully avoid the job as a Walmart greeter.
After examining all the data carefully, it appears the time is right for the newest global threat to life as we know it, and that is the release of Unobtanium into our atmosphere and water by our mere existence. I’ve chosen Unobtanium, since all the other good GHG’s and trace elements have already been by taken by other groups, and I didn’t want something that hasn’t worked out so well for them.
The first order of business was to recruit my chief modeler, 11 year old Tommy B. from Grand Rapids. Tommy was first runner-up in the regional Lego competition, so he’s uniquely qualified for this position and brings keen insight to the task ahead. He will construct two models, one for runaway warming, and a second for runaway cooling. This is crucial, inasmuch as nobody knows at this point which direction it will eventually strongly trend. I’m shipping 2 flats of cherries to be used in these models, since they are essential to reinforcing which ever postulate we wish to advance. When the models are completed, they will be cryogenically stored in the vessel next to the one that contains Ted Williams’ head.
Next, I’ve brought in an onionchronologist, who will reconstruct climate data by onion ring proxy. Now I know what you’re thinking, that an onion can only give you about 6 weeks worth of data at most, but not to worry, Tommy’s models will faithfully hind-cast thousands of years in the past, and forecast hundreds of years into the future.
As part of the public relations angle, I’ve been watching “B-movie babes who were hot 30 years ago”, and making up my short list of candidates to handcuff themselves to the White House fence, along with yours truly.
The simple logistics of the matter dictated that I purchase several cases of talking points, and I got the best available. Micro-honed and ready to imbed themselves into those lacking intellectual curiosity, they activate whenever the wearer is speaking. Glassy eyes and a little drooling are the only side effects which will go largely unnoticed in today’s political climate.
Concurrent with that I also set out to procure some coal mine canaries for press releases. I had no idea they would be so difficult to find. Apparently the unemployment rate for these little guys is less than half a percent, and demand is going up, what with the UN group doubling down on their warming meme.
On my way to the community center to write this, an ash blew off my expensive imported cigar and set my straw man alight in the front seat of my Prius. I was forced to pull over and leave him smoldering against a fire plug, muttering his last words “denying women their reproductive rights”…. I had little worry of pollution, since straw men are constructed of mostly hot air and lofty platitudes. When I replace him, I’m getting the new X-10 model, the same one the administration uses, because it’s completely invulnerable to media scrutiny.
I realize this is not going to be an easy task to move to the front of the line with a new catastrophic narrative. I shall have to battle acidic oceans, methane balls exploding, and heat mysteriously disappearing into the depths, but I still think I’m on fairly safe ground since Unobtanium, like dark matter and phantom heat, cannot be observed.
As much as I’d like to stay and chat, I have an Esperanto class at the community center shortly.
Yours in his new career,
Luke Warmist
Edohiguma says:
October 19, 2013 at 12:05 pm
“Heard today that Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to run for POTUS in 2016. He said he’s ready to start lobbying to change the Constitution”
GLORIOSKY!! Then we can elect idiots from the whole world!
Peer Review.
Not climate related but interesting. A biologist called Michael Eisen, at UC Berkeley and an Investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute says in his own words:
“In 2011, after having read several really bad papers in the journal Science, I decided to explore just how slipshod their peer-review process is. I knew that their business depends on publishing “sexy” papers. So I created a manuscript that claimed something extraordinary – that I’d discovered a species of bacteria that uses arsenic in its DNA instead of phosphorus. But I made the science so egregiously bad that no competent peer reviewer would accept it. The approach was deeply flawed – there were poor or absent controls in every figure. I used ludicrously elaborate experiments where simple ones would have done. And I failed to include a simple, obvious experiment that would have definitively shown that arsenic was really in the bacteria’s DNA. I then submitted the paper to Science, punching up the impact the work would have on our understanding of extraterrestrials and the origins of life on Earth in the cover letter. And what do you know? They accepted it! ”
http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1439
pochas says:
October 19, 2013 at 12:51 pm
You’ve already elected the World’s Most Famous Kenyan, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Wow, I was going to try to be funny, but there is no way I can compete today!
I will have to try some sciency stuff–
If you have an “ideal” absorber the same distance from the Sun as the Earth, you can use Stefan-Boltzmann directly, with no “adjustments” other than albedo.
For example: S = (sigma)T^4
Use S = 1365 W/m^2, and albedo of 0.3 (“New” S now = 955.5 W/m^2)
Then T = 360K (87ºC, 188ºF)
Wait, maybe that is kinda funny….
Use Google translator on this? It’s UNFCCC not conform and will be shortly be removed?
http://www.svalbardmuseum.no/nyindex.php?id=15&kategori=3
Norwegian to english
BTW.
The wheels have definitely come off the CAGW band wagon. Dr. Mann has a picture of him with all four plus the spare at: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/index.php
Reviving the most robust and helpful philosophy of science, and related ideas in politics and economics. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=rafe+champion
Good for you Anthony. It is a beautiful day down here in the SF Bay area. Wonderful Indian summer were having. Gonna fire up the old backhoe and do some work on the farm, best to you and your family.
Doug
Jon says:
October 19, 2013 at 1:15 pm
Use Google translator on this? It’s UNFCCC not conform and will be shortly be removed?
No problem, after some 10+ trips to Scandinavia, mainly Norway, decided to learn Norwegian…
But interesting story anyway. Not only in Svalbard some plant debris from 1100 years ago – the warm Medieval Period – comes out from under the ice, but also from Svartisen (Norway mainland) and from under glaciers in Austria human artefacts are found that are 3000-6000 years old, proving that the glaciers were much shorter in these periods…
Mange hilsener fra Flandern/Belgia
I offer a thoroughly enjoyable article from the Chicago Tribune! The opening graphic is a hoot!
This article concludes:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-nsc-the-true-global-warming-crisis-is-the-fibs-20131015,0,791749.story?page=1
There was a very interesting comment made on one of Bob Tisdale’s threads a few days ago, by Hunter (don’t know who you are, sorry):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/14/will-their-failure-to-properly-simulate-multidecadal-variations-in-surface-temperatures-be-the-downfall-of-the-ipcc/#comment-1447452
The point made is that, just as early Christianity had to adapt away from an expectation of the imminent Second Coming of Jesus, so the Alarmists will surely adapt in order to survive. Perhaps this will prolong the agony of their influence beyond what many people, myself included, currently think.This lead to a sudden realisation of the importance of falsifiability in any belief structure. I have written more on this on my own blog:
http://jonathanabbott99.wordpress.com/2013/10/19/true-believers/
Have fun spending all that Koch funding this weekend! /bigsarc!
Jesus Green, that’s an excellent article on peer review. I’ve bookmarked it for future reference. Thanks.
Changing tracks here just a little, I’ve asked this before but never had a convincing reply: What exactly is the human contribution to increased atmospheric CO2?
I’ve anywhere from 100% (unlikely) to as little as between 6% and 12%. Is there a supportable data based number?
Mark
Tim Osborn has posted an engaging comment regarding CO2 forcing at Climate Audit. It’s surprising to see a charter member of the Hockey Team venture in to enemy territory. 🙂
http://climateaudit.org/2013/10/08/fixing-the-facts-2/#comment-443928
Anthony, you should spend more time with your family, not less. As they say, “Nobody sits up on their death bed and says, “I wish I had spent more time at work.”
Luke Warmist – one of the best satires I’ve read in a long time. I loved it. Thanks!
Mark says:
October 19, 2013 at 2:11 pm
What exactly is the human contribution to increased atmospheric CO2?
A few generations of skeptics have discussed that for several years up to today…
I have written a few contributions to the answer, which are here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/why-the-co2-increase-is-man-made-part-1/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/20/engelbeen-on-why-he-thinks-the-co2-increase-is-man-made-part-2/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/16/engelbeen-on-why-he-thinks-the-co2-increase-is-man-made-part-3/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/24/engelbeen-on-why-he-thinks-the-co2-increase-is-man-made-part-4/
In my opinion some 95% is caused by humans, 5% by the temperature increase since about 1850.
But that was and is heavily contested by a lot of skeptics on this site, but supported by a lot of others and for once, by most in the scientific community, including Fred Singer, Lindzen and other skeptical scientists…
Mark says:
October 19, 2013 at 2:11 pm
: “What exactly is the human contribution to increased atmospheric CO2?
I’ve anywhere from 100% (unlikely) to as little as between 6% and 12%. Is there a supportable data based number?”
The number I see quoted most often is in the 2-4 percent range, but sadly I can’t cite anybody/anything. This makes my observation anecdotal which is always highly suspect.
(……now I’m wondering what the real number is.)
Can anyone help?
I’m an engineer, not a scientist. For 30 years I’ve relied on New Scientist to keep me in touch.
I am seriously disappointed with NS in recent years. They are totally sold on the CAGW religion, plus they’ve gone all arty, and Social Sciencey. NS has sold its body. They are just courting passing trade in the newsagent’s shop with misleading covers and headlines. I just don’t trust the editor any more, and I don’t want to give them my money.
I’d cancel the subscription, but I don’t want to be completely out of the loop.
There must be something on the internet that’s equivalent, a one-stop shop with general science for the intelligent layman.
Suggestions?
ps Anthony, I love WUWT! I owe you a lot.
[Here is another science site: http://www.world-science.net Not a recommendation, I only just found it myself. — mod.]
Anybody bored and want to educate me on the paleo argument for high climate sensitivity? My understanding of the argument is that it goes like this: look at the paleo record. CO2 was high and temperature was high, so there. Is there more substance to the argument than that?
Actually, I get that there’s a little more than that. The argument goes that something minor perturbed temps upward, CO2 increased, and therefore temps increased. Does anyone know of a walk through that shows the math in a reasonably understandable way?
BTW – I’m not looking for an argument, I’m looking to understand an argument. Please don’t open fire on whoever answers, assuming anyone answers.
Thanks in advance.
“Heard today that Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to run for POTUS in 2016.”
I thought you had to be born in America or of American parents to be the President?
With regard to Schwarzenager lobbying for a change to the constitution to enable him to be POTUS, surely there are more urgent priorities for reform.
How about fixing the broken senate filibuster rules which essentially completely break democracy. How about a line item veto to cut back on the extent of back room dealing and pork clauses riding through in omnibus legislation. How about looking at instituting proportional voting for one of the houses. How about a single transferrable vote system in the presidential primaries. Why is it possible to get the constitution amended to deal with Schjawrzanagers trivial petty and self-serving desire to stand for president whereas it is not possible to address serious structural issues. The US system of government is currently dysfunctional. Does anyone honestly think that a foreigner being unable to stand for president is the biggest problem?
Ferdinand, how many languages do you speak? Also, while you make a good case for anthro CO2, that is not the final part of the debate. The last step is answering the question: does CO2 matter?
CO2 is a minor trace gas. We know it is beneficial, because life could not exist without it. If it dropped below 200 ppm we would have big problems. But the entire debate over “carbon” is predicated on the belief that CO2 will cause runaway global warming. If its only effect is a degree or so warming per doubling, then the alarmist crowd loses the debate. It is not worth arguing over something like that, because there aren’t enough fossil fuels to double CO2.
So the central question remains: does CO2 matter?
Based on empirical evidence, the answer is clearly: “No.”
Whether you agree or disagree, I would like to read about it.
Mark Bofill says:
October 19, 2013 at 3:33 pm
There is no paleoclimatological argument for high CO2 temperature sensitivity in any time frame. Sometimes higher T happens to correspond accidentally with intervals of elevated CO2, but more often not. CO2 follows temperature, although it might have a slight positive feedback effect.
From c. 1977 to 1996, rising CO2 coincided with rising mean global temperature, if heavily “adjusted” data sets are to be credited & if Earth’s T can indeed be taken to precisions of fractions of a degree C. But from c. 1944 to 1976, falling T coincided with rising CO2. From c. 1910 to 1943, flat, falling to ever so slightly rising CO2 coincided with rising T.
Farther back in our current interglacial, there was not much more CO2 during the Medieval, Roman, Minoan & Holocene Optimum Warm Periods than during the intervening Little Ice Age, Dark Ages & other Cold Periods. During the preceding glaciation, CO2 was perhaps 100 ppm lower than during the Holocene, because colder oceans hold more of the gas.
In the prior interglacial, which was a lot warmer than the Holocene, CO2 got up to perhaps 330 ppm, if ice core data are to be believed.
Going way back millions, tens of millions & hundreds of millions of years, CO2 concentrations of thousands of parts per million were associated with T both warmer & colder than now.
There’s no significant long-term correlation, although warmer climate will eventually lead to a little more CO2 in the air & colder to less at equilibrium, if that’s ever achieved. But CO2 levels higher than tens of parts per million have negligible effect on temperature, since the so-called greenhouse effect is logarithmic.
No, it is about different kinds of glaciers at Svalbard, of which 60% is covered in ice.
dbstealey says:
October 19, 2013 at 3:49 pm
Whether the human contribution to the present beneficial level of CO2 in dry air be 16 ppm or 100 ppm doesn’t matter to global mean T. CO2 contributes insignificantly to raising T above concentrations much lower than 280, 380, 480 or 580. It does have an important effect at levels under 100 ppm. Above that, it’s just more plant food. When it reaches tens of thousands of ppm, at it might start impacting how the planet now works by meaningfully lowering the relative abundance of oxygen. Some humans can begin feeling minor effects (like headaches) of CO2 around 1000 ppm (as in real greenhouses) & suffocate before 50,000 ppm.
Rumour has it the ObamaCare website disaster was caused by a Team of U Penn climate scientists moonlighting as web developers.
Makes sense. If you could screw up the climate models so badly, if you could invent the Infamous hockey stick and pass it off as science, then you could be the fools that so screwed the pooch on ObamaCare.
milodonharlani says:
October 19, 2013 at 3:57 pm
——————
Thanks, although that’s not really what I was after. Let me phrase my question another way. I can go to SkS and look up the apologetic. I find a reference to Shakun et al 2012, which apparently relied on models. Ok, this isn’t what I was looking for. I was hoping somebody could point me towards a warmist study or argument with math that can be followed by humans that purports to validate the argument that the paleo record shows high sensitivity.
Basically, the reason I care is this. I’ve never heard a paleo argument that didn’t amount to handwaving. If there is some other substance behind this argument (other than GCM’s, which I don’t consider substance anyway) even if it’s not correct I’d like to understand what it is. This is what I’m really getting at.
Mark Bofill, I studied a number of those papers including the flawed Knutii review from if I recall correctly 2009. All cited in the climate chapter of my book. Following a thumbnail sketch.
ECS includes long term feedbacks like change in land albedo from change in vegetation that might take a century to fully respond. There is no definition of the open period. A hundred years? A thousand? Several energy balance and observed heat/temp studies (not paleo) say most feedbacks take place ‘quickly’ (less than 15 years or so) and all those are pretty much captured in TRS. (Dr. Curry and I had a three month tussle on this before she posted my comments on ECS on her blog last year.) So use your imagination on what the long lag feedback remainder might be, and how significant.
What the paleo studies do is take two well separated time points or periods (centuries to millennia) with causative variable and dependent variable start and end. Causative is of course CO2. Dependent is some paleoproxy or proxies for temp. They look at the change over the interval, ignore transient fluctuations, and calculate ECS from delta T/ delta CO2.
In addition to the obvious uncertainties in measurement, there are wonderful cherry picking possibilities in choice of start and end times and in proxies for T.
While I am only qualified to judge as a critical thinker, the best of these studies (no obvious start stop or cherry pick problems) always seem to come out plus minus an ECS of 2. The worst ( obvious issues when the papers are read carefully) always seem to come out about 3 or a little higher. Read the Knutti survey review on ECS and you will be able to see all of this at work in practice to justify 3′ when the real answer seems to be between 1.5 and 2. My bock gave 1.9 as my then best guess. Several studies this past year lead me to revise that down toward 1.7 if I were to rewrite it now.
Regards
Mr. Mark are you sure that is what you want to know. The increase can be 100 human contribution, but the proportion of the total CO2 that is the human contribution is very small.
Rud,
Thanks, this is what I was looking for.
Much obliged. 🙂
Since this is an open thread I have to warn folks about the Australian fire being blamed on global warming or climate change. Now I hear that police are investigating military activity being a possible cause, as well as two girls seen trying to light a camp fire. This makes me recall the green who set of one of the worst fires in Israeli history because she was told that burning toilet paper was more eco-friendly. This fire was also blamed on global warming. You can’t make this up my friends.
SHOOT FIRST, ASK QUESTIONS LATER. This is the new motto for journalists.
Dear Mark (@ 2:11pm today),
Note: Ferdinand Englebeen does not represent the views of most of the skeptic scientists who post on WUWT.
Moreover, he is resoundingly refuted by Dr. Murry Salby in the video below.
Dr. Murry Salby, Hamburg, Germany, April 18, 2013
In the above video, I think you will find the answer to your question at:
[36:34] Native Source of CO2 – 150 (96%) gigatons/yr — Human CO2 – 5 (4%) gtons/yr
[37:01] Native Sinks Approximately* Balance Native Sources – net CO2
*Approximately = even a small imbalance can overwhelm any human CO2
Hoping that was helpful,
Janice
Fred says:
October 19, 2013 at 4:09 pm
umm fred…that would be penn state, not u of penn.
u of penn is too busy with their hospitals HUP, and CHOP, and the wharton school to go grant grubbing on the retail level that penn state does. sorry.
Here is what you left out.
I don’t know or care who is right, but the way you present it is not very clear.
Well, it looks like the NSIDC is up and running again and the Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is starting to get humorously/freakishly above average in my opinion…http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
Janice Moore says:
October 19, 2013 at 4:25 pm
“Dear Mark (@ 2:11pm today)…..”
Thanks from me as well.
Rud Istvan says:
October 19, 2013 at 4:13 pm
IMO, ECS isn’t that high now, but in any case, there can be no single number, even for the specific doubling from ~280 to 560. When CO2 went through those levels in the Paleozoic or Mesozoic, the effect wasn’t the same. The Cretaceous is a big problem for CACA, since its apparent warmth would require an ECS of 6.0, 7.0 or more at much higher concentrations than now, the effect of which would have to be less, due to the logarithmic nature of CO2 warming (most of which occurs at low concentrations).
Fred says: “Rumour has it the ObamaCare website disaster was caused by a Team of U Penn climate scientists moonlighting as web developers.”
U. Penn.? or Penn. State? Surely you have a link, Fred. Or were you just trying to be funny?
Further to Jimbo’s comment on the Australian bushfires.
http://australianclimatemadness.com/2013/10/18/moronic-greens-mp-links-nsw-bush-fires-to-climate-policy/
Recall POTUS said raising the debt ceiling doesn’t increase the debt. The Treasury Dept was simply using accounting tricks until an agreement was reached to eliminate the debt ceiling for ~90 days so the process can repeat, Obama will demand unconditional surrender, the media will place 100% of the blame on the Republicans (not that they aren’t culpable for spending); wash, rinse repeat. This was all planned out long ago.
This is the first president in my lifetime that up front said he (and Harry Reid) would not negotiate for anything, only unconditional surrender. In fact, he once said the opposition would have to ride in the back.
U.S. debt jumps a record $328 billion — tops $17 trillion for first time
The next 12 months will not be good news for the U.S. QE2Infinity will of course continue inflating assets (stocks) and create a new housing bubble, but the dollar is headed toward irrelevancy as China buys up the gold and waits for the right time to dump U.S. bonds thereby quickening the death of the dollar. Already the reserve status of the dollar is showing signs of deterioration as more and more countries are bypassing the dollar to trade direct currencies. It’s only a matter of time.
If Obama had a city, it would look like Detroit.
On Obamacare, from a software engineer’s POV
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/20064
david eisenstadt says:
October 19, 2013 at 4:27 pm
Fred says:
October 19, 2013 at 4:09 pm
umm fred…that would be penn state, not u of penn.
u of penn is too busy with their hospitals HUP, and CHOP, and the wharton school to go grant grubbing on the retail level that penn state does. sorry.
________________________
Best way to tell them apart? Just remember- State Pen, not Penn State
Dear Luke Warmist — you are so very welcome. (btw, Mark never responded to me. Sigh. — that made your acknowledgement doubly gratifying — THANK YOU)
Pragmatic words of wisdom.
Bjorn Lomborg: The Resiliant Environmentalist
Hey, D. R. (at 5pm today) LOL — thanks for sharing the link with the simpleton diagram. Fun post.
I liked this: CMS is clearly not staffed or experienced enough to manage something of this complexity …
… and that is GREAT!
Die, Dopebamacare, die!
Re man made contribution to CO2 to total output, I use http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/eia_co2_contributions_table3.png from IPCC 2001. Gives a figure of 3%, a good number to silence a critic. Not sure if there is a later stat.
You can’t go back, can you ?
Not in Ohio !!
New growing meme among the alarmists – CO2 fertilisation exists, but it makes bushfires worse.
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_surprising_role_of_co2_in_changes_on_the_african_savanna/2663/
In another year, they’ll deny they ever suggested CO2 would harm plant growth.
Well if Arnie gets that constitutional change through, you can run your primaries between Arnie and Gillard. You KNOW 47% of you want to!
RE: Global Warming/Climate Change and the effect of aerosols.
Well the effect of the bush fires in Sydney have had an interesting effect here in the Federal Capital, Canberra. Whilst we missed the Lunar Eclipse, we got a wonderful “Blood Moon” thanks to all the smoke in the air. It was supposed to be 29C today, but thanks to all that smoke it has barely made it to 23C. Which sucks, since my excuse to not do the yard work because it is too hot has, as they say “gone up in smoke”.
Lastly, the Greens MP Adam Brandt here coped a boatload of sh*t when Tweeting that thanks to Tony Abbott and his proposed repeal of the Australian Carbon Tax, we will see more bush fires. Love one of the responses: Adam Brandt: The pimple on the arse of a snake. Sweet.
Anyway, back to cutting the hedges…
AussieBear.
[” .. coped a boatload of ..” Typo? Or Aussie-o? 8<) Mod]
getting more blatant by the MSM minute!
17 Oct: Bloomberg:Alan Bjerga: Can’t Make Enough Food? Make Fewer People
Solve the world’s future food needs? That’s easy. Make more food or make fewer people. Pick one.
Lester Brown, founder of the Earth Policy Institute and author of a new memoir, Breaking New Ground, suggests we think about fewer people…
The key to feeding people, Brown suggests, is by trying to manage population growth. Leaders need to ensure the planet’s capabilities aren’t overwhelmed, he said…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-17/can-t-make-enough-food-make-fewer-people.html
(2 pages) 12 Oct: MarketWatch/WSJ: Paul B. Farrell: World’s top problem is
overpopulation, not climate
Commentary: 2,000 scientists focus on the wrong problem, not world’s biggest
Warning: Mother “Earth didn’t replace the dinosaurs after they died” in the
last great species extinction, reports Nobel physicist Robert Laughlin. She
“just moved on and became something different.” But so what, you say, that
was 65 million years ago. Right?
Wrong. Today humans are the new dinosaurs, the next species slated for
extinction, warn 2,000 United Nations scientists. Soon. We’re also causing
the extinction, even accelerating a new timetable. Signing our own death
warrant. Not millions of years in the future, but this century. Thanks to
our secret love of climate change. Yes, we’re all closet science deniers…
The dinosaurs didn’t even know what hit them in the last great species
extinction. We know what’s ahead. We can make the big, tough decisions …
if only we wake up in time
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/climate-report-proves-humans-are-the-new-dinosaurs-2013-10-12?link=MW_latest_news
VIDEO: 15 Oct: CNN: Alan Weisman: We don’t need another billion people
There’s a direct link between those two hard-to-grasp figures — the more
humans, the more carbon…
Third, we can use incentives such as carbon taxes and moral persuasion to
bring down energy consumption. Again, these help, and must be encouraged.
Although a number of countries and some U.S. states have passed carbon
taxes, consumption is exceedingly hard to control in a world where, for
example, even the world’s poor masses, increasingly living in cities, manage
to get cell phones. Whether the power is pirated or not, they plug in their
chargers nightly…
Last, however, if we can’t control consumption, we can control the number of
consumers. This is technology we already have, and it’s cheap. Every woman,
everywhere, could have contraception…
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/15/opinion/weisman-climate-population/index.html?hpt=hp_mid
BBC had this on radio, but no link online:
(LINKS TO STUDY) 10 Oct: LA Times: Julie Cart: finds link between long-lived humans and
species extinction
The longer humans live, the more likely they are to push other species to
the brink of extinction and, conversely, spur the rise of invasive birds and
mammals species.
That sobering news comes via a new study from UC Davis, published in the
journal Ecology and Society…
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-longevity-species-20131010,0,2439.story
Jimbo says:
October 19, 2013 at 4:36 pm
and continuing:
I may not have lost the thread, but I’ve lost the logic of Eisen’s post. He’s talking about faking a false paper about a subject that any journal editor would know about. Apparently he’s using that to introduce a new fake paper that was known to be wrong but proved acceptable to open access journals. We don’t know about print journals because they weren’t tested, but we sure can cast aspersions on those slimy open access journals.
The thing that threw me for a loop is how unlikely a subject this would be. In December 2010 NASA reported on finding a bacterium at Mono Lake that could live with arsenic replacing phosphorus. The claim was retracted a week later and wound up being a major embarassment over premature claims, bad science and wrong interpretation. See
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1163
http://phys.org/news/2010-12-nasa-discovery-element-life.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/07/arsenic-and-post-haste-another-example-of-the-broken-peer-review-process/
@Eric Worrall,
Nice article. Nature does what Nature does, be opportunistic. More CO2 whatever the source gets used. It all balances out. I wonder if the “fertilisation effect” is/will be accounted for in the IPCC models? Maybe it will, however, being a cynic on these sort of things, it will be (re) defined as a “bad thing”.
AussieBear.
18 Oct: ABC Australia: Caroline Winter: Man gets very public snip for World Vasectomy Day
A doctor from Florida has performed a live vasectomy in a bid to lower the planet’s population one snip at a time.
Doug Stein is a tireless campaigner for men to take responsibility for family planning and preventing unintended pregnancies.
His round-the-world journey, which has been captured in a feature-length film, has now taken him to Adelaide where he has performed vasectomies in front of a live audience.
The vasectomist is somewhat of a crusader in his field, encouraging those who are ready to exit the gene pool via a delicate and relatively simple procedure…
Stein: “I just think that people should have only the children that they want because each of us is a fairly significant burden on the planet and competitors with our fellow species.”…
***Dr Stein, who began his quest in his home state of Florida, says it is a viable way to reduce our carbon footprint and it is time for men to step up.
“We’re not really selling vasectomy; we’re selling individual responsibility,” he said…
He travelled to the Philippines and Haiti on vasectomy missions, where he witnessed confronting scenes of poverty and overpopulation…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-18/very-public-cut-made-for-world-vasectomy-day/5031710
——————————————————————————–
I’m also trying to understand: Why does anyone think that CO2 has a warming effect at all? I don’t mean, “What is the mechanism?” (the IR absorption thing.) Here’s what I have:
1) Correlation does not mean causation — but lack of correlation certainly does mean lack of causation (if you had a cause that did not correlate with its effect, how would you know?) A weak cause means weak correlation, to be teased out of “noise”; a strong cause means a stronger correlation. Yes?
1a) A warmist said that one-third of all the CO2 humanity has ever put in the atmosphere was put in in the last 20 years — and the last 17 years has seen a lack of warming; enough that some even argue for cooling (or show cooling in places).
1b) 450 mya, CO2 levels were an order of magnitude greater than today (4400 ppm instead of 400 ppm) — and we were deep in the Andean-Saharan ice age.
1c) Venus — when pressure differences are taken into account, Venus is no warmer than it “should” be just from proximity to the sun, despite 96% CO2. (Albedo? Then it’s a magic albedo that perfectly counterbalances CO2-driven warming; also, Venus is under clouds, not a roof — the effect of albedo should be weaker at higher elevations as less cloud lets in more light — but at the higher altitudes where the atmospheric pressure is 0.5 atm, 0.4 atm, 0.2 atm, Venus is slightly *cooler* than it “should” be.)
So I’m seeing zero correlation between the alleged cause and the alleged effect. Also,
2) CO2 absorbs energy (IR). CO2 is a gas. Energetic (warmed) gases rise. As the excited molecule rises, it is more and more likely to lose its energy to space: 50% likely when the molecule is exactly on the surface, >50% and increasing as it rises. Seems like it ought to have an outright cooling effect, carrying the IR spaceward. If it loses energy to other atmospheric molecules (radiatively or conductively), they, too, will rise and carry that energy closer to space.
I wish I could include a graphic, but the geometry is simple enough: a point on a sphere; any ray extending from it from 0 through 90 to 180 degrees will miss the sphere (the Earth) and any ray from 180 through 270 to 360 degrees will intercept it: half the rays will go into the sphere. But given a point any distance at all from the sphere, more than half the rays will miss it, and more and still more, the farther the radiating point is from the surface.
What am I missing?
mellryn, do you deny the greenhouse effect?
Bill why don’t you just falsify the Null Hypothesis?
Here it is – anthropogenic CO2 emissions are NOT causing catastrophic climate change.
Or – natural variation is causing climate change.
You can choose to falsify either or both of those statements of the null hypothesis.
Simple eh? Now off you go. The floor is yours.
Perhaps Arnie is either rocking the boat for the magic kenyan or working to cover his ass as obummer is likely not qualified under the constitution to be where he is!
This talk about null’s makes my head ache.
Which somehow led to me search the horsepower of a Saturn 5 rocket.
I found:
“between 160 and 175 million horsepower.”
That seems like a lot 🙂
Edohiguma says: October 19, 2013 at 12:05 pm
Heard today that Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to run for POTUS in 2016. He said he’s ready to start lobbying to change the Constitution
Well, why not.
When Barack Obama came to America from Indonesia he showed that a drug-using person of no known accomplishment and odd speech patterns can become President and rewrite the Constitution. Arnold does have accomplishments, and he didn’t need affirmative action.
Anybody signed up for the Affordable Health Care Act yet?
pat says:
October 19, 2013 at 6:52 pm
“getting more blatant by the MSM minute!”
Wait for the study that claims the rise in death of oarfish is being declared as the canary in the coal mine for catastrophic global warming.
geran says:
October 19, 2013 at 1:10 pm
Then T = 360K (87ºC, 188ºF)
Wait, maybe that is kinda funny….
No, actually quite sad, as you don’t seem to know the Earth is spherical…You should have divided the incoming radiation by four.
farmerbraun says:
“Bill why don’t you just falsify the Null Hypothesis?”
Excellent question.
And mellyrn says:
“What am I missing?”
What indeed, Bill? Answer mellyrn’s points.
Take your time, I’m retired. ☺
“Aussiebear says:
October 19, 2013 at 6:41 pm”
Bandt is an inner city, Melbourne, latte sipping alarmist with no scientific background what so ever. He is directly attributing the current bush fires to AGW driven climate change via carbon emissions and Abbotts’ climate policy plans (To repeal the carbon tax – hasn’t happened yet, but still Abbott gets the blame). He has no experience of rural, fire prone, bush regions in Australia. It’s a similar situation in flood prone areas where, the Queensland floods in recent years are a testament to that.
I have seen residents in these areas directly challenge the New South Wales Premier when he visited about policy changes in the Dept. of National Parks. If memory serves, “back burning” policy was changed as well as disallowing animals to roam park lands to, literally, eat ground fuel away in about 1995. An example of city dwellers making rules that apply to residents in rural, fire prone, areas. A former manager of mine is currently fighting the fires here in NSW.
Talking of Kenyans, a Kenyan friend of mine was at the Westgate Mall when the terrorists attacked, she saw the whole thing unfold and lost two of her friends in the attack.
mellyrn;
You’ve got it mostly right. 20 years ago the alarmists were arguing that natural variation was insignificant and the temperature rise was entirely due to CO2. Now, with 17 years of no warming, they are arguing that natural variation is significant after all, and is masking the warming.
Your point 2. however is an over simplification. The amount of energy absorbed by CO2 is negligible in this context. It is the process of repeatedly absorbing and re-radiating energy that makes the difference. Keep in mind that this happens at the speed of light (literally) so while there are secondary effects such as convection, they happen at a snail’s pace by comparison. If you want to get deep into the details, I highly recommend this series by Ira Glickstein:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/20/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-a-physical-analogy/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/28/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-atmospheric-windows/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/
farmerbraun says:
October 19, 2013 at 8:21 pm
Bill why don’t you just falsify the Null Hypothesis? Here it is – anthropogenic CO2 emissions are NOT causing catastrophic climate change. Or – natural variation is causing climate change. You can choose to falsify either or both of those statements of the null hypothesis. Simple eh? Now off you go. The floor is yours.
********************
Easy,
“Rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998-2012; 0.05 deg. C/decade”
Since 1998, “7% rise in carbon dioxide (CO2).”
“The transient climate response*** is likely in the range of 1.0 deg. C to 2.5 deg. C … and extremely unlikely greater than 3 deg. C” (SPM-12).
” In setting the top of the range at 3.0 deg. C, the IPCC’s estimate now falls within the range of natural climate variation over the last 6 million years.”
Doh!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/19/scientific-critique-of-ipccs-2013-summary-for-policymakers/
lsvalgaard says:
October 19, 2013 at 9:30 pm
geran says:
October 19, 2013 at 1:10 pm
Then T = 360K (87ºC, 188ºF)
Wait, maybe that is kinda funny….
No, actually quite sad, as you don’t seem to know the Earth is spherical…You should have divided the incoming radiation by four.
>>>>>>
If you would read and try to understand, you would not be such an easy target.
My comment wording was: “If you have an “ideal” absorber….”
Hint: An “ideal” absorber would not be “spherical”.
So, ZERO points for reading comprehension, and MAX points for putting your foot in your mouth.
Mark says:
October 19, 2013 at 2:11 pm
“What exactly is the human contribution to increased atmospheric CO2?”
Good morning Mark (it’s 7.30am here in the UK, very still, dark and damp outside). I do not hail from a scientific background but, like many regular readers of WUWT, are totally obsessed with the full rebellion against any CAGW scaremongering and that for whatever miniscule amount of CO2 is up there, it is not responsible for warming the planet by half a degree during the last century. Having scoured journals, trawled websites, listened to presentations, etc., my own breakdown of atmospheric CO2 (and all the other gases) is this:
(Disclaimer: I apologise in advance if you already know this)
Nitrogen:
78.084% by volume – or 2,498 cubic feet per 3,200 cubic feet of atmosphere.
Oxygen:
20.9476% by volume – or 670 cubic feet per 3,200 cubic feet of atmosphere.
Argon:
0.934% by volume – or 30 cubic feet per 3,200 cubic feet of atmosphere.
Carbon Di-oxide:
0.033912% by volume – or approx 1 cubic foot per 3,200 cubic feet of atmosphere.
This percentage has increased by 8% in the last two decades – a difference of 0.002512% from 0.0314% originally.
The split is not entirely accurate due to CO2 being a dense trace gas, therefore concentrated in the troposphere only, with light atmospheric gas such as Hydrogen, Helium and Methane reaching the stratosphere and mesosphere.
Of the 0.033912% CO2 by volume, 96.775% is naturally occurring (approx 155 parts per 160) and 3.225% is anthropogenic (approx 5 parts per 160). Therefore the human contribution to increased atmospheric CO2 during the last 20 years is 0.0000785% by volume – which is minuscule.
The volume of the remaining six atmospheric gases equal the total volume of CO2 (1 cubic foot per 3,200 cubic feet of atmosphere)
Methane: 0.002% by volume.
Neon: 0.001818% by volume.
Helium: 0.000524% by volume.
Krypton: 0.000114% by volume.
Hydrogen: 0.00005% by volume.
Xenon: 0.0000087% by volume.
If this has not helped you Mark, then maybe it will help other new visitors to Anthony’s site appreciate just how insignificant the amount of anthropogenic CO2 actually is. My apologise to all the regulars who know all of the above already.
GeeJam
A call from the West Australian conservative Liberal Party for a Royal Commission into Climate change. Heads will explode! http://pindanpost.com/2013/10/20/a-royal-commission-into-climate-change-called-for/
It’s coming apart:
—-
“They have control because they sell something everyone has to buy.
“We have no choice about buying it.
“With that amount of power comes huge responsibility to serve society.
“It is not like some other sectors of business where people can walk away from you if they don’t want to buy your product and you are entitled to seek to maximise your profit.
“The social license to operate of the energy companies is something they have to take very, very seriously indeed.”
Mr Welby said he was concerned that fuel poverty was “a very severe issue… because real incomes are flat or declining and the cost of energy has gone up”.
“It ties in with the food banks and the debt,” he said.
“They are all part of the reality of life for many people today.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/archbishop-canterbury-says-energy-price-2472470
—-
He said: “Politicians don’t want to admit competition hasn’t worked. The public want price controls or renationalisation of energy firms.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/money-saving-expert-martin-lewis-2471463
—-
Speculation that npower and Scottish Power are to hike prices comes as figures show bills are rising THREE TIMES faster under Cameron
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/npower-scottishpower-next-increase-energy-2471619
—-
Archbishop damns energy price hikes
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2467854/Archbishop-Justin-Welby-damns-energy-price-hikes-controversial-attack-Firms-generosity–just-maximise-profits.html
—-
‘We put some wind farms in the wrong place’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2467726/Energy-Minister-Greg-Barker-We-wind-farms-wrong-place.html
—-
Man has been without electricity or gas for THREE YEARS
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2467376/Man-50-left-electricity-gas-THREE-YEARS-row-energy-firm-repairing-meter.html
—-
Unravelling: David Cameron left sweating as voters
hit out at ‘put a jumper on’ energy advice
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cut-energy-bills-putting-jumper-2468049
—-
Miliband accuses Cameron of panic over energy prices
http://www.irishexaminer.com/world/miliband-accuses-cameron-of-panic-over-energy-prices-246837.html
—-
This latest patronising nonsense is little more than a cover for letting privatised energy giants fleece millions of families
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/knit-jumpers-leave-ministers-out-2468048
—-
The energy secretary, Ed Davey, called on electricity and gas suppliers to act rapidly to reveal their true profitability to customers and the energy regulator, as the government spent another day on the defensive over soaring bills.
But when British Gas announced a 10% price increase on Thursday, it put £40 of that rise down to ECO, a calculation not accepted by the Department of Energy & Climate Change.
…Davey told Newsnight he wore jumpers at home to keep bills down.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/oct/18/energy-consumer-affairs
DR says, “it’s only a matter of time” heh, we be waiting a long time I suspect. Bush forced regime change in Iraq to return their ‘invoicing’ of oil back to the dollar from the Euro. That was the only real reason. Now the US is using oil from this side of the world and producing ever more of it’s own. The Middle East is losing importance to us and China is their biggest customer so yes the dollar may lose importance over there with time. Is that so much a bad thing? What are we going to do, go to war over it again?
I give up on waiting for predicted collapses that show up on these open threads. Like I gave up on what Bush said in 2001 that there would be a $5.6 Trillion surplus in 10 years.
http://web.archive.org/web/20041018020541/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy02/pdf/blueprnt.pdf
Holy gerrymandering, Batman, can’t Republicans just let Obamacare implode on its own? Without 144 voting to default our country to 87 not.
Mark Bofill says:
October 19, 2013 at 3:33 pm
Anybody bored and want to educate me on the paleo argument for high climate sensitivity? My understanding of the argument is that it goes like this: look at the paleo record. CO2 was high and temperature was high, so there. Is there more substance to the argument than that?
The main reasoning from alarmists like James Hansen is that solar forcing and the response from melting/freezing ice sheets is not sufficient to explain the increase/decrease of temperature over the glacial/interglacial transitions and back. Therefore one need a huge feedback from greenhouse gases like CO2 and CH4, which follow the initial small temperature increase caused by the small changes in insolation over the NH (the Milankovich cycles), where most of the ice sheets are formed. That is nicely presented in James Hansen’s essay, fig. 3:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2003/2003_Hansen.pdf
But some recent research (don’t remember the reference) shows that cloud cover also changed over glacial-interglacial periods, dwarfing the effect of GHG’s…
Anyway, in all cases CO2 simply follows the temperature changes, but that is no proof that it has a huge influence on temperature. It may give a small positive feedback to the temperature increase, but that is far less that what the climate models implemented which all lead to too high estimates of the temperature in current times.
dbstealey says:
October 19, 2013 at 3:49 pm
Ferdinand, how many languages do you speak? Also, while you make a good case for anthro CO2, that is not the final part of the debate. The last step is answering the question: does CO2 matter?
As we live at the crossroads of countries, we need to learn several languages: Flemish/Dutch is where I live, French, English and some German are learned at school and as I am a traveller, I like to learn at least a few words of the local language where I am travelling to (except Thai and Japanese, too difficult to read!). Some Spanish was added when I was sailor (several trips to South America) and Norwegian, as that is my favorite destination: a marvelous country…
Does CO2 matter? While I am convinced that the increase of CO2 is mostly man-made, I am as sure that it has more beneficial effects than negative. The theoretical increase for 2xCO2 is ~0.9 K. Nothing to worry about. It is the positive feedbacks implemented in climate models which are the base of the panic, but the models are proven wrong…
Martin Rees makes a prediction:
“We can predict that the world in 2050 will be more crowded, and warmer.”
http://theconversation.com/astronomer-royal-on-science-environment-and-the-future-18162
I’m just a layman, myself. But I thought that such predictions about natural phenomena actually couldn’t be made! First off, any one of population catastrophes could occur…oh, and cooling could happen too.
Time was when the Royal Society and its emeritus professors practiced actual science.
DirkH says:
October 19, 2013 at 12:43 pm
Edohiguma says:
October 19, 2013 at 12:05 pm
“Heard today that Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to run for POTUS in 2016.”
Dis shall be de moment ven se ocean stopped to rise and se planet began to heal. Kome viz me if you vont to live.
——————————————————————————
He veess toooo bees deturmined toooo steeck aha round.
Kenya’s not far enough?
—–
pochas says:
October 19, 2013 at 12:51 pm
Edohiguma says:
October 19, 2013 at 12:05 pm
“Heard today that Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to run for POTUS in 2016. He said he’s ready to start lobbying to change the Constitution”
GLORIOSKY!! Then we can elect idiots from the whole world!
OK, Geran, just what shape is an ‘ideal absorber’ that also has an albedo of 0.3?
If I were you I would pay more respect to what Isvalgaard says and stop digging an even deeper hole for yourself.
I have two topics for discussion.
1. If we could heat the atmosphere up by 1K uniformly and hold it there then what would be the long term effect on ocean temperatures at all depths?
Is there a natural ocean “lapse rate” down to a constant 4K at some depth where the densest waters reside, and if so would the depth at which 4K is reached become greater on account of the extra 1K at the surface? And how long might downwelling currents take to achieve this? And then, within this system in external equilibrium, how much internal change might be expected to occur merely from random fluctuations in ocean currents?
The reason for posing this thought experiment is that I am trying to get my head around the “honey, they hid the AGW below 700m in the ocean”.
2. Given the warm anomaly in the Atlantic to the west of the UK (see http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif ), can we expect a mild coming winter in the UK?
Thanks,
Rich.
Janice Moore says:
October 19, 2013 at 4:25 pm
Native Source of CO2 – 150 (96%) gigatons/yr — Human CO2 – 5 (4%) gtons/yr
[37:01] Native Sinks Approximately* Balance Native Sources – net CO2
*Approximately = even a small imbalance can overwhelm any human CO2
Except that the natural imbalance over the past 50 years is only halve the human emissions and that the increase in the atmosphere also is only halve the human emissions:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
The error Dr. Salby and many other skeptics make is by comparing the human emissions, which are one-way additional with the huge natural flows, which are only circulating through the atmosphere, but don’t add (even remove some) CO2 to the atmosphere…
To make a comparison: If you have a fountain where some 10,000 liter/min is pumped from a bassin over the fountain and flowing back into the bassin and someone opens the water supply, adding 10 liter/min to the bassin and forget about it, how long will it take before the fountain is flooding, even if the additional flow is only 0.1% of the main circulation?
“But interesting story anyway. Not only in Svalbard some plant debris from 1100 years ago – the warm Medieval Period – comes out from under the ice, but also from Svartisen (Norway mainland) and from under glaciers in Austria human artefacts are found that are 3000-6000 years old, proving that the glaciers were much shorter in these periods…”
And it wasn’t under 20 metres of sea water ?
Is my understanding correct?
1. Radiation travels between all objects regardless of their temperature.
2. .If an object, colder than a hot object and its surroundings, is placed near the hot object, it will reduce the radiation that the hot object was receiving from its surroundings in the direction of the cold object. The hot object will be cooler than it would otherwise have been.
3. If a hot object that is hotter than the surroundings is placed near a hotter object it will increase the radiation the hotter object is receiving which will slow the rate of cooling of the hotter object.
4. An absorption line means that no radiation is emitted at that frequency.
Bastardi’s Weekly with interesting observations: http://www.weatherbell.com/saturday-summary-october-19-2013
More on Australia’s fires New South Wales fires and global warming.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/18/nsw-bushfires-tony-abbott-says-canberra-will-pay-half-cost-of-rebuilding
geran says:
October 19, 2013 at 11:25 pm
My comment wording was: “If you have an “ideal” absorber….”
If the absorber is not spherical as the Earth, your comment has no relevance.
In reference to the ‘Jesus Green’ post above, concerning the ‘Fake Peer Reviewed Paper’,
here Is a link to the original.
http://scicomm.scimagdev.org/
It makes me wonder how many Academic papers are ‘Science’ or ‘Science Fiction’,
maybe they should be ‘Blog’ reviewed rather than ‘Peer’ reviewed, before being published.
John Spencer says:
October 20, 2013 at 12:33 am
Health Warning. The Mirror is a virulently Left-wing rag that makes HuffPo look positively impartial. Any paper which would describe the leader of the global Anglican church as a ,”Mr”, has a serious problem.
Kelvin Vaughan says:
October 20, 2013 at 3:06 am
Completely right on all four points…
I have made a simple Excel sheet for temperature/radiation balances of inserting a second sheet where you can tune about everything: initial temperatures of both sheets and the surroundings, energy supply, etc.:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/slayers.xlsx
It gives the evolution of the energy balance, the radiation fluxes and the temperatures in graph form and as table.
See first the “readme” page for the details…
MikeB says:
October 20, 2013 at 2:30 am
OK, Geran, just what shape is an ‘ideal absorber’ that also has an albedo of 0.3?
If I were you I would pay more respect to what Isvalgaard says and stop digging an even deeper hole for yourself.
>>>>>>>>>
Ok, Mike, an ideal absorber is a hypothetical flat surface with NO albedo! The Earth’s albedo was used to adjust the TSI so that the ideal absorber received the same power as the Earth.
I know Dr S has some sycophants on here. If I were you I would pay more attention to what TRUTH is, rather than groveling even deeper into your hole.
lsvalgaard says:
October 20, 2013 at 3:55 am
geran says:
October 19, 2013 at 11:25 pm
My comment wording was: “If you have an “ideal” absorber….”
If the absorber is not spherical as the Earth, your comment has no relevance.
>>>>>>
And, once again, when you are clearly WRONG, you just declare it a non-issue. You only fool the sycophants. Oh, as to “relevance”, which you think you have the power to determine, this is an OPEN thread, duh….
Kelvin Vaughan October 20, 2013 at 3:06 am
Points 1,2 and 3 are correct.
Point 4 needs some clarification. Blackbodies emit over a continuous spectrum, so it is not strictly true to say that no radiation has been emitted. Absorption lines in the spectrum indicate that some intervening ‘cooler gas’ has selectively absorbed radiation at a specific frequency. The absorption lines provide a ’fingerprint’ of what elements are in the intervening gas.
http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/329447-report-larry-summers-turned-down-bank-of-israel-job
I submit this as Summers has an ownership stake in First Wind (UPC Group) who is involved in the wind sector in the MENA region.
Richard D:
Your post at October 19, 2013 at 11:11 pm says it is easy to falsify the climate null hypothesis then uses the IPCC assertion of ECS (i.e. a claim of the degree to which a change in atmospheric CO2 will affect climate) to calculate how much anthropogenic warming has happened over the last 15 years.
That is a circular argument: an assertion cannot prove itself. Simply, you argument only asserts, “because the IPCC says so”.
Please explain why you think your argument is a falsification of the climate null hypothesis.
Richard
Janice Moore shows her ignorance in assuming that anthropogenic CO2 as a flow has to be a additional component. Its clear that photosynthesis is a negative feedback on C02. If we simply maintained a constant level of CO2 then withn a few years the bioproductivity and ocean absorption would balance that CO2 and CO2 rise would stop, but then so would increased yields due to higher CO2.
The accumulation is occuring not because CO2 is higher, but because total CO2 emission rate from all sources is increasing. Plant and ocean responses to the CO2 are lagged, and the lagged response causes CO2 to overshoot the equilibrium level. While we continue to increase the rate of emission all the little overshoots will continue to add and CO2 will rise. All humanity really needs to do is reduce the rate of increase a bit so the plants can keep up with sucking it out. That naturally will have to happen someday because we can’t sustain an increasing use of fossil fuels indefinitely, and at some point the oceans will increase absoption due to cold and CO2 will fall back to the point at which absorbtion = emission, this is classic negative feedback.
So the issue of what percentage of emission is human is irrelevant, but rather what sources have increased their rate and which haven’t. Clearly warming since the LIA is one source of rate change ( reduced ocean uptake), human emissions is another, now given that we have NO IDEA what the natural changes in rate of emission are, it also stands to reason that we have NO IDEA what percentage of that CO2 rise was human induced.
Richard said;
‘2. Given the warm anomaly in the Atlantic to the west of the UK (see http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif ), can we expect a mild coming winter in the UK?’
Interesting. If the winds come from a southerly direction as they are doing at the moment you may be right. However, I guess those waters around Greenland will cool off over the next few weeks so I suppose any cold periods will then depend on whether the winds shift to a Northerly direction.
Ultimately that may all come down to the position of the Jet stream and what air flow it introduces.
In other words….I don’t know!
tonyb
Sorry that was see owe to Rich who made the comment rather than Richard
tonyb
Ed, name me ONE program that was repealed on the basis of its failure; the thinking here is the dems will make this pig fly, come hell or high water. Look at the present admin re: the economy and any REAL metric which indicates abject failure, yet that is not the ‘popular’ thought in the populace (yet!) on account a admin-friendly, accommodating, lap-dog press …
.
Zaphod says: October 19, 2013 at 3:26 pm “Can anyone help? I’m an engineer, not a scientist. For 30 years I’ve relied on New Scientist to keep me in touch. I am seriously disappointed with NS in recent years.”
I did not see a retort, or suggestion even, to your request. I became disillusioned with lamestream media of that ilk with my experiences with Scientific American. My ad hoc solution is registration or whatever is required with academic paper/preprint repositories – arXive and SSRN for example – where I can browse topics of my interest. No editorials/editorial policy or competing financial interests.
Look into the Open Access movement.
No reciprocity at the molecular level at it relates to vibration and being excited by incoming EM rad and also re-radiating that same EM energy at the same wavelength on account molecule movement (vibrating, movement of the constituent atoms wrt to each other in the molecule)? That’s a new one on me …
Tuning forks can be made to both generate ‘waves’ as well as resonate in response to ‘waves’ coming in. We also see this same reciprocity in antennas and other resonant type circuits involving EM energy … what ‘mechanism’ would intrinsically make this one way?
.
bobl says:
October 20, 2013 at 6:03 am
The accumulation is occuring not because CO2 is higher, but because total CO2 emission rate from all sources is increasing. Plant and ocean responses to the CO2 are lagged, and the lagged response causes CO2 to overshoot the equilibrium level.
I suppose that you are reacting on my response to Janice Moore, as Janice only cited the film of Dr. Salby, to which I objected…
There was and is a lot of discussion about the origin of the increase in the atmosphere. Fact is that the biosphere (plants, bacteria, insects, animals,…) is a net sink for CO2, as can be deduced from the oxygen balance.
Thus there are only two relative fast main possible sources of the increase in the atmosphere: human emissions and the deep oceans. The oceans surface can be excluded, as that is limited in capacity (about 10% of the change in the atmosphere).
From the past we know that the long-term ratio between CO2 and temperature in equilibrium is about 8 ppmv/K. That means that with the increase in temperature over the past 50 years (since Mauna Loa and the South Pole started measuring CO2) of about 0.5 K, that is good for maximum 4 ppmv of the 70+ ppmv which is measured since 1960, now already 100+ ppmv above the historical equilibrium.
Humans emitted about 140 ppmv in the same time frame, more than enough to explain the increase. Moreover, the slightly quadratic increase in cumulative emissions makes that the increase in the atmosphere also is slightly quadratic as is the sink rate. Here the trends:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_acc_1960_cur.jpg
and here the ratio of emissions and increase in the atmosphere:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1960_cur.jpg
and here the temperature and increase in the atmosphere:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_1960_cur.jpg
It is quite clear to me what caused the increase in the atmosphere…
Theoretically it is possible that the oceans increased in circulation, dwarfing the increase in human emissions. But that means that the increase in circulation must mimick the increase in human emissions (a threefold since 1960) with exactly the same ratio and timing. But that violates about all known observations like residence time, 13C/12C and 14C/12C ratio, etc…
pat & the snipping doctor
He may be reducing the carbon footprint one (public) snip at a time but how much more is he increasing it with all his flying around? I hope he’s removed himself from the gene pool.
As a regular visitor to WUWT, I have often seen one or more of the Laws of Thermodynamics mentioned on occasion. I have read elsewhere in the past that the CAGW narrative violates one or more of these Laws. However, I do not recall if that issue was ever directly discussed here, and was wondering if the CAGW narrative does indeed violate one or more of the Laws. Please understand that I am a non-scientist, so please forgive my ignorance here if this issue was in fact covered in the past. Please, if you would, discuss this in terms that any lay person can understand.
Also, I recall reading elsewhere about the Law of Diminishing Returns (LoDR) as regards CO2. Is this one of the Thermodynamic Laws? The LoDR, as I understand it, states that CO2’s effect diminishes as a greenhouse gas as the level of it in the atmosphere increases and that, at 400 PPM, CO2 has already done most of its “damage” (if in fact it does any at all). So CO2 as a greenhouse gas should be a non-issue because of the LoDR among other reasons. Correct?
Many thanks in advance to everyone who can enlighten me on these subjects. Greatly appreciated!
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
Yes, we know you are convinced of an anthropogenic cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. But that does not allow that you should make exaggerations of your case such as you do in your post at October 20, 2013 at 6:52 am where you write
There are several possibilities, including but not only that “the oceans increased in circulation”, which do not violate any observations. Indeed, it is only hours since I corrected your assertion concerning the isotope ratios on another WUWT thread: the changes in those ratios don’t “mimick the increase in human emissions” but are wrong by a factor of 3.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/18/life-in-a-climate-cataclysm-box/#comment-1453209
Richard
CD (@CD153) says:
October 20, 2013 at 7:18 am
As a regular visitor to WUWT, I have often seen one or more of the Laws of Thermodynamics mentioned on occasion.
@@@@@
I think it fair to say that there is no a proiri reason why CAGW violates the laws of thermodynamics. Some of the reasons people have hypothesised as to WHY CAGW occurs, may violate such laws. The law of diminishing returns is not part of the laws of thermodynamics. It is more formally called the Beer/Lambert Law.
LoDR is from economics theory. “Diminishing returns” might describe an inverse second power function, as in R^-2 radiation attenuation with distance. Or a Pareto Distribution, and he, Pareto was an Italian economist from the early Twentieth Century.
Um (sigh).
Spot on!
Here’s a warning for the warmista community from the scientific consensus world of the food police and shows just how wrong the so called “experts” can be.
http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/sweden-becomes-first-western-nation-to-reject-low-fat-diet-dogma-in-favor-of-low-carb-high-fat-nutrition/
For years I have battled weight gain using the popular advice of low fat/high carb without success – until I read a book by Gary Taub backing the Swedish model above.
Result – blood sugar down, weight down , drugs down , energy up, levels of scientific consensus scepticism well up.
Your turn next AGW believers
CD (@CD153) says:
October 20, 2013 at 7:18 am
>>>>>>
I recall some of the non-scientific rhetoric on the Warmist side (about 10 years ago) that included such phrases as “CO2 is warming the planet”. Some were actually representing atmospheric CO2 as a heat source, as if it could radiate heat from within itself (with no loss of mass or other source of energy). The counter argument was that would violate the 2nd Law. (Very briefly, the 2nd Law implies that we can not get something for nothing.) The 2nd Law has been verified for so long a time, and in so many ways, that it is a fundamental, undisputed Law of Physics (Thermodynamics).
So, I agree completely with Jim Cripwell (above), just expanding slightly to hopefully add, not detract.
richardscourtney says: October 20, 2013 at 5:34 am.
Please explain why you think your argument is a falsification of the climate null hypothesis.
********************
Richard….I’m sorry about the unclear attempt at sarcasm late in the evening ——, “DOH!”, an American reference to the cartoon character Homer Simpson. In fact my point is it’s plainly not possible to FAIL TO REJECT the null hypothesis.
Mark Bofill says:
October 19, 2013 at 3:33 pm
the paleo argument for high climate sensitivity?
============
the ice age cycle of interglacials argues strongly that CO2 sensitivity is low. Here are the factors to consider:
1. warming increases CO2
2. cooling decreases CO2
3. earth’s orbit has only small variability
4. ocean cores show the interglacials co-incide with the earth’s orbit.
The problem is that the variability in the earth’s orbit is not enough to cause the interglacials. Milankovitch was rejected as a result, until the ocean cores proved him right. Google 100k year problem.
So, what this means is that something must amplify the orbital irregularities. CO2 is cited as a possible candidate. As solar energy increases due to orbital mechanics, more CO2 is released, amplifying the warming. Voila, we have an interglacial.
The problem now is simple, how do we return to an ice age. With the increased CO2 warming the planet, the small decrease in solar energy due to orbital mechanics cannot overcome the effects to CO2 in sustaining the interglacial.
This means that CO2 amplification of warming is contradicted by the paleo record, which means that there cannot be any significant permanent warming from increased CO2. At best, the response must be transient. Increased CO2 could warm temps for awhile, but this must change something in the climate system that restores temps.
Otherwise, the increased CO2 that accompanies interglacial warming would prevent future ice ages. Since the paleo record contradicts this, CO2 sensitivity must either be low or be transient.
Richard D:
Thankyou for your clarification in your post addressed to me at October 20, 2013 at 7:56 am.
Lack of a sarc tag in your post induced me to think you were attempting a warmunist argument. I apologise for my misunderstanding.
Richard
See – owe to Rich says:
October 20, 2013 at 2:48 am
Is there a natural ocean “lapse rate” down to a constant 4K at some depth where the densest waters reside, and if so would the depth at which 4K is reached
==========
isn’t 4K the temp of liquid helium at atmospheric pressure? 🙂
An interesting article on the northwest passage:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/baffinland-ceo-says-no-to-shipping-ore-through-northwest-passage/article14915542/#dashboard/follows/
Doug Huffman says:
October 20, 2013 at 7:34 am
“LoDR is from economics theory. “Diminishing returns” might describe an inverse second power function, as in R^-2 radiation attenuation with distance. Or a Pareto Distribution, and he, Pareto was an Italian economist from the early Twentieth Century.”
*************
Doug, I think the blog where I read that said he borrowed the LoDR concept from economics because he thought the behavior of CO2 as a greenhouse gas was similar in concept to the LoDR.
Does that make sense…..or no?
I thought the Senate was a ‘cooling saucer’ (where legislation and ideas are discussed) where things are slowed down on purpose (FOR that expressed purposes of discussion et al). That’s what the ‘press’ taught me a few years back anyway (heard that on numerous networks, not just one BTW so it was more than just, say, Fox) …
What I would like to know is, why is the leader of the Senate endowed with such power that he may limit what is brought to the floor for debate for votes … doesn’t that “completely break democracy” too?
And why isn’t the Senate properly fulfilling their role with the consideration and subsequent passage of a budget? WUWT the passing of successive CRs (continuing resolutions)?
.
Zaphod says:
October 19, 2013 at 3:26 pm
Can anyone help?
I’m an engineer, not a scientist. For 30 years I’ve relied on New Scientist to keep me in touch.
I did not renew my sub to NS and will not renew Sci Am when the time comes. Both are lost causes as are the BBC and media in general – scientifically illiterate and will print/broadcast any old crap as long as it is sensational, cheap (ten year old out of date repeats) and doom laden.
Just use Google to search for published papers on subjects that interest you and use your common sense/education to filter out the crackpot ones (they are usually pretty obvious).
CD (@CD153):
In your post at October 20, 2013 at 7:18 am you asked about the Thermodynamic Laws and Jim Cripwell answered that at October 20, 2013 at 7:30 am. I think this link will provide you with a useful introduction to what the Three Laws say if you want to spend time studying it
https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/thermodynamics–2/the-laws-of-thermodynamics/the-three-laws-of-thermodynamics/
The reason I write is because your post also said and asked
I think this link is what you want.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
David Archibald provides a clear explanation of the ‘logarithmic effect’ which he presents as a series of graphs together with explanation of what each shows.
Please get back if this is not sufficient.
Richard
Was that the same Bush who began to look into (call it exploratory investigations) of ‘home financing’ (vis-a-vis the “Community Reinvestment Act”) by banks and institutions a few years before the MBS (Mortgage Backed Securities) fiasco that seems to be the root of the bank bailouts and our present economic malaise? BUT was shot down by several prominent dems in pursuing that action and subsequently did not follow up on said exploratory investigations?
That guy?
.
Yeah. I think we have a 4K / 4C (does not) = 1.0 math error going here .. 8<)
geran says:
October 20, 2013 at 5:04 am
this is an OPEN thread, duh….
Yeah, sure, you and everyone are allowed to make fools of themselves.
See – owe to Rich says:
October 20, 2013 at 2:48 am
Is there a natural ocean “lapse rate” down to a constant 4K at some depth where the densest waters reside, and if so would the depth at which 4K is reached
==========
Ferd Berple says: isn’t 4K the temp of liquid helium at atmospheric pressure? 🙂
Sorry, that was a typo – I meant 4degC as that is the temperature at which water achieves maximum density, and slides to the bottom of the ocean.
Now you can get back to my main question: how would equilibrium in the ocean change given an immediate and static 1 degree heating of the atmosphere?
Rich.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
October 20, 2013 at 5:03 am
MikeB says:
October 20, 2013 at 5:25 am
_Jim says:
October 20, 2013 at 6:43 am
Thanks for the replies.
richardscourtney says:
October 20, 2013 at 7:30 am
the changes in those ratios don’t “mimick the increase in human emissions” but are wrong by a factor of 3.
The factor 3 is not of the slightest interest to show that human emissions are the cause of the increase. That is only the diluting factor, caused by the deep ocean circulation, which is a lot higher in quantity (but lower in d13C difference with the atmosphere, to the positive side) than the human emissions (which are strongly negative in d13C).
If the deep ocean circulation was the real cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, then the 13C/12C ratio would go the other way out:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_increase_290.jpg
An increase from 40 to 290 GtC in deep ocean circulation (total circulation from 150 to 450 GtC) over the past 50 years is needed to mimick the 3-fold increase of human emissions since 1960. But that violates the observed 13C/12C ratio…
The main other possible source, vegetation is a proven sink for CO2. Thus if you have an alternative that doesn’t violate one or more observations, I want to know that…
There are multiple periods of millions of years and of thousands of years when the planet was cold when atmospheric CO2 levels were high and periods when the planet was warm and CO2 levels were low. Over the last decade there has been a cottage industry of warmists scientists (The scientists how write on the RealClimate blog appear again and again as principal authors or co-authors of the revision papers. The same RealClimate authors attempt to attack the alternative explanation for what causes cyclic and abrupt climate change.) who have been working to revise the proxy data to force correlation. For example recently an entire ice epoch was eliminated the problem of how to explain an ice epoch (cold period of millions of years) that occurred when atmospheric CO2 was roughly 5 to 10 times greater than current.
One solution to a paradox is to attempt to make it go away by re-interpretation the data. If the paradox is real, attempts to make it disappear block the progress of science.
If the paradox is real, there is a mystery, some fundamental basic assumption(s) concerning either the CO2 forcing mechanism or concerning the atmosphere which causes the CO2 forcing mechanism to saturate.
Connected with the scientific mystery of why the CO2 mechanism saturates is the alternative explanation of what causes the past ice epochs and the current glacial/interglacial cycle which is processes that change the amount of cosmic ray flux (CRF is also called galactic cosmic rays GCR. CRR/CRF are mostly high speed protons that are believed to be created by super nova. As the solar system travels around the galaxy it bobs in and out of the galactic plane. CRF/GCR increases by a factor of roughly 4 to 5 times for millions of years when the solar system passes through the galaxy plane. The ice epochs correlate with the periods of high CRF/GRF) which changes modulate planetary cloud cover is the explanation. There is unequivocal smoking gun evidence that changes in GCR/CRF modulate planetary temperature For example, there are cycles (Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles, 23 cycles have been found which is the limit of the proxy data analysis) of warming and cooling in the paleo record with a periodicity of 1500 years. Those cycles of warming and cooling correlate with high and low cycles of CRF/GRF.
As most are aware there has been a sudden change to the solar magnetic cycle. It appears the solar magnetic cycle is going to enter into a Maunder like minimum that has in the past lasted for 50 to 100 years. As result of that change CRF/GRF has started to increase. If the GCR/CRF modulation of planetary cloud theory is correct there should now be the start of planetary cooling, with the majority of the cooling occurring at high latitudes. (GCR/CRF modulation of planetary clouds is greater at high latitudes as GCR/CRF is blocked at low latitudes by the geomagnetic field. For some unexplained reason there is a delay of roughly 10 to 12 years from the time the solar cycle changes and the cooling occurs. For some unexplained reason the high latitude temperature changes correlate with the length of time of the solar magnetic cycle.) The magnitude of the cooling (assuming cooling occurs) will settle multiple questions concerning the CO2 forcing mechanism and the alternative CRF/GCR and solar magnetic cycle of planet temperature. There is now the first observational evidence of anomalous cooling at high latitudes.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=02&startmonth=09&startyear=1980&starttime=00%3A00&endday=10&endmonth=10&endyear=2013&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=1440&picture=on
CO2 Vs Planetary Temperature Geological time
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
http://mysite.science.uottawa.ca/idclark/courses/Veizer%20Nature%202001.pdf
Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during the Phanerozoic eon
Certain intervals of the Earth’s history, such as the Middle Cretaceous (about 100 million years (Myr) ago) are characterized by fossil and geologic indicators of global warmth, and by voluminous deposits of volcanic rocks and other indicators of abundant volcanism. Volcanoes are a chief source of CO2 to the atmosphere, so it is reasonable to conclude that atmospheric pCO2 was elevated during such times. However, the times of greatest volcanic activity may not correlate directly with times of greatest warmth3. Moreover, unlike the Pleistocene, there is no direct evidence for CO2 levels in earlier times. Numerical carbon-cycle models that calculate ancient CO2 levels, and pCO2 proxies derived from the isotopic composition of marine organic matter or carbonate nodules in ancient soils, or from the density of stomata on fossil leaves, do generally support the relationship between climate and atmospheric pCO2 on geologic timescales7.
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/Ice-ages/GSAToday.pdf
Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?
We find that at least 66% of the variance in the paleotemperature trend could be attributed to CRF variations likely due to solar system passages through the spiral arms of the galaxy. Assuming that the entire residual variance in temperature is due solely to the CO2 greenhouse effect, we propose a tentative upper limit to the long-term “equilibrium” warming effect of CO2, one which is potentially lower than that based on general circulation models.
This is an example of a Realclimate scientist attacking the alternative theory. Meteorites where analyzed to determine how much GCR/CRF has varied in the past and to confirm that the timing of those changes correlated with the past ice epochs.
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/ClimateDebate/RahmReply/RahmReply.html
RECONSTRUCTING COSMIC RAY FLUXES —The starting point of SV03 is a reconstruction of cosmic ray fluxes over the past 1,000 Myr based on 50 iron meteorites and a simple model estimating cosmic ray flux (CRF) induced by the Earth’s passage through Galactic spiral arms ([Shaviv, 2002; Shaviv, 2003]). About 20 of the meteorites, making four clusters, date from the past 520 Myr, the time span analysed in SV03. The meteorites are dated by analysing isotopic changes in their matter due to cosmic ray exposure (CRE dating [Eugster, 2003]). An apparent age clustering of these meteorites is then interpreted not as a collision-related clustering in their real ages but as an indication of fluctuations in cosmic ray flux (CRF). One difficulty with this interpretation is that variations in CRF intensity would equally affect all types of meteorites. Instead, the ages of different types of iron meteorites cluster at different times [Wieler, 2002]. Hence, most specialists on meteorite CRE ages interpret the clusters as the result of collision processes of parent bodies, as they do for stony meteorites (ages _ 130 Myr) to which more than one dating method can be applied.
A Great Lesson
By the DUKE OF ARGYLL.
The Theory of the young naturalist was hailed with acclaim. It was a magnificent generalization. It was soon almost
universally accepted with admiration and delight. It passed into all popular treatises, and ever since for the
space of nearly half a century it has maintained its unquestioned place as one of the great triumphs of reasoning
and research. Although it illustrious author has since eclipsed this earliest performance by theories and
generalizations still more attractive and much further reaching, I have heard eminent men declare that, if he had
done nothing else, his solution of the great problem of the coral islands of the Pacific would have sufficed to
place him on the unsubmergeable peaks of science, crowned with an immortal name.
And now comes the great lesson. After an interval of more than five-and-thirty years the voyage of the Beagle has
been followed by the voyage of the Challenger, furnished with all the newest appliances of science, and manned by a
scientific staff more competent to turn them to the best account. And what is one of the many results that have
been added to our knowledge of Nature-to our estimate of the true character and history of the globe we live on? It
is that Darwins theory is a dream. It is not only unsound but it is in many respects directly the reverse of the
truth. with all his conscientiousness, with all his caution, with all his powers of observations, Darwin in this
matter fell into errors as profound as the abysses of the Pacific. All the acclamations with which it was received
were as the shouts of an ignorant mob. It is well to know that the plebiscites of science may be as dangerous
and as hollow as those of politics.
…
In a recent article in this review I had occasion to refer to the curious power which is sometimes exercised on
behalf of certain accepted opinions, or of some reputed prophet, in establishing a sort of Reign of Terror in their
own behalf, sometimes in philosophy, sometimes in politics, sometimes in science. This observation was received as
I expected it to be-by those, who being themselves subject to this kind of terror, are wholly unconscious of the
subjection.
…
Nevertheless, the disproof of a theory which was so imposing, and had been so long accepted, does read to us the
most important lessons. It teaches us that neither the beauty-nor the imposing character-nor the apparent
sufficiency of an explanation may be any proof whatever of its truth. – Nineteenth Century.
PopSci Archive Viewer | Popular Science
http://www.popsci.com/archive-viewer?id=ziIDAAAAMBAJ&pg=243&query=coral
Fun interesting read.
Jim asks me to name a program that was repealed because of failure. The war on gun and ammunition makers and the war on big tobacco companies, two attention grabbing, unpopular restrictions to personal freedoms.
The really big deal bi-partisan haunted house that needed attention was left in place to fester. Because campaign contributions definitely rearranged the priorities whilst all eyes were trying to focus sharply on hanging chads.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/business/economy/17gramm.html?pagewanted=all
We voters had a man who wanted to go to Washington without pay and straighten the mess up because he saw our boat drifting towards the rocks of powerful advocacy and lobbying groups. He got trashed. Porn pictures of his daughter were like a Karl Rove fornication performance enhancement drug. In my opinion.
cynical_scientist says:
October 19, 2013 at 3:38 pm
“With regard to Schwarzenager lobbying for a change to the constitution to enable him to be POTUS, surely there are more urgent priorities for reform.
How about fixing the broken senate filibuster rules which essentially completely break democracy. How about a line item veto to cut back on the extent of back room dealing and pork clauses riding through in omnibus legislation. How about looking at instituting proportional voting for one of the houses. How about a single transferrable vote system in the presidential primaries. Why is it possible to get the constitution amended to deal with Schjawrzanagers trivial petty and self-serving desire to stand for president whereas it is not possible to address serious structural issues. The US system of government is currently dysfunctional. Does anyone honestly think that a foreigner being unable to stand for president is the biggest problem?”
————————————————————————————————
The U. S. government is not a democracy. It is a Representative Republic. The Founders of our Country purposely set up a system that makes change difficult and has checks on the majority in order to protect the minority. Imagine if change was easy, the majority would pass a host of laws and then 2 years later if the other party takes over, they change all those laws and implement their own. Then when the first party takes over again, they change those laws and institute the ones they had before. Utter chaos every thing a party moves from minority to majority. Keep in mind that every budget crisis is manufactured to prevent a new budget from being voted on where it would have to be scrutinized. Instead, simply pass continuing legislation to keep the same budget in place with “relief” that the government will stay open. They fool most of the people all of the time.
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
re your post at October 20, 2013 at 9:23 am.
You may be right that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is caused by the anthropogenic emission, or you may be wrong. But you do your case no good by pretending your case is better than it is.
In reply to my pointing out that the magnitude of the isotope ratio changes are not the clear evidence you asserted by my writing
you have replied
As I said to you about this on the other thread only yesterday
And what I said was
Richard
What legislation was this? That was repealed by congress? Please be specific about which federal laws (PL ‘Public Law’ or US Code, etc via congressional acts which) were repealed. Name something on the magnitude of the ACA in particular (something the size and as large as the ‘Social Security’ act for instance.)
BTW, note, pls moniker “_Jim”. This aids in search on the thread as well as there are several “Jims” that post on WUWT. TIA
.
Ed fails to note how ‘popular the Income Tax is … yet, has it been overturned? Once the FSA (Free Stuff Army) starts getting cared-for by Obamacare the ACA will never be repealed … seniors squawk to high heaven at the sound that Sos Sec might be be ‘reformed’ even …
.
See – owe to Rich says:
October 20, 2013 at 9:10 am
See – owe to Rich says:
October 20, 2013 at 2:48 am
Is there a natural ocean “lapse rate” down to a constant 4K at some depth where the densest waters reside, and if so would the depth at which 4K is reached
==========
Ferd Berple says: isn’t 4K the temp of liquid helium at atmospheric pressure? 🙂
Sorry, that was a typo – I meant 4degC as that is the temperature at which water achieves maximum density, and slides to the bottom of the ocean.
That’s true of freshwater but not seawater which has maximum density at it’s freezing point (which depends on salinity).
Zaphod says:
October 19, 2013 at 3:26 pm
“Can anyone help?
I’m an engineer, not a scientist. For 30 years I’ve relied on New Scientist to keep me in touch.
I am seriously disappointed with NS in recent years. They are totally sold on the CAGW religion, plus they’ve gone all arty, and Social Sciencey. NS has sold its body. ”
A little short in the social science and cosmologist-end-of-the-world-scenario departments… but on the other hand, more hard science than you thought to exist…
http://www.innovations-report.com/
richardscourtney says:
October 20, 2013 at 9:54 am
Richard, the dilution with a factor 3 of the d13C decrease caused by fossil fuel burning is not more proof that humans are not the cause of the increase in the atmosphere than the afct that only halve the emissions (as quantity) are measured as increase in the atmosphere…
It would be more interesting if the d13C levels were getting more negative than expected from fossil fuel burning or positive, because that would prove that either vegetation was a net source or that the deep oceans were the cause of the increase…
Ferdinand Engelbeen
re your post at October 20, 2013 at 10:45 am.
The interesting point is that the carbon cycle is not adequately understood for the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration to be known.
I would like to know what it is. You are certain the cause is the anthropogenic emission, and you may be right (or not). But my point was that you do not promote your case by overstating it.
Richard
Thoughts on science and politics excerpted from Willing Slaves of the Welfare State, an essay by C.S. Lewis, from God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (1970), first published in The Observer on July 20, 1958:
….Again, the new oligarchy must more and more base its claim to plan us on its claim to knowledge. If we are to be mothered, mother must know best. This means they must increasingly rely on the advice of scientists, till in the end the politicians proper become merely the scientists’ puppets. Technocracy is the form to which a planned society must tend. Now I dread specialists in power because they are specialists speaking outside their special subjects. Let scientists tell us about sciences. But government involves questions about the good for man, and justice, and what things are worth having at what price; and on these a scientific training gives a man’s opinion no added value. Let the doctor tell me I shall die unless I do so-and-so; but whether life is worth having on those terms is no more a question for him than for any other man… On just the same ground I dread government in the name of science. That is how tyrannies come in. In every age the men who want us under their thumb, if they have any sense, will put forward the particular pretension which the hopes and fears of that age render most potent. They ‘cash in’. It has been magic, it has been Christianity. Now it will certainly be science. Perhaps the real scientists may not think much of the tyrants’ ‘science’– they didn’t think much of Hitler’s racial theories or Stalin’s biology. But they can be muzzled… We have on the one hand a desperate need; hunger, sickness, and the dread of war. We have, on the other, the conception of something that might meet it: omnicompetent global technocracy. Are not these the ideal opportunity for enslavement? This is how it has entered before; a desperate need (real or apparent) in the one party, a power (real or apparent) to relieve it, in the other… All that can really happen is that some men will take charge of the destiny of the others. They will be simply men; none perfect; some greedy, cruel and dishonest. The more completely we are planned the more powerful they will be. Have we discovered some new reason why, this time, power should not corrupt as it has done before?
William Astley says:
October 20, 2013 at 9:24 am
Connected with the scientific mystery of why the CO2 mechanism saturates is the alternative explanation of what causes the past ice epochs and the current glacial/interglacial cycle which is processes that change the amount of cosmic ray flux
It is generally accepted that glaciations are caused by planetary influence on the orbit of the Earth. No cosmic ray fluxes involved.
As most are aware there has been a sudden change to the solar magnetic cycle.
No, the solar cycle is just low, which has happened many times before, about every 100 years for the past 300 years. Nothing wrong with the cycle.
Why is it that Ferdinand and Richard Courtney always feel the neurotic need to take over WUWT threads. Help me Jimbo and Janice.
CD (@CD153) says:
October 20, 2013 at 7:18 am
“As a regular visitor to WUWT, I have often seen one or more of the Laws of Thermodynamics mentioned on occasion. I have read elsewhere in the past that the CAGW narrative violates one or more of these Laws. However, I do not recall if that issue was ever directly discussed here, and was wondering if the CAGW narrative does indeed violate one or more of the Laws. Please understand that I am a non-scientist, so please forgive my ignorance here if this issue was in fact covered in the past. Please, if you would, discuss this in terms that any lay person can understand.”
There are people who claim that CO2AGW violates the laws of thermodynamics; they are a fringe group called the Slayers. They claim that a cool object cannot increase the temperature of a warmer object even by means of radiation.
I think it’s a weak and maybe false argument against CO2AGW, as the warmists could still claim that enhanced CO2 simply delays cooling to space.
So better arguments have to be found. The best one being that the climate models have been proven to be junk; and that therefore the Null hypothesis holds until refuted. In other words: If the warmists think they know what’s going on then they should make PREDICTIONs. They tried, and they failed; ball’s in their court.
“Also, I recall reading elsewhere about the Law of Diminishing Returns (LoDR) as regards CO2. Is this one of the Thermodynamic Laws? The LoDR, as I understand it, states that CO2′s effect diminishes as a greenhouse gas as the level of it in the atmosphere increases and that, at 400 PPM, CO2 has already done most of its “damage” (if in fact it does any at all). So CO2 as a greenhouse gas should be a non-issue because of the LoDR among other reasons. Correct?”
LoDR is not a natural law but just a description of anything that ceases to be effictive, like the US taking on more debt. The CO2 logarithmic effect is caused by the fact that most absorption lines are saturated (mean free path length of photons smaller than thickness of atmosphere); and only at the edges are they partially saturated at given partial pressure. As partial pressure of CO2 rises , these edges become slightly more saturated (probability of absorption of photon is smaller one, but rises with increasing CO2 concentration). The effect is called “Pressure broadening of absorption lines”.
@richardscourtney.
I would like some help in tidying up my statement of the null hypothesis. As you saw above I stated:-
” – anthropogenic CO2 emissions are NOT causing catastrophic climate change.
Or – natural variation is causing climate change.”
It seems that my first statement requires breaking into two parts –
a) anthropogenic CO2 emissions are NOT causing the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels
b) rising atmospheric CO2 levels are NOT causing catastrophic climate change
The alternative statement requiring falsification is :-
” natural variation is causing climate change.”
My understanding is that the science (of the carbon cycle and of climate drivers) is currently not in a position to falsify any of those three statements.
Do I have this right and complete?
GeeJam says:
October 20, 2013 at 11:45 am
“Why is it that Ferdinand and Richard Courtney always feel the neurotic need to take over WUWT threads. Help me Jimbo and Janice.”
Open threads are fair game.
lsvalgaard says:
October 20, 2013 at 8:52 am
geran says:
October 20, 2013 at 5:04 am
this is an OPEN thread, duh….
Yeah, sure, you and everyone are allowed to make fools of themselves.
Of course “everyone” also includes you 🙂
GeeJam says:
October 20, 2013 at 11:45 am
Why is it that Ferdinand and Richard Courtney always feel the neurotic need to take over WUWT threads. Help me Jimbo and Janice.
Some people have investigated a few items of the whole AGW story more in depth than others…
I have looked into the use of human aerosols in climate models, which were used to “tune” the models to follow the slight cooling of temperature in the period 1945-1975. That is one of the reasons that the models nowadays are far too high in their “projections” as they implemented a far too high sensitivity for aerosols and thus for CO2…
Another hobby of mine was looking if the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made or not. As human emissions fit all observations, that is with high probability the case.
If somebody then comes with an altenative which is based on non-relevant or wrong assumptions or which doesn’t fit one or more observations, I will react on that. Because such reargard fights weakens the arguments of skeptics on items where the AGW science is not that rock solid: the influence of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere on temperature (“climate sensitivity”).
Thank you Dirk, but Ferdinand and Richard are not purely confined to open threads. I admire them both but we sometimes need a layman’s viewpoint of what is happening. All of us should be singing from the same hymn sheet – unilateral agreement that CAGW is a complete scam.
And most people missed my factual post 12 hours ago because Anthony’s team of excellent moderators were rightly checking my statistics. It’s gone through and accepted.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/19/weekend-open-thread-8/#comment-1453624
farmerbraun says:
October 20, 2013 at 11:57 am
It seems that my first statement requires breaking into two parts –
a) anthropogenic CO2 emissions are NOT causing the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels
If you imply that failing one observation is enough to falsify that statement, then we agree.
The alternative statement is that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. Until now that fits all observations… See an oversight at:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html#The_mass_balance
farmerbraun:
I am answering your request to me at October 20, 2013 at 11:57 am.
Actually, I like your succinct statement of the climate null hypothesis. However, since you ask, this is how I explain it. (And there is nothing stopping GeeJam from skipping past it.)
The Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed a system has not experienced a change unless there is evidence of a change.
The Null Hypothesis is a fundamental scientific principle and forms the basis of all scientific understanding, investigation and interpretation. Indeed, it is the basic principle of experimental procedure where an input to a system is altered to discern a change: if the system is not observed to respond to the alteration then it has to be assumed the system did not respond to the alteration.
In the case of climate science there is a hypothesis that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs, notably CO2) in the air will increase global temperature. There are good reasons to suppose this hypothesis may be true, but the Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed the GHG changes have no effect unless and until increased GHGs are observed to increase global temperature. That is what the scientific method decrees. It does not matter how certain some people may be that the hypothesis is right because observation of reality (i.e. empiricism) trumps all opinions.
Please note that the Null Hypothesis is a hypothesis which exists to be refuted by empirical observation. It is a rejection of the scientific method to assert that one can “choose” any subjective Null Hypothesis one likes. There is only one Null Hypothesis: i.e. it has to be assumed a system has not changed unless it is observed that the system has changed.
However, deciding a method which would discern a change may require a detailed statistical specification.
In the case of global climate no unprecedented climate behaviours are observed so the Null Hypothesis decrees that the climate system has not changed.
Importantly, an effect may be real but not overcome the Null Hypothesis because it is too trivial for the effect to be observable. Human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. An example of an anthropogenic effect on global temperature is the urban heat island (UHI). Cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.
Clearly, the Null Hypothesis decrees that UHI is not affecting global temperature although there are good reasons to think UHI has some effect. Similarly, it is very probable that AGW from GHG emissions are too trivial to have observable effects.
The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be probably too small to discern because natural climate variability is much, much larger. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity.
Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1 .0°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected (just as the global warming from UHI is too small to be detected). If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).
To date there are no discernible effects of AGW. Hence, the Null Hypothesis decrees that AGW does not affect global climate to a discernible degree. That is the ONLY scientific conclusion possible at present.
Richard
AS with the last 17 yrs or so … never mind a series of ‘adjustments and tweaks to the land temp record …
So, to get a better idea of warming over/under you’re using sat msmts (UAH etc) then to make these obs? Whoops … no warming there either, huh …
.
http://wichitaliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/obamacare-chart.jpg
Since ZeroCare is now now on everyone’s mind, here is your new medical system, in one (very confusing) chart.
_Jim says:
October 20, 2013 at 12:32 pm
AS with the last 17 yrs or so … never mind a series of ‘adjustments and tweaks to the land temp record …
One can only hope that one day the temperature measurements are as rigorously controlled as the CO2 measurements are…
GeeJam says:
October 19, 2013 at 11:33 pm
Sorry, indeed missed that one… Thus here now my comment…
Of the 0.033912% CO2 by volume, 96.775% is naturally occurring (approx 155 parts per 160) and 3.225% is anthropogenic (approx 5 parts per 160). Therefore the human contribution to increased atmospheric CO2 during the last 20 years is 0.0000785% by volume – which is minuscule.
While the percentages are right for the fluxes into the atmosphere, that argument is one of the most recurrent irrelevant arguments in the discussion of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
1. The 96.77% natural input is counterbalanced by some 98.4% mostly natural output, while the 3.225% anthro input is counterbalanced with near zero output. That gives a net anthro input of around 3% and a net natural output of around 1.5%. The total of the natural input is only circulating through the atmosphere, without adding anything to the total mass of CO2 at the end of the full seasonal cycle.
2. The increase in the atmosphere thus is entirely from the human input over the past at least 50 years, not from the imbalance of the natural in- and outfluxes:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
3. Because of the huge natural in/out fluxes, about 20% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is exchanged with CO2 from other reservoirs each year. That makes that also 20% of the CO2 from human origin (with lower 13C) is replaced each year with CO2 with a higher 13C content. That gives that less CO2 from human origin is retained in the atmosphere than what can be seen as increase. The residence time for any CO2 molecule (including human) in the atmosphere thus is ~5 years. But that says nothing about how long it takes to remove an excess amount of CO2 above the (temperature controlled) equilibrium, whatever the cause of the increase…
GeeJam says:
October 20, 2013 at 12:17 pm
“And most people missed my factual post 12 hours ago because Anth0ny’s team of excellent moderators were rightly checking my statistics. It’s gone through and accepted.”
No they didn’t; any comment that contains the name Anth0ny lands in moderation because it might be addressed to him so he wants to have it in the moderation bin so he doesn’t have to read every comment. Just write his name wrong like I did if you want to avoid that.
richardscourtney says:
October 20, 2013 at 12:31 pm
Excellent statements both on the philosophy of science & its objective application in the case of CACA.
Ferdanand@ 1:50 what a load of b.s.
Richardscourtny…….thanks for all your comments. Imo they are dead on.
Richardscourtney…sorry for the misspell,
john piccirilli says:
October 20, 2013 at 2:19 pm
Ferdanand@ 1:50 what a load of b.s.
Of course, if you are sure that 150 GtC – 154 GtC = +4 GtC, you may be right that the increase in the atmosphere is all natural…
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
re your post at October 20, 2013 at 2:56 pm.
We have been here many times before. And several of those times have been on WUWT.
Simply, if you assume – in absence of knowledge – that the carbon cycle system would have been constant if the anthropogenic emission did not exist then that assumption generates the circular argument that the anthropogenic emission is the cause of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Anybody who wants to review these arguments can use the WUWT Search facility on the WUWT home page and find the most recent ’round’ by searching for Salby. Hence, there is no need to reprise it here.
Richard
Open Thread? YAY!
I love open threads because I can post anything I want!
:ʇuǝɹǝɟɟᴉp ʎlǝʇǝldɯoɔ ƃuᴉɥʇǝɯos ɹoɟ ‘ʍoN
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
click6
click7
click8
click9
click10
Family connection.
http://www.ars.org/the-rosarian-re-learns-pruning-class-by-class-year-by-year-rose-by-rose/
lsvalgaard says:
October 20, 2013 at 11:12 am
William Astley says:
October 20, 2013 at 9:24 am
Connected with the scientific mystery of why the CO2 mechanism saturates is the alternative explanation of what causes the past ice epochs and the current glacial/interglacial cycle which is processes that change the amount of cosmic ray flux
William:
Leif you are valiantly supporting a losing cause. Science is different than a sporting event where a true fan supports their team at all times. Scientists do not ignore anomalies. Scientists most certainly do not hide anomalies. There is a physical explanation for all observations. A scientist as opposed to an activist, changes their mind, abandons a failed theory, when observations disprove the theory in question. The planet has started to cool at high latitudes, reversing the warming. It is a fact that there are cycles of warming and cooling that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. There is smoking gun evidence that solar magnetic cycle changes cause cyclic and abrupt climate change on the earth (23 cycles were tracked by the late Gerald Bond in the proxy record, which is the limit of the resolution of the proxy record). The question is not if but how the solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary climate change.
It is asserted that the current high latitude cooling is due to the abrupt change to the solar magnetic cycle which results in an increased the galactic generated high speed protons (the high speed protons are called either cosmic ray flux (CRF) or galactic cosmic rays (GCR) ) striking the earth’s atmosphere.
Let’s move this discussion to the new thread that Anthony Watts has created to discuss the anomalously high Antarctic sea ice. The Antarctic Ocean has also started to cool. There is suddenly a recovery of Arctic sea ice. Temperature on the Greenland Ice sheet has dropped.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=02&startmonth=09&startyear=1980&starttime=00%3A00&endday=10&endmonth=10&endyear=2013&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=1440&picture=on
CO2 Vs Planetary Temperature Geological time
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
http://mysite.science.uottawa.ca/idclark/courses/Veizer%20Nature%202001.pdf
Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during the Phanerozoic eon
Certain intervals of the Earth’s history, such as the Middle Cretaceous (about 100 million years (Myr) ago) … ….do generally support the relationship between climate and atmospheric pCO2 on geologic timescales7.
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/Ice-ages/GSAToday.pdf
Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?
We find that at least 66% of the variance in the paleotemperature trend could be attributed to CRF variations likely due to solar system passages through the spiral arms of the galaxy. Assuming that the entire residual variance in temperature is due solely to the CO2 greenhouse effect, we propose a tentative upper limit to the long-term “equilibrium” warming effect of CO2, one which is potentially lower than that based on general circulation models.
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/ClimateDebate/RahmReply/RahmReply.html
RECONSTRUCTING COSMIC RAY FLUXES
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
October 20, 2013 at 1:31 am
—————-
Ferdinand,
Thanks for the link. Sorry to be so late in responding; it’s been a busy weekend. I appreciate it though, it ought to help.
Mark
ferd berple says:
October 20, 2013 at 8:02 am
—————-
Yes, this had occurred to me as well. But it gets ahead of what I’m after. Before deciding why an argument is wrong and what the most efficient counter might be, I prefer to thoroughly understand what the argument is and what if anything supports it. From what I’ve found so far, I was assuming there was more substance there (as opposed to assumption) than the research supports. But it never hurts to look carefully. 🙂
Ferd: “The problem now is simple, how do we return to an ice age.”
Virtually or actually?
They will keep adding more and more upward adjustments each month to the temperature records and at least the people of the world will think it is abnormally warm as they freeze. 😉
Ferdinand says:
Does CO2 matter? While I am convinced that the increase of CO2 is mostly man-made, I am as sure that it has more beneficial effects than negative. The theoretical increase for 2xCO2 is ~0.9 K. Nothing to worry about. It is the positive feedbacks implemented in climate models which are the base of the panic, but the models are proven wrong.
Thank you for that. The important question in the overall debate is whether “carbon” [CO2] is a problem.
As it turns out, CO2 is not a problem at all. In fact, the net effect of rising CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere. Climate alarmists started out with an incorrect premise [CO2=AGW], and as a result they arrived at a wrong conclusion. Alarmists will not admit it, because they do not believe in science or the Scientific Method. But the plain fact is that they turned out to be completely wrong. More CO2 is better, and it will not lead to runaway global warming.
Richard Courtney points out that the rise in CO2 has not even resulted in any measurable warming. He should also be commended for his excellent description of the climate Null Hypothesis. There are no current climate parameters that have not been exceeded in the past; thus the Null Hypothesis is not falsified. Everything currently observed has happened before, repeatedly, and to a much greater degree.
William Astley says:
October 20, 2013 at 5:32 pm
Scientists do not ignore anomalies. Scientists most certainly do not hide anomalies.
There is no anomaly to ignore or to hide. Only people with an agenda peddle anomalies where there are none, e.g. CAWG.
It is a fact that there are cycles of warming and cooling that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes.
First, it is not a fact, second, correlation is not causation.
Darth Vader an Author at the CRU?
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/10/darth-vader-author-at-cru.html
Ferdinand makes a compelling case, and it is reasonable. I remain agnostic, however, because we have no way to gauge the depth of the biological carbon deficiency. Photosynthesis is a carbon sink, but plants photosynthesize so they can respire, and respiration recycles the carbon to the system. If the 200 GT carbon economy were to grow 5% as a result of our 5% efforts, whose 13C is in the air?
12C
lsvalgaard says:
October 19, 2013 at 9:30 pm
Quite sad really, you seem to think that the Earth is flat …
gymnosperm says:
October 20, 2013 at 10:15 pm
Ferdinand makes a compelling case, and it is reasonable. I remain agnostic, however, because we have no way to gauge the depth of the biological carbon deficiency.
There is a way to gauge the net result of the carbon cycle in the biosphere: the oxygen balance.
While there is no differentiation possible between burning fossil fuels and burning recent organics, as both in average have the same 13C/12C ratio, the oxygen balance shows that the biopshere is a net sink for CO2 of about 1 GtC/year.
Fossil fuel burning uses oxygen. The amount can be calculated from the fuel mix and the average burning efficiency for each type of fuel. The decrease of oxygen in the atmosphere can be measured, be it at the very edge of analytical possibilities (better than 1 ppmv on 200,000 ppmv oxygen is needed), but these data are now available since about 1990 with sufficient accuracy:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
The result is that somewhat less oxygen is used than calculated from fossil fuel burning. That makes that the biosphere as a whole is a net source of oxygen, thus a net sink for CO2 and preferably of 12CO2, leaving relative more 13CO2 in the atmosphere and thus not the cause of the 13CO2 decline in the atmosphere… All other sources (oceans, volcanic vents, rock weathering,…) are higher in 13C/12C ratio than the atmosphere and thus also not the cause of the ratio decline or the CO2 increase…
@DirkH, yes, “London Calling” by The Clash (Not London’s Burning, my error in the other thread, or wherever it was).
Ferdinand Englebeen Increase in CO2 is man-made…
In your first URL you write “In other words, the net increase of the atmospheric CO2 content caused by all natural CO2 ins and outs together is negative. There is no net natural contribution to the observed increase, nature as a whole acts as a sink for CO2.”
If that is so, why do we hear talk about ocean acidification or oceans less alkaline?
Seems to me that at the extremes, you can have either a rise in the ML curve of CO2 concentration, or a lot of CO2 dissolution in the oceans, but not both.
Geoff Sherrington says:
October 21, 2013 at 5:13 am
Geoff,
You can have both: about halve the amount of what humans emit remains in the atmosphere (as quantity, not as original molecules), the other halve is distributed into vegetation (about 15%), the ocean surface layer (about 10%) and the deep oceans (the difference of the balance).
The 10% absorbed by the ocean surface is good for an overall decrease of 0.1 pH unit over the past 160 years. Hardly measurable in real life, therefore mostly calculated from other variables.
There is no measurable effect on fish, which can have a lot of pH variations (as is the case in estuaria), neither on corals (with a lot of pH changes within hours in the reefs…) or shell bearing algues (coccoliths), which did thrive under CO2 levels 10-12 times higher (and higher temperatures) than today 60-120 million years ago during the Cretaceous…
Does anyone know why RSS data have not been updated yet for October? They are very late. Are they a victim of the government shutdown?
Mr. Englebeen, how kind of you to respond to Bobble (6:52am) on my behalf (partially, at least). LOL, my “ignorance” is worse than bobble realizes! I understand Dr. Murry Salby fairly well and cite his research with a fair degree of certainty that I am citing it relevantly and persuasively, but, I really AM quite ignorant of most of the science behind Salby’s conclusions! His arguments and those of most of the WUWT scientists against AGW are, my dear Englebeen, far more persuasive than yours are. However, I will no longer call you “a modern day Neville Maskelyne.” You demonstrated integrity and fair-mindedness in that post. From now, on, I will regard you as: My Esteemed Opponent with Whom I Beg to Disagree.
***********************8
Gee, Jam, I am REALLY honored to be mentioned in the same sentence with that first-class researcher and poster, Jimbo (he, if he read your post, likely winced, lol) — he far outclasses my efforts, here. Yes, often two or three posters get into fervent discussions that go on and on, down the thread (here, I thought the one to which you referred was worth reading, btw)…. just SCROLL ON BY. It’s a bummer that this site doesn’t work like a typical chat site where posters can start their own threads but, there are information management issues that make the type of site WUWT is best suited, I think, to the dissemination of truth in science. Thus, the sometimes clogged threads. And….. some people (you, perhaps? (smile)) would growl at THIS post (so I’ll stop).
Sometimes, those verbal fisticuffs can be great entertainment — look up an old thread where Sir Richard battles a nasty troll. #(:))
I LIKED your thorough, well-written, summary of atmospheric CO2 levels. Thanks for that. LOL, that Mark guy never did say anything about the answers we tried to give him… .
Uh, oh… I can hear the growls of annoyance at my post’s length and subject matter already — gotta go!
Take care — AND KEEP ON POSTING (it’s fun!).
GeeJam says:
October 20, 2013 at 12:17 pm
“All of us should be singing from the same hymn sheet – unilateral agreement that CAGW is a complete scam.”
I do agree that it is; but disagree with the notion that “we” should all agree.
lsvalgaard says:
October 20, 2013 at 8:28 pm
“…First, it is not a fact, second, correlation is not causation.”
“correlation is not causation”????
Seriously, Leif, is that all you have to offer?
Did you really get a PhD? If so where/when?
Or are you just practicing for a stand-up comedian routine?
Hey, Geran… . I hope everything is okay in your corner of the world. You sound pretty upset and I just wanted to extend my genuine sympathy for your frustration. Dr. Svalgaard is often terse. Given how sarcastic you’ve been, however…. lol, I think you should be glad he did not say all that was on his mind. I think his assuming that your pretend planet was round was logical, or, at least, not a stupid mistake. Now, seriously, did it really call for you to jump up and down like a chimpanzee and screech at him? (btw: I can understand the feeling — you should hear me yell at the politicians on TV). Dear Geran, you (from your posts on other threads) are a fine person. You deserve to give yourself the self-respect of making a dignified or, at least, a coldly polite, response.
Have you read any of Dr. Svalgaard’s papers (there are scores of them on his website)? I kind of think you have not. They clearly show that his academic credentials are well deserved.
Maybe, I’m defending Dr. Svalgaard, here, because I had a fun time poking fun at his pomposity one time last summer and I’m subconsciously trying to compensate for that. I don’t know. I do know that you, Geran, are a better man (or woman — “Geran” sounds masculine, to me) than what you’ve displayed above.
I wish we could sit down together and talk (I know it’s not really Dr. Svalgaard that is troubling you). I hope that you can find someone who cares about you to will listen with his or her heart. We ALL need that, you know.
Take care.
Shalom,
Janice
Wow, what a well thought out comment, Janice. I think, if you read the entire thread, you would see that Dr S clearly first jumped at the chance to be sarcastic and insulting. As I mentioned, coupled with the fact that he got it wrong, that made him an easy target. (You get what you ask for.)
Yeah, I do get frustrated with certain types. But, I didn’t realize my response would appear anywhere close to a chimpanzee jumping up and down and screeching! Maybe I can be a little more subtle next time. 🙂
I do believe that Dr. S. has some real knowledge he can provide. I also believe, based on numerous examples, that he would prefer to insult people rather than provide facts. When he does happen to try to offer knowledge, he often makes mistakes, so you have to use caution. A perfect example is above. I mentioned a “mental experiment”, adequately described, and Dr. S completely got it wrong. He did not forget to get his snarky comment in, though.
My “mental experiment” should not have been hard for a qualified physicist to understand. In your online research about Dr S, did you ever find out about his education? I found out somewhere that he has a computer science degree, but could not find out about higher degrees.
The desired outcome would be that both Dr. S., and “geran” clean up their acts. So, based on your “constructive criticism”, I will try be the first to start….
Hi, Geran,
How lovely to hear from back from you. That you would respond thoughtfully to me, a mere peon of WUWT, speaks volumes about your character.
I still don’t think Dr. Svalgaard misunderstood the plain meaning of your “mental experiment,” nor that he often makes mistakes (when he has, he has quickly admitted it or provided clarification — often, it is his having English as his second language (Danish is, I believe, his first) that is the cause, I think) but, that is beside the point of my little note, here. Stanford University would not have hired Dr. Svalgaard as a research fellow were he not eminently qualified. I would think that reading his papers on his website would amply demonstrate to one that he is more than qualified to speak on physics, both basic and solar. That his work has been cited 888 times and that 24 other scientists wanted him to work with them on their papers is, I believe, conclusive evidence of his competence. Here, for just one piece of evidence is what other scientists think of his knowledge and abilities: http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/34446278/leif-svalgaard.
Re: chimpanzees throwing a fit… , lol, that is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps, to others you were not rude, etc… . And if I had any doubts about your character, Geran, they were put to rest by your gracious response to my concerns above. We disagree about Dr. Svalgaard’s assessment of what you posed, but, that is neither here nor there.
I’ll assume your silence on the matter means that you are doing just fine generally. Glad to “know” that.
Perhaps, I and others have learned to “read” Dr. Svalgaard. My opinion of him changed from “what is that man’s problem” to “ah, I see, now,” over the past 6 months that I’ve been reading his comments. Under all that fierceness and blunt speech is a caring teacher and an extremely conscientious researcher and who also plays the violin and loves his grandchildren.
I’ve written at length here, since this thread is petering out. I’m so glad you came back to read what I addressed to you above. You’re all right, Geran.
Take care,
Janice
RSS released its latest temperature data today, 10/22/2013. It is very late–the data is usually available by the tenth of the month–and all of the numbers appear to have been changed since last month. The trend lines have not changed substantially, but the data has changed. I am curious about the reason for this delay and these changes. Anybody have an explanation?
Hi, Nony, I can’t answer your question, but, here’s a suggestion: even if off-topic, pose it on a currently active (discussion-wise) thread (one posted today, 10/22 would be best). Your question is a good one and someone may take the time to quickly direct you to an answer. If you begin by apologizing for the interruption, you will make your request more likely to be favorably received. Good luck!