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.
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@ur momisugly 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@ur momisugly 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.