Models and Planning for Climate Change

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 2:14 AM GMT on July 25, 2014

Share this Blog
12
+

Models and Planning for Climate Change

I have written many blogs about models and modeling of climate. My collection includes a 2012 tutorial approach where I show that climate modeling is the process of calculating a budget, with many similarities to keeping the balance of a checking account (Introduction and end). In 2012, I wrote a piece on uncertainties in models and a number of ways to evaluate and to place model uncertainty in decision making. In 2011, I wrote a piece about the controversial subject of validation of climate models.

There is regular publication of papers about models, their evaluation and their potential usefulness in planning for climate change. I want to mention a couple of them in this blog. The first is a paper by Elisabeth Lloyd, who is a philosopher at the University of Indiana. ”In Confirmation and Robustness of Climate Models”, Lloyd investigates the robustness of climate models in a formal way. Robustness is related to a set of common outcomes that follow from model simulations. In this case the common outcome is that given an increase in greenhouse gases, then the set of models determine that the average surface temperature of the Earth will rise. Underlying this determination of robustness is the fact that all of the climate models are designed to represent the laws of physics that represent the balance of energy (see the tutorial series). There is a requirement that “greenhouse gases relate in a law-like interaction with the energy budget of the earth.” Then, given the fact that the representation of these laws by a number of models from independent research organizations leads to the same outcome, that the planet will warm, then it is very likely that these models are a robust representation of what will happen in the real world. The size of the temperature increase has meaningful uncertainty; however, that there will be significant heating is of little doubt.

Lloyd’s arguments are not simply based on the fact that all climate models say that the Earth will warm as greenhouse gases increase. Lloyd lays out three fundamental ways to confirm the performance of climate models. The first line of confirmation is how well do the models fit the observations? This is the most common, most natural way of confirming model performance. How well a model fits the observations is, however, always open for arguments. There is always some difference between model simulations and observations. This difference fuels the arguments about whether or not the models are correct enough to provide actionable information (telescope simile in this blog). The other lines of confirmation that Lloyd relies on are varieties of evidence and independent support. Independent support is, basically, that sources of information that are fundamentally unrelated lead to the same conclusion. It is the convergence of all of these pieces of information with the fact that many models give the same basic outcome that supports Lloyd’s conclusion that robustness is a positive virtue in assessing the quality of climate models.

Lloyd’s conclusion is a formalized statement that if models consistently represent an outcome then we have more confidence that the model is correct, than if the models are inconsistent. As the regional details of model simulations are considered, for example what will happen to the water levels in the Great Lakes, models are often more inconsistent in their behavior. This inconsistency is a flag of uncertainty, or a lack of robustness. There are many lines of scientific and experiential evidence that increasing greenhouse gases will lead to warming of the Earth’s surface, the melting of water stored as ice and the rising of sea level. These conclusions are highly robust.

The other paper I describe is an opinion piece, ”Can We Trust Climate Models,” by J. C. Hargreaves and J. D. Annan. In this piece are a number of elements in common with the Lloyd piece, namely the discussion of the independence of models and information. They conclude that the broad predictions of surface warming, melting ice and rising sea level are robust because of their consistency with underlying physical principles. They also state that the models are not robust on regional scales.

Hargreaves and Annan add to the argument the idea of posing alternative descriptions, hypotheses and theories to describe observations of the climate. Climate models can be viewed in many ways. They are a mathematical description of our knowledge of the climate. They are also a way to organize and manage the complexity of describing the Earth’s climate and how it will evolve. What Hargreaves and Annan pose is that if the errors and uncertainties of climate models were too grievous, then they would invite alternative descriptions. Indeed, some of the pieces that make up a climate model do invite alternative descriptions, which is what drives model development and improvements. Observation-based, rational pursuit of alternative descriptions frequently lead to new insights about processes, for example, the partitioning of water in clouds between vapor, liquid and ice. However, the underlying principles of the model the conservations of energy, mass and momentum have proved to be quite robust. The observable and resolvable attributes of the climate, for example the fluid flow that describes the motion of the atmosphere and the oceans, which provide the connections between the pieces, have proved to be resilient against alternative descriptions.

Given the vast amount of observations of the climate and the thousands of researchers who have invested their competitive personalities in exploration and investigation of the climate, it is unlikely that fundamentally different quantitative descriptions of the Earth’s climate will be found. This assertion is supported by the successes of climate models, which have been confirmed in several independent ways. Affirming the successes of climate models is the ability of the models to present complex patterns of behavior that have been simulated, predicted and observed, making it highly unlikely that alternative explanations will be found of the changes being observed in the Earth’s weather and climate.

Is this actionable knowledge? The answer for many is an, obvious, yes, because people, corporations and governments are taking actions. What is missing in action is any rational, national or global approach to reduce emissions and, therefore, to bound the changes to our weather and climate as incremental changes to our history of the past few centuries. This leads to a situation where the actions that we take are in many ways temporary patches, because over decades and the next few centuries, we will be reliably warming up and sea level will relentlessly rise. There is much more difficultly predicting changes to ecosystems, agriculture, pathogens, political systems and nations. This will require anticipation, to which models will contribute, and the willingness and flexibility to spend on adaptive strategies if we are to obtain societal stability. Those who view models as providing actionable knowledge are more likely to succeed. Otherwise, we will be like those who lived on the shore of modern Turkey at the end of last glacial period, chasing the retreating glaciers and their water into the mountains with their goats and sheep (Sagalassos).

r

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 328 - 278

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7Blog Index

328. riverat544
5:53 AM GMT on August 08, 2014
Quoting 317. Xyrus2000:



That's not correct. C14 isotopes and ratios have also been used in several papers as evidence of anthropogenic carbon, along with C12/C13 isotopes. Skeptical Science has a nice "anthrocarbon" summary on this with links to some of them, along with declining C12/C13 ratios, oxygen, and various other pieces of evidence that show how the carbon increase is definitely caused by our activities. Link

Okay, I concede that the dilution of C14 in the atmosphere is a sign that the CO2 we're adding is depleted in C14 as fossil fuel carbon would be. But I still think the C12/C13 ratio is a more important indicator. The level of C14 in the atmosphere was given a huge bump by the open air nuclear tests of the 1950's to 1970's so you have to be careful to take that into account when working on C14.

Member Since: March 29, 2014 Posts: 0 Comments: 97
326. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
10:49 PM GMT on August 01, 2014
RickyRood has created a new entry.
325. Naga5000
9:18 PM GMT on August 01, 2014
Quoting 320. sensitivethug:

Just jumping in quickly here to reference the recent discussion regarding moderation of this blog:

WU’s stance on climate change is clear. (visit our Climate Change section for more information: http://www.wunderground.com/climate/). We will not be creating a new blog dedicated to anti-AGW. We will also not silence every anti-AGW comment posted on the blogs. But, we will remove any comments which are severely disruptive and/or violate the Community Standards, regardless of whether or not they support climate change. It goes without saying that we will also moderate the author of the comment when necessary.

Above all - please do use the flagging system. Yes, it does work :) If the consensus is that moderation needs a heavier hand in Rood’s blog, we are happy to enforce that as well.


Thanks for the response. Like Xulonn has mentioned, looking at the spamming of the same, already addressed and debunked lies over and over is a major issue here. Does the same poster have to post about "SC 25" for the 100th time, especially since it isn't relevant to any discussions. As for the flagging, we know it works, but how many flags does it take to remove a comment by the community? This question has never been answered.

I know and understand there is a fine line between heavy handed moderation and community off topic posts, jokes, etc. I think maybe this will be a step forward in understanding who your community on Dr. Rood's blog is and what we want for this great place to discuss climate science and that not all of us want the same things, either. One thing I think we all agree on is that this should not turn into a denier playground of disruption and pseudo science.

Thanks again for the response.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3543
324. Xulonn
8:52 PM GMT on August 01, 2014
Update on Siberian permafrost holes from LiveScience - no one thinks they were explosions. There has been a lot of speculation by people - including geologists and scientists - "that methane explosions" caused the holes, but there was never any good evidence for this. There may have been permafrost methane releases involved, but it seems that there is no evidence that explosions were associated with the formation of the holes.

This has got to be fun and exciting for the experts who will investigate it - a new small-scale geological phenomenon and process that has yet to be explained. You don't get opportunities for research like that very often.

Even glaciologist and methane release researcher Dr. Jason Box was dragged into the controversy, but he eventually tweeted:

"News piece juxtaposes Siberian holes with my carbon release concerns but I have no idea about the holes"

and

"Misrepresented by the press; I never connected the mysterious Siberian holes to anything."

Quoting LiveScience.com:
"My personal opinion is it's some type of sinkhole," said Vladimir Romanovsky, a geophysicist who studies permafrost at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Sinkholes are pits in the ground formed when water fails to drain away.

The water likely came from melting permafrost or ice, said Romanovsky, who has spoken with the Russian scientists investigating the site. But whereas most sinkholes suck collapsed material inside, "this one actually erupted outside," he told Live Science. "It's not even in the [scientific] literature. It's pretty new what we're dealing with," he added.

Kenji Yoshikawa, an environmental scientist also at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, said he also thinks that a drained, collapsed pingo pond is the most likely explanation for the Yamal Peninsula pit. In Alaska, similar pingos exist in the Northern Seward Peninsula and near the city of Nuiqsut.

But Romanovsky said the hole doesn't look like a typical collapsed pingo; such features usually form from larger mounds that slowly cave in over a period of decades, with all the material falling inside.

The crater's formation probably began in a similar way to that of a sinkhole, where water (in this case, melted ice or permafrost) collects in an underground cavity, Romanovsky said. But instead of the roof of the cavity collapsing, something different occurred. Pressure built up, possibly from natural gas (methane), eventually spewing out a slurry of dirt as the ground sunk away. Anna Kurchatova, a scientist at the Sub-Arctic Scientific Research Center in Russia, made a similar observation to The Siberian Times.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1474
323. Xulonn
8:03 PM GMT on August 01, 2014
Quoting 320. Michelle Schlachta , Community Manager (Admin):
Just jumping in quickly here to reference the recent discussion regarding moderation of this blog:

WU%u2019s stance on climate change is clear...We will also not silence every anti-AGW comment posted on the blogs. But, we will remove any comments which are severely disruptive and/or violate the Community Standards ...regardless of whether or not they support climate change. It goes without saying that we will also moderate the author of the comment when necessary. ...If the consensus is that moderation needs a heavier hand in Rood%u2019s blog, we are happy to enforce that as well.


If there were only one modification to the rules for the Rood Blog, I would suggest the disallowing of repeated posting of the same debunked denialist lie over and over and over and over again by the same person for the purpose of disrupting the comments. This often makes rational conversations difficult - and drives away valued contributors. Many of us feel that this is loosely covered by the rule against monomania, but perhaps some clarification is needed.

Many of us respond to the repeated disruption so that their lies do not stand, which could lead lurkers and readers to assume that the lies could be true. These responses rebutting denialists unfortunately add to the disruption of the discussion of climate science, but some feel that they are necessary.

If you visit this blog's comments regularly, you are aware the true skepticism is treated with respect, and questions are answered politely. Yet there is a contingent of commenters who come here regularly to disrupt, and repeatedly post lies, misinformation and talking points from denialist websites. They do not participate in the "conversation" about AGW/CC that Dr. Rood says is so important, and they disrupt the discussion of science.

Wunderground is already a great place to learn about climate science on the climate pages, and could also be a great place for people to come and discuss climate science - if it's cleaned up a bit.

And please delete any posts containing generic political slurs on sight, and limit political discussions to the politics of AGW/CC.

I flag them, but they often stand.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1474
322. Neapolitan
7:57 PM GMT on August 01, 2014
For thsoe who didn't see this yesterday: California is in serious, serious trouble, and experiencing its worst recorded drought ever. Every square inch of the state is suffering from severe drought or worse, and nearly 60% of the state is in exceptional drought, the worst. Now that the hoped for El Nino has been scaled back, widespread relief may not be all that soon in coming.







This is, as they say, bad. Very, very bad. And while some may try to tell you, "It's happened before", or "It'll rain, and everything will be just fine," realize they haven't a clue as to what they're saying.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13579
321. FLwolverine
7:39 PM GMT on August 01, 2014
Quoting 310. Skyepony:

Xyrus2000~ I think you misunderstood what I meant. I think there are probably bloggers payed by the denial industry to appear that they understand agw while at the same time do all they can to derail topic or inject anti-agw doubt...

There has been even a recent lot that shows up in Jeff's blog only during high traffic times with pretty crunchy (hippy like) names, claiming they are pro-agw... who's comments were anything but & fairly disruptive...........
I misunderstood too. It certainly wasn't clear that you meant Dr Masters' blog (altho I agree that I've seen that garbage over there and thought it was very suspicious).

Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2399
320. Michelle Schlachta , Community Manager (Admin)
7:31 PM GMT on August 01, 2014
Just jumping in quickly here to reference the recent discussion regarding moderation of this blog:

WU’s stance on climate change is clear. (visit our Climate Change section for more information: http://www.wunderground.com/climate/). We will not be creating a new blog dedicated to anti-AGW. We will also not silence every anti-AGW comment posted on the blogs. But, we will remove any comments which are severely disruptive and/or violate the Community Standards, regardless of whether or not they support climate change. It goes without saying that we will also moderate the author of the comment when necessary.

Above all - please do use the flagging system. Yes, it does work :) If the consensus is that moderation needs a heavier hand in Rood’s blog, we are happy to enforce that as well.
319. Xulonn
7:27 PM GMT on August 01, 2014
Latest chapter from my conversations with an AGW/CC denialist friend.

You people are my peer review group - am I sticking pretty well with science and facts?

On the subject of 2014 being a year with many more than cold records being set, and making Al Gore's "Climate Reality Project" tour look foolish.

Friend says: Yes, very amusing. Other sources, NOAA National Climactic Data Center for one, reports that cold records for 2014 are outpacing warm 1.75:1. This chart would seem to confirm that data.

My reply: Indeed - that's for just the U.S. - a regional weather phenomenon.

I hope you didn't get that info from the blog of uber-denialist, FF-industry funded shill Anthony Watts (who is neither a scientist nor a science journalist), because he is trumpeting that loud and clear as of yesterday to his hordes of ignorati followers. . Anthony seems to not comprehend that AGW/CC is not uniform across the globe - or does he just choose to ignore this basic concept and pretend that it doesn't exist? The comments at his blog demonstrate some of the most profound ignorance of science I have ever witnessed.

Indeed, the Canadian model chart I posted shows yet another Arctic outbreak likely - these are just generalized mid-term trends, not precision, detailed forecasts. More frequent Arctic outbreaks in the U.S. is something that is expected from the influence of AGW/CC, and predicted as "likely" due to the warming in the Arctic and northern latitudes. So yes, there are lots of cold records in the U.S. this year, and unlike climate models for averages, mid to long range "weather" forecasts have a low skill level.

Friend says: Other than that, the chart is just more bullshit in a sack. There is no calibration - does warmer that "normal" mean .001 degrees? What "warmness" records were used as the baseline? Funny, this chart exactly contradicts the previous one from NOAA I complained about, claiming that July would be the hottest July ever in the US, which in turn was contradicted by NOAAs own gold standard land weather station network.

My reply: No contradictions, Mark. These are probably just weekly forecasts from automatic weather model generation systems via software that is periodically updated. Weather is chaotic with lots of noise, and difficult to forecast beyond a few days, but they try. Like all mid to long-range "weather" forecasts, there is a high level of uncertainty after a few days, and these forecasts often change daily. Long range climate "averages" are actually easier to model accurately than chaotic short-term variations in weather.

Friend says: All of this just makes my point that there is plenty of controversy in the measurement (and use) of weather records and that the science is being perverted to make political statements and lobby for big bucks from the govt. having nothing whatsoever to do with actually affecting climate change.

My reply: Huh? Sorry, it is known that conspiracy theories cannot be countered with reason and logic. I talk about climate and the unreliability of weather (air temperature?) records for short-term trends, and you are forced to rely on undocumented conspiracy theories. I see nothing but an unsubstantiated opinion in that paragraph. I can find absolutely no evidence that the global network of scientists are getting big bucks from anywhere for their research. In fact, many struggle to get funding - and if they produce papers with flaws, those papers are quickly demolished - even if they make it through peer review. In the meantime, FF companies make enormous profits, and spend lavishly on denialism - Google "climate science funding" and see what you find. Most scientists have to struggle to get money for their research, and are not getting rich. There is much more money to be made as a paid scientist toady for FF corporate funded denialist efforts than for real climate research.

Regarding Eisenman vs Comiso on Antarctic sea ice extent and satellite data:

Friend says: By the way, remember the paper that said there was an error in the measurement of Antarctic sea ice and it was really less? Another bullshit in a sack peer reviewed "science" paper. The real scientist who wrote the original algorithm and assembled the data refuted the paper saying that the errors were known for years and compensated for. However, people will remember the headline, not the retraction as the author well knew. Science as propaganda. I learned the methods well from Steve Schneider.

My reply: Yet again you start your point with yet another strawman - a distortion of what was really said - and then proceed to belittle it. Actually, the paper's analysis of the two conflicting sets of data is sound. Your words sound like more hype from Anthony Watts denialism rather than a rational analyses from intelligent and reasoned thinkers. Did you read anything like the LiveScience article which reported on the controversy between Ian Eisenman, the paper's author, and Josefino Comiso, the NASA scientist who developed - and later revised - the software that manipulates the satellite data? Apparently the algorithm change was not well publicized in the cryosphere science community, and as a result, there were two sets of data that did not match.

Here's some quotes from the LiveScience article:

"[Josefino] Comiso believes that version two of the dataset, adjusted after 2007, is correct, reflecting a real increase in Antarctic ice, and that the error was in version one."

"[Ian] Eisenman said his findings have introduced two possibilities. One is that the new, updated dataset is wrong. In that case, Antarctic ice would be expanding, but not nearly as quickly as scientists believed the seeming trend would be largely a side effect of the data-processing change."

"In this case, the implications are pretty straightforward," he said. "It would mean that our estimates of the ice expansion have been too large, and this enigma in terms of why the Antarctic sea ice is expanding despite a warming globe and retreating Arctic sea ice would be overestimated."

"Alternatively, the new dataset might be right, with the error lurking in the pre-2007 version. In that case, studies that have used that version of the data would need to be reassessed, Eisenman said."

"Even in a warming world, it's not surprising that Antarctica might see growing ice; winds and ocean currents play a huge role in where ice does and does not form, and Antarctica's circumpolar winds push freezing air from the North Pole [Note: likely a typo - I think they mean South Pole] toward the sea."

Although the reasons are subtle and still being studied, only a scientifically naive person would think that the growth of Antarctic sea ice is due to "global cooling."
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1474
318. Xyrus2000
6:05 PM GMT on August 01, 2014
Quoting 310. Skyepony:

Xyrus2000~ I think you misunderstood what I meant. I think there are probably bloggers payed by the denial industry to appear that they understand agw while at the same time do all they can to derail topic or inject anti-agw doubt...

There has been even a recent lot that shows up in Jeff's blog only during high traffic times with pretty crunchy (hippy like) names, claiming they are pro-agw... who's comments were anything but & fairly disruptive.



New Geo Engineering gone wrong movie....

SnowPierce is the big buzz action movie this summer, a Chris Evans Cli-Fi vehicle that follows a catastrophic rebellion on an apocalyptic bullet train in a dystopian snowy, ice-encrusted world, the result of geo-engineering gone terribly wrong. The climax is a CGI spectacular of cascading ice, twisting metal, charred bodies, and crashing train cars tumbling into vast chasms. -Peter Sinclair

You've been warned it's a violent video....




You're right, I did take you the wrong way. I apologize. :)

But I agree, there are a few individuals who do come on there who go on to make outlandish claims in regards to global warming which simply aren't true. They're just as bad. Actually worse since they do it during a critical period.

People claiming AGW will destroy the planet are just as bad as those who say it isn't happening. :P

And that's a strange cli-fy movie. Some nice effects though.
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1521
317. Xyrus2000
5:55 PM GMT on August 01, 2014
Quoting 313. riverat544:


I'm sorry to be such a pedant but I think it's important to get things like this right. It is the ratio of C12 to C13 that they are measuring. C14 has nothing to do with it.


That's not correct. C14 isotopes and ratios have also been used in several papers as evidence of anthropogenic carbon, along with C12/C13 isotopes. Skeptical Science has a nice "anthrocarbon" summary on this with links to some of them, along with declining C12/C13 ratios, oxygen, and various other pieces of evidence that show how the carbon increase is definitely caused by our activities. Link
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1521
316. Wyote
4:41 PM GMT on August 01, 2014
Quoting 310. Skyepony:





New Geo Engineering gone wrong movie....

SnowPierce is the big buzz action movie this summer, a Chris Evans Cli-Fi vehicle that follows a catastrophic rebellion on an apocalyptic bullet train in a dystopian snowy, ice-encrusted world, the result of geo-engineering gone terribly wrong. The climax is a CGI spectacular of cascading ice, twisting metal, charred bodies, and crashing train cars tumbling into vast chasms. -Peter Sinclair

You've been warned it's a violent video....




Had to laugh, the woman from the "front" appeared to be a cross between Mitt Romney and Mrs. Tweady from Chicken Run
Member Since: November 12, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 63
315. Naga5000
4:32 PM GMT on August 01, 2014
Quoting 314. FLwolverine:

Maybe Astro could get an internship.


It's possible. I could always use a minion...I mean undergrad to do some work.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3543
314. FLwolverine
4:17 PM GMT on August 01, 2014
Quoting 312. Naga5000:



The only advice I can give is: Whatever you do, don't major in Sociology. The grants are way smaller. It only get's you one Lambo. Climate science, that gets you a whole fleet like the pro athletes have. I guess my real advice is if you like champagne and yacht parties be friends with climate scientists. They only LOOK socially awkward. :)
Maybe Astro could get an internship.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2399
313. riverat544
4:08 PM GMT on August 01, 2014
Quoting 303. Xyrus2000:



That's what I was talking about. The C12/C13 ratio in the atmosphere has been increasing relative to C14 (which is primarily produced by organic sources). That indicates that sequestered forms of carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) are being reintroduced into the atmosphere at an exceptional pace.

I'm sorry to be such a pedant but I think it's important to get things like this right. It is the ratio of C12 to C13 that they are measuring. As I said photosynthesis's preference for C12 means fossil fuels are enriched in C12 which is released when they are burned. That changes the ratio of C12 to C13 in the atmosphere.

C14 has nothing to do with it. C14 is produced primarily by cosmic rays converting nitrogen in the atmosphere but the open air nuclear testing of the 1950's and 1960's produced a large pulse of it.

John Lonergren is right that the depletion of O2 in the atmosphere corresponds well with the amount of fossil fuels we are burning.
Member Since: March 29, 2014 Posts: 0 Comments: 97
312. Naga5000
2:54 PM GMT on August 01, 2014
Quoting 311. FLwolverine:

Talk to Naga. He seems to have connections. Maybe he'll give you a ride in his Lambo!

Hint to the humor-impaired: this is a running kibitz on the blog.


The only advice I can give is: Whatever you do, don't major in Sociology. The grants are way smaller. It only get's you one Lambo. Climate science, that gets you a whole fleet like the pro athletes have. I guess my real advice is if you like champagne and yacht parties be friends with climate scientists. They only LOOK socially awkward. :)
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3543
311. FLwolverine
2:43 PM GMT on August 01, 2014
Quoting 305. Astrometeor:



I wish I was paid to give a position. :(
Talk to Naga. He seems to have connections. Maybe he'll give you a ride in his Lambo!

Hint to the humor-impaired: this is a running kibitz on the blog.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2399
310. Skyepony (Mod)
2:43 PM GMT on August 01, 2014
Xyrus2000~ I think you misunderstood what I meant. I think there are probably bloggers payed by the denial industry to appear that they understand agw while at the same time do all they can to derail topic or inject anti-agw doubt...

There has been even a recent lot that shows up in Jeff's blog only during high traffic times with pretty crunchy (hippy like) names, claiming they are pro-agw... who's comments were anything but & fairly disruptive.



New Geo Engineering gone wrong movie....

SnowPierce is the big buzz action movie this summer, a Chris Evans Cli-Fi vehicle that follows a catastrophic rebellion on an apocalyptic bullet train in a dystopian snowy, ice-encrusted world, the result of geo-engineering gone terribly wrong. The climax is a CGI spectacular of cascading ice, twisting metal, charred bodies, and crashing train cars tumbling into vast chasms. -Peter Sinclair

You've been warned it's a violent video....

Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 178 Comments: 38321
309. FLwolverine
2:41 PM GMT on August 01, 2014
A useful new (troll free) thread on the Arctic Ice Forum (off topic/the rest/self-education):

A thread for links to courses and places to help people educate themselves in science in general and climate science & energy in particular.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2399
308. JohnLonergan
2:24 PM GMT on August 01, 2014
IMF: Hike fossil fuel taxes and reap benefits now

Governments should not wait for a global climate deal to hike taxes on fossil fuels.

That was the message, not from a green campaign group, but a groundbreaking study released by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on Thursday.

More ...
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3398
307. JohnLonergan
2:16 PM GMT on August 01, 2014
Wildfires and other burns play bigger role in climate change

Research demonstrates that it isn't just the carbon dioxide from biomass burning that's the problem. Black carbon and brown carbon maximize the thermal impacts of such fires. They essentially allow biomass burning to cause much more global warming per unit weight than other human-associated carbon sources.



The map above shows the predicted global warming impact of all anthropogenic emissions, including biomass burning, on global near-surface air temperature since 1850. The map below shows the observed change in global near-surface air temperature since 1900. The average modeled increase in temperature since 1850 is 1.0 K. The average observed increase since 1900 is 0.92 K. Most increases in temperature occur over the Arctic, which is melting quickly.

More ...
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3398
306. Xyrus2000
2:06 PM GMT on August 01, 2014
Quoting 300. Skyepony:

...My thoughts are is there is payed shrills on both sides of the fence here. Some of the pro-AGW posters are more distracting, blog wrecking & most of the times beats the shrills at posting new doubt industry info...


Paid with what money? I don't know how many climate scientists you know, but the ones I know aren't what you'd call rolling in cash. When I was working at NASA, the topic every year was how to deal with budget CUTS. Most of the scientists are fighting tooth and nail to get scraps of funding for their research and science agencies have to go begging to congress every year with hat in hand. Considering the profits of a single fossil fuel company for a single quarter dwarfs the entire annual science budget of the US and said fossil fuel industry stands to lose profit margins from actions taken against global warming, it's pretty easy to figure out who is spending the most on any disinformation campaign.

The same propaganda companies who worked to say leaded gasoline wasn't a bad thing, asbestos is safe, smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, acid rain isn't a big issue, and who really cares about an ozone hole are the same ones being paid (quite well) by the fossil fuel industry to say global warming isn't a problem (in one or more ways). The only thing different this time around is the size and scale of FUD operation. It's truly impressive (in a sad way).

The shills and propoganda, like every instance in the past where science and profits collide, is one sided. Anyone who's been around longer than a couple decades has seen this movie before. The actors have changed, but the story is the same. And in every case there was the science, and then there was the garbage (everything else).
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1521
305. Astrometeor
1:51 PM GMT on August 01, 2014
Quoting 301. FLwolverine:

"My thoughts are is there is payed shrills on both sides of the fence here. Some of the pro-AGW posters are more distracting, blog wrecking & most of the times beats the shrills at posting new doubt industry info... "

Are there words?


I wish I was paid to give a position. :(
Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 101 Comments: 10364
304. Xyrus2000
1:34 PM GMT on August 01, 2014
Quoting 287. iceagecoming:



Meanwhile at Home...


What does that have to do anything? Are you trying to say that warmer winters would be a good thing? Are you somehow implying that reduced ice and snow pack would have no negative consequences?

Must be nice living in fantasy land. In the real world every action has a consequence.
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1521
303. Xyrus2000
1:11 PM GMT on August 01, 2014
Quoting 284. riverat544:


Actually the isotopic balance they're talking about as evidence for human sources of CO2 is the C12 to C13 ratio. Both of those are stable isotopes that essentially last forever. Photosynthesis has a preference for the lighter C12 isotope. That means plants and the fossil fuels formed from them have a higher C12 to C13 ratio than the environment in general. When we burn those fossil fuels it increases the C12 to C13 ratio in the atmosphere by measurable amount (which has been measured). Radioactive C14 has too short a half life to be useful in this area. But you're point is right that the change in C12/C13 ratio matches up well with human emissions.


That's what I was talking about. The C12/C13 ratio in the atmosphere has been increasing relative to C14 (which is primarily produced by organic sources). That indicates that sequestered forms of carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) are being reintroduced into the atmosphere at an exceptional pace.
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1521
302. Xyrus2000
1:08 PM GMT on August 01, 2014
Quoting 285. yoboi:

Naga You are misrepresenting Dr. Spencer scientific work.......


He has some in relation to climate science? Where? And was this before or after taking a wrecking ball and smashing all scientific credibility he had?

Spencer's "scientific" work is like Hamas's "peace" efforts.
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1521
301. FLwolverine
12:48 PM GMT on August 01, 2014
"My thoughts are is there is payed shrills on both sides of the fence here. Some of the pro-AGW posters are more distracting, blog wrecking & most of the times beats the shrills at posting new doubt industry info... "

Are there words?
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2399
300. Skyepony (Mod)
12:18 PM GMT on August 01, 2014
Volcanoes, Tree Rings, and Climate Models: This is how science works.


Quoting 297. pcola57:

Edit:
Skye beat me to it..
Very important news for the Climate summit Sept. 21..
TY Skye.. :)




Thanks...There was alot of climate news missed here yesterday. Sorry I wasn't here. Mods aren't payed at WU... There is alot of money going into the doubt industry & none here going against it. We have to go work & such. I would have removed those comments. Sorry to see you all go so far off topic over them. Moderation is also not topic here..don't know why you all got to wreck this blog with it yesterday & those trollish CO2 experiment in my oven & rehashed sea-ice one liners weren't removed..other than maybe it was such a mess by the time a mod saw it that it wasn't worth the effort to clean it all up. Given the chance there are a few in this blog that use moderation as another distraction to the discussion at hand & that day's climate news. The flag system here works..If only the people complaining so loudly, wrecking topic, angering others would use it...please flag, you all have moderation power here..

My thoughts are is there is payed shrills on both sides of the fence here. Some of the pro-AGW posters are more distracting, blog wrecking & most of the times beats the shrills at posting new doubt industry info...

TheDevilsAdvocate~ I am not in any way for Anti-semitism. Please stop attacking me, wrecking topic & bring some good AGW discussion for a change...

Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 178 Comments: 38321
299. JohnLonergan
12:17 PM GMT on August 01, 2014
Quoting 279. Xyrus2000:



There's also the isotopic balance. Fossil fuels contain no C14 (C14 has a half-life of about 5,730 years), and it just so happens the isotopic ratio of C14 in the atmosphere has been falling at about the same rate as CO2 has been added which also happens to just about match our emissions.

What a coincidence. :P


And the depletion of O2 in the atmosphere coincides exactly with CO2 increase.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3398
298. pcola57
9:42 AM GMT on August 01, 2014
Quoting 280. Naga5000:

*Warning, long post incoming to put this crapfest to rest.

"Thanks Naga for putting this to rest indeed..
Well done.. :) "
Member Since: August 13, 2009 Posts: 13 Comments: 6854
297. pcola57
9:24 AM GMT on August 01, 2014
Edit:
Skye beat me to it..
Very important news for the Climate summit Sept. 21..
TY Skye.. :)

Member Since: August 13, 2009 Posts: 13 Comments: 6854
295. Skyepony (Mod)
5:24 AM GMT on August 01, 2014
Dark Snow Project 2014 - Jason Box on site interview, Greenland



Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 178 Comments: 38321
294. Skyepony (Mod)
5:18 AM GMT on August 01, 2014
Check out this coming march.. press release out today kicking it off..




People%u2019s Climate March%u2014Largest Climate March in World History%u2014Launched in Times Square

Scheduled for Sept. 21 in New York City, the People%u2019s Climate March will coincide with September's UN Climate Summit, where world leaders including President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping will be in attendance in answer to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon summons to consult on climate change.

Key organizations, representing hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers and millions nationwide, hosted the press conference today to explain the goals of the mobilization and to share expectations for the UN summit. Representatives from New York City Environmental Justice Alliance, Sierra Club, 350.org, UPROSE and a number of local unions were there, as well as faith leaders, speakers from superstorm Sandy-impacted communities and millennials.





The People%u2019s Climate March will highlight the climate crisis and the need to act now with bold solutions. More than 500 organizations%u2014from community and labor groups to international NGOs and faith organizations%u2014around the world have joined to organize or endorse the event. They describe the motivation for the march as follows:

With our future on the line and the whole world watching, we%u2019ll take a stand to bend the course of history. We%u2019ll take to the streets to demand the world we know is within our reach: a world with an economy that works for people and the planet; a world safe from the ravages of climate change; a world with good jobs, clean air and water, and healthy communities.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 178 Comments: 38321
293. Skyepony (Mod)
5:06 AM GMT on August 01, 2014
Looks like the northern leg of the Keystone Pipeline isn't going through & rumored none of it is going through..

On April 23, Rolling Stone contributing editor Jeff Goodell wrote: “I was told recently by members of the administration that the pipeline would, in fact, be rejected.” On June 18, former Vice President Al Gore wrote in this same magazine: “[Obama] has signaled that he is likely to reject the absurdly reckless Keystone XL-pipeline proposal.”

Both pronouncements come on the heels of former President Jimmy Carter pointedly warning the president that Keystone XL ”will define your legacy on one of the greatest challenges humanity has ever faced—climate change.”

For a president who has suddenly decided to stake so much of his legacy on addressing the climate crisis, approving Keystone North would destroy any shred of credibility on this issue. It would also put an administration that prides itself on outreach to Native American communities in the position of violating the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty.



Tribal leaders mounted on horseback in front of the Capitol Building en route to the “Reject and Protect” tipi encampment in Washington, DC.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 178 Comments: 38321
292. Skyepony (Mod)
4:56 AM GMT on August 01, 2014
More out on warmer temperatures & air pollution's effect of crop yields.. MIT chimes in...

Climate Change A Greater Threat To Global Food Production Than Previously Thought
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 178 Comments: 38321
291. Patrap
4:27 AM GMT on August 01, 2014
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 128871
290. Naga5000
3:37 AM GMT on August 01, 2014
Quoting 288. tramp96:


Really

Link

Maybe you should link and read the actual paper yourself and not take the medias interpretation of it. Don't worry, I'll do the work for you.

Link

"We show here that the predicted increase in the frequency of tropical cyclones is consistent with increases in a GPI that was developed independently, based on observed seasonal, spatial,
and climate variability of tropical cyclones. The good agreement between the downscaled tropical cyclone frequencies and those based on GPI lends further confidence to the technique. Al-
though both the GPI and the random seeding technique used to initiate storms in our downscaling method produce good predictions of spatial, seasonal, and short-term climate variability of
tropical cyclones over the past few decades during which measurements of tropical cyclone are of high quality, neither has been tested against truly global climate change. Indeed, no technique,
including explicit simulation of tropical cyclones in climate models,
has been tested against global climate change. The present study used six CMIP5 models, the only six that
provided the output needed to apply our downscaling and that
did not have large discontinuities between the recent historical and near-term projected climates. The differences between our results, those arrived at by applying the same technique to CMIP3
models, and the conclusions of other groups using different models and/or using different methods suggest that projections of the response of tropical cyclones to projected climate change will
remain uncertain for some time to come
"

What do you know, the study doesn't make that prediction. Maybe you should read the study, you know? You might just learn something.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3543
289. Naga5000
3:27 AM GMT on August 01, 2014
Quoting 285. yoboi:

Naga You are misrepresenting Dr. Spencer scientific work.......


Nope:

Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,[30][31] which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting"


Also, Spencer is now on the list of condemned by the Anti-Defamation league. You aren't really going to go down that path are you?
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3543
287. iceagecoming
2:57 AM GMT on August 01, 2014
Quoting 212. Patrap:

Gee, we wait with shackled patience.

Meanwhile, globally....









Meanwhile at Home.

Killer cold: Winter is deadlier than summer in U.S.
Doyle Rice, USA TODAY 8:31 a.m. EDT July 30, 2014

Winter cold kills more than twice as many Americans as does summer heat, according to a report released today by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Based on death certificate data from 2006-10, the report's authors found that "about 2,000 U.S. residents died each year from weather-related causes of death." The CDC report found that 63% of these deaths were attributed to exposure to excessive natural cold, hypothermia or both, while about 31% of these deaths were attributed to exposure to excessive natural heat, heat stroke, sun stroke or all.

Only about 6% were attributed to floods, severe storms, tornadoes, hurricanes or lightning.


Link



Hmm, Here be the Rap working in de Baton Rouge
Who Dat?, Do Dat? My name in BOLD!


Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 24 Comments: 1078
286. Astrometeor
2:52 AM GMT on August 01, 2014
Quoting 285. yoboi:

Naga You are misrepresenting Dr. Spencer scientific work.......


Can't misrepresent what isn't there.
Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 101 Comments: 10364
285. yoboi
2:35 AM GMT on August 01, 2014
Naga You are misrepresenting Dr. Spencer scientific work.......
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2369
284. riverat544
2:28 AM GMT on August 01, 2014
Quoting 279. Xyrus2000:

There's also the isotopic balance. Fossil fuels contain no C14 (C14 has a half-life of about 5,730 years), and it just so happens the isotopic ratio of C14 in the atmosphere has been falling at about the same rate as CO2 has been added which also happens to just about match our emissions.

What a coincidence. :P

Actually the isotopic balance they're talking about as evidence for human sources of CO2 is the C12 to C13 ratio. Both of those are stable isotopes that essentially last forever. Photosynthesis has a preference for the lighter C12 isotope. That means plants and the fossil fuels formed from them have a higher C12 to C13 ratio than the environment in general. When we burn those fossil fuels it increases the C12 to C13 ratio in the atmosphere by measurable amount (which has been measured). Radioactive C14 has too short a half life to be useful in this area. But you're point is right that the change in C12/C13 ratio matches up well with human emissions.
Member Since: March 29, 2014 Posts: 0 Comments: 97
283. Xyrus2000
2:15 AM GMT on August 01, 2014
Quoting 272. Astrometeor:



That's an unfair accusation. The main issue with predicting whether or not hurricanes are affected by AGW is that there has yet to be enough time to pass by in order to accurately assess that hypothesis. As one AGW-skeptic noted, some weather cycles that affect hurricanes are on the order of 20-40 years in length, so you would need a couple of those cycles (along with accurate counting) to assess the real situation. As it is, we only have 60 years (for sure) of accurate data, so there's not enough evidence to go one way or the other.

That, and scientists are still figuring out how hurricanes form and work. Just look at the NHC here on Invest 93L, they were at 80%, then dropped the odds to 50%, and now we are back up to 80% once more, with still no guarantee that this system will become a tropical storm.


Actually, the problem is that hurricanes are small scale, short lived events while climate is much longer and larger scale. At best, future hurricane seasons can only be inferred from prevailing large scale climatological patterns (drier Sahraha, more winds from increased SST's, etc.). Climate models simulate climate, not hurricane cyclogenesis.

Tramp, as usual, has things completely wrong. Hurricanes are expected to decrease in the future as the conditions in the Atlantic tropics are expected to become less favorable in general. There will be plenty of energy to tap if something does form, however with more SAL and more shear it will take more effort for something to organize. Fewer, but stronger hurricanes.

But that is more towards the end of this century. What is happening right now is weather. And weather conditions (El Nino, shear, dust, etc.) has not been conducive to an active season. As you point out, a slow season or even ten years of slow seasons aren't nearly enough to say anything either way; it's just noise.

Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1521
282. Barefootontherocks
2:11 AM GMT on August 01, 2014
Quoting ronnm:
So blogs with high user volume then by mechanism are really the only ones that see things removed. And
the removal is by volume not by content or other qualifier?

Off point blogs are then never going to be removed as they are generally not overtly offensive, not offensive enough to merit flagging usually. Just off point. So then there exists no mechanism to prevent the derailing of initial content by off point content?.

What is an off-point blog?

(edit stray words)

The way I read your words, and I may be mistaken, you are looking to keep anti-AGW comments out of RickyRood's blog, and in pursuit of that end, sounds like you suggest every comment, in all wu blogs, when the comment is not specific to the topic of the blog it's posted in, should be removed by admin.

Individual blog owners at wu make their own rules about what they allow in comments. Admin only removes comments that violate community standards. If what you want is no anti-AGW comments posted in this blog, you might take that up with Dr. Rood.
Member Since: April 29, 2006 Posts: 154 Comments: 18784
281. Barefootontherocks
2:00 AM GMT on August 01, 2014
Quoting ronnm:
To support Wyott, but with elaboration.

Trolling takes many forms. If I was to start a discussion on a religious website, on the christian response to the figure of a god as contrasted to the hebrew response to the figure of a god, and someone started to discuss the advantages of atheism, that would produce responses, but the result would be a disruption of my initial discussion. It would not proceed. The premiss of the discussion is based on the assumption one exists.

Likewise the assumptive premiss on Dr Roods blogs is that AGW is a fact. To state it is not, does not allow the specifics of anything he presents to be discussed. The discussion always reverts back to the denial of AGW.
So it is trolling and the effect is to stop discussion and redirect it to another area.

The solution, the monitors need to remove from all blogs things which are overtly off point, such as AGW denial, on Dr Roods blogs.
We don't want to suppress points of opinion nor censor. So another blog should be presented which has climate denial as its header. The quotes then would not be censored but put in this blog created for this purpose.

So if one wants they could access this blog and participate in the AGW Denial discussion.


Problem solved we then could discuss DR Roods points with elaboration.
It is true ignoring does not work. The off point comments must be actually physically moved into a discussion in which they are in context. One can be created easily if one wants.
A monitor of the site must redirect the off point comments. In this specific all comments on AGW denial.


Problem solved with ease and little expense.
If the site wants to solve the problem, however. Do they?
Wait a minute. All blogs? Do you really mean all blogs?
Member Since: April 29, 2006 Posts: 154 Comments: 18784
280. Naga5000
1:55 AM GMT on August 01, 2014
*Warning, long post incoming to put this crapfest to rest.

Tramp, which one of the Heartland "scientists" do you believe, there can be only one correct answer, right?

Is it Joe Bastardi, the Greenhouse effect denier who doesn't believe CO2 can increase temperature? or is it Dr. Roy Spencer who claims God won't let us harm the planet? Or maybe you like Steven Goddard (Tony Heller) who thinks the entire data record has been falsified?

Or maybe it's one of the others on the list, all with crackpot theories that have no basis in science and contradict each other. Link

Or maybe, you think the sponsors could tell us something? What? No scientific backing at all from the sponsors, only free market think tanks, coal and oil industry money, and people who stand to make a profit off of people like yourself? Let's look at the list together, shall we?

America's Energy Future
Australian Taxpayers' Alliance
Ayn Rand Institute
Blue
Carbon Sense Coalition
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise
Center for Industrial Progress (CIP)
CFACT
CO2 Science (Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change)
Colderside.com
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Cornwall Alliance
Energy Makes America Great
Freedomfest
George C. Marshall Institute
The Heritage Foundation
Hubbard Broadcasting Incorporated
Illinois Coal Association (ICA)
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
Leadership Institute
Liberty Coin Service
The Liberty Foundation of America
Media Research Center
Nanoland
NPK CO2
Power For USA
Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
Science & Public Policy Institute
Stairway Press
To Kill an Error
VA SEEE


So, Tramp. Again, please tell me which liar you believe, because they can't all be true.

I'll go with the:

American Association for the Advancement of Science

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)

American Chemical Society

"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)

American Geophysical Union

"Human%u2010induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5

American Medical Association

"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change%u2019s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6

American Meteorological Society

"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7

American Physical Society

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth%u2019s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8

The Geological Society of America

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse%u2010gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

U.S. National Academy of Sciences

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)

And the other 200 top worldwide scientific organizations: Link
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3543
279. Xyrus2000
1:53 AM GMT on August 01, 2014
Quoting 233. JohnLonergan:

That CO2 added to the air is ours


For some reason there has been an ongoing patter of theories about how the recent increase in CO2 in the air is due to natural causes, and nothing to do with the 400 Gt of fossil fuel that we have have brought to the surface and burnt.

I wrote here about the somewhat related "Temperature drives CO2" meme. And I wrote here a few days ago about a weird revival, involving a total misreading by blogger Hockey Schtick of a recent paper on local CO2 perturbations, and the vanishing of that thread.

Vanishing is a relative term nowadays, and sure enough, the story reappeared at WUWT as if nothing had happened. Various oddities ensued; HS turned up to say that his thread hadn't been canned; it was only resting. And the original author, Denica Bozhinova, turned up to say some of the things that had been disappeared at HS. Her paper had been grossly misinterpreted.

Anyway, the usual folk continued as if nothing had happened, with the usual story that natural fluxes greatly outweighed human. I responded thus. But the most direct refutation is the simple graph of mass changes over the years. This is too rarely seen, though there is a good article and plot at SkS, which I cited.

So I did my own. Emissions data (including cement making) is from CDIAC, including BP estimates for 2011 and 2012 (no 2013 yet). CO2 ice core data from Law Dome (Dethridge, via CDIAC), and recent from Mauna Loa Scripps, using annual averages. I converted ppmv to Gt C using the factor 1 ppm CO2 = 2.13 Gton C.

...Here is the plot:



More hockey sticks, we've got enough for a whole team.


It must be really hard to sell the story that the CO2 response is just natural variation, nothing to do with what we emitted. I'll show more plots below the jump.





There's also the isotopic balance. Fossil fuels contain no C14 (C14 has a half-life of about 5,730 years), and it just so happens the isotopic ratio of C14 in the atmosphere has been falling at about the same rate as CO2 has been added which also happens to just about match our emissions.

What a coincidence. :P
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1521
278. Naga5000
1:11 AM GMT on August 01, 2014
Quoting 276. tramp96:


The sources are in the field and you aren't


No Tramp, they aren't. The science disagrees with your fake experts.

As for me, I study science denial, I am very much in the field of knowledge regarding climate science, as are my peers in research, who much like the climate scientists, have a consensus that AGW is real and scientifically sound.

I think you should check your aggression, and your information sources.

Edited: removed potentially identifying information about myself, I don't trust the crazies here.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3543

Viewing: 328 - 278

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

Local Weather

Scattered Clouds
52 °F
Scattered Clouds