What the 5th IPCC Assessment Doesn't Include

By: Angela Fritz , 5:06 PM GMT on September 27, 2013

Share this Blog
25
+


"Patterned ground" in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Frozen ground causes formations like these. Source: NSIDC

A heavyweight boxer in the climate change match is missing from the 5th climate assessment report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on Friday.

Permafrost, which is frozen ground that doesn't melt during the summer, covers 24% of the land in the northern hemisphere. Permafrost acts like a massive cryogenic chamber, stabilizing tens of thousands of years of organic matter, and stores approximately 1.5 trillion tons of carbon, which is twice the amount of carbon that's currently in our atmosphere. When the organic matter thaws, that carbon will be exposed to the elements, made available to escape into the air in the form of heat-trapping gases, with the potential to knock out our efforts to slow down global warming with a one-two punch.

This effect, called the permafrost carbon feedback, is not present in the global climate change models used to estimate how warm the earth could get over the next century. But research done in the past few years shows that leaving the permafrost effect out of the climate models results in a far more conservative estimate of how our climate will change. Scientists predict that greenhouse gas from permafrost alone could lead to an additional 1.5°F of warming by the end of this century, on top of our day-to-day human emissions.

To put that in perspective, the earth has already warmed around 1.5°F since 1901, and climate scientists suggest that we should keep global warming below 3.6°F in order to avoid a "dangerous" level of warming. The climate models used in Friday's report, without the permafrost effect, estimate that by the end of this century we will have warmed at least 7°F if we continue "business as usual" with no efforts to reduce our fossil fuel consumption.

Permafrost contains more than soil. It acts like a massive cryogenic chamber, stabilizing tens of thousands of years of organic matter like leaves and plant roots that would otherwise be broken down by bacteria and releasing greenhouse gases into the air.



In addition to carbon dioxide, an exceptionally potent greenhouse gas is released from organic matter. In moist areas, most of the emissions will be of methane, a gas that has 20 to 25 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over a 100-year period.

There is no doubt that permafrost is melting. Trees that have grown for years in permafrost are finding themselves on softer soil, which causes them to lean or tip over, creating "drunken forests." Roads are crumbling, buildings are melting into the earth, and along coastlines, the earth is melting into the sea. The big question is how much methane and carbon dioxide will be released, and how quickly, as the frozen tundra continues to thaw.

Angela

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: 89 - 39

Page: 1 | 2Blog Index

89. redagainPatti
6:24 AM GMT on September 09, 2014
Interesting... and the photos are cool to look at...
Being from the deep south... Mississippi, I have no understanding of things way up north. I did however hear about buildings have some problems with the thawing of the frozen ground up there.
Member Since: July 10, 2005 Posts: 123 Comments: 1520
88. Daisyworld
6:27 PM GMT on May 31, 2014
'Cosmos' Visits Venus to Talk Climate Change Sunday Night

Megan Gannon | SPACE.com | May 31, 2014

The Spaceship of the Imagination is headed for the hot and hellish landscape of Venus.

This Sunday night (June 1), the Fox TV series "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" will send viewers to Earth's evil twin to learn about the greenhouse effect and climate change.

Venus' dense atmosphere is mostly made up of carbon dioxide, with small doses of nitrogen and sulfuric acid. This composition creates a runaway greenhouse effect that bakes Venus to even hotter temperatures than the surface of Mercury, the planet closest to the sun.



The second-to-last episode of the series, titled "The World Set Free," will also explore the effects of global warming and humanity's impact on the Earth's atmosphere — and what people can do to mitigate the damage.<

The 13-episode "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" is a reboot of the classic minisereis "Cosmos: A Personal Voyage," which was hosted by the famed astronomer Carl Sagan and first aired on PBS in 1980. The new series debuted on March 9 and is hosted by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson and written by Steven Soter and Ann Druyan, Sagan's widow.



Sagan, who died in 1996, had a special connection with Venus: He was the first to create the greenhouse model for Venus' atmosphere, showing that the planet had much higher temperatures than previously suspected.

"Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" airs Sundays at 9 p.m. ET/PT on Fox. It is rebroadcast on the National Geographic Channel on Mondays at 10 p.m. ET/PT. Check local listings.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 859
87. whitewabit (Mod)
6:01 PM GMT on May 05, 2014
Might want to stay away from Stamford, Conn for a few days ..

Stamford, Conn.
Member Since: August 17, 2005 Posts: 365 Comments: 31739
86. indycarman
8:15 PM GMT on May 02, 2014
So why didn't the IPPC include permafrost data if they already know that it can triple the amount of carbon.
That is a significant omission!
Maybe the next time a Russian hacker releases another batch of what IPPC chooses not to release we will know the answer.
What is the right amount of carbon, the right temperature, the right sea level?
Member Since: April 24, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1
85. whitewabit (Mod)
1:48 AM GMT on April 21, 2014
84. mountainguide
2:09 PM GMT on April 19, 2014
how long will the Global warming Hysterics keep predicting that which is clearly NOT HAPPENING? Just as likely in the next 60 or 70 years that we will cool as much as a degree or two.... since this is the earths natural pattern, mostly in response to solar activity and volcanism. It would be better to concern yourself about the state of your soul and the care of your neighbors, IMHO
Member Since: December 5, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 0
83. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
9:38 PM GMT on April 14, 2014
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 175 Comments: 54827
82. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
9:26 PM GMT on April 14, 2014
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 175 Comments: 54827
81. prairiebotanist
9:25 PM GMT on April 14, 2014
dckubler: Keep in mind that the surface thaws throughout the permafrost areas of the boreal forest and tundra every summer, so each year new organic is built up by vegetation and is slowly added to the giant pile of frozen organic matter extending deeper down. Organic matter can be added year by year without ever melting the buried permafrost.
Member Since: May 19, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 1
80. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
9:24 PM GMT on April 14, 2014
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 175 Comments: 54827
79. dckubler
9:45 PM GMT on March 29, 2014
Why did the permafrost freeze? It holds tens of thousands of year of organic matter so at some point in time the water was liquid. If the weather was warmer for tens of thousands of years aren't we returning to a "normal" climate? A consistent theory should be able to explain both cooling and warming. Just tuning a model to a short-term trend is useless "science".
Member Since: September 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 0
78. grtbluyonder
2:10 PM GMT on February 12, 2014
It is futile to debate with cognitively challenged people who don't and don't want to understand science. One might as well just bark like a dog rather than attempt intelligent discourse with such people. My recommendation is that the proper response to dogmatic deniers be simply, "woof".
Member Since: February 12, 2014 Posts: 0 Comments: 0
77. MischaFlorida
7:26 PM GMT on January 29, 2014
Dear Angela, thank you. A question: are you up on the facts & controversy regarding the currently unfolding rapid destabilization of the Arctic subsea methane hydrates ... the so-called 'Arctic methane catastrophe' or 'time bomb' that some credible climate scientists see as accelerating & completely overshadowing the permafrost problem you speak of via multiple self-reinforcing positive feedback loops. There is even some credible discussion that this particular mechanism, superimposed on all the others, may be the likely & imminent trigger of a major extinction event, akin to the Permian Extinction, unfolding on a mere decadal scale.

Some fear the tipping point for self-generation may be long passed, with little possibility of human remediation, even if everyone could suddenly agree it's a global emergency & all human carbon inputs to the atmosphere were immediately & completely halted.

What's your opinion on all this?

(References available on request, though just a Google search will lead you to much of the data & controversy.)
Member Since: June 29, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1
76. MischaFlorida
6:22 PM GMT on January 29, 2014
Why not just let the denialist trolls be trolls. It's their right to post here, but there's no real possibility of opening their minds with facts. Let them post their links to faux data & conspiracy theories justifying 'business as usual', which seems to be their aim. Don't let them distract from the real purpose & contribution of Angela's work. Just ignore them as the provocateurs they are, but with compassion, & forgive them, "for they know not what they do". If we take the bait & diffuse our energy, they win, though at the terrible cost of guarantying an unsustainable future for the planet & all it's inhabitants.
Member Since: June 29, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1
75. Daisyworld
5:34 AM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 74. yoboi:



The two bolded sections contradict each other....


Since I was discussing two completely different ideas (one being a simple attempt to understand what a particular phrase means, and the other being how to approach an entire topic of study using traditional research tools) pointing out what you call a contradiction is yet another example of a correlative fallacy of logic.

Put simply, I am not going to the library or university to waste my time in researching a meaningless statement such as "insulative gas exchange in tropospheric convective thermal exchange."

However, you can do it if you wish. Judging from your behavior on Dr. Rood's blog, I think it would be a good exercise for you to visit your nearest library or university to research your views on climate change.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 859
74. yoboi
4:42 AM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 72. Daisyworld:


Hello The1realist. I assume that you just recently signed up for an account here on Weather Underground because one or more of your climate contrarian friends (or perhaps one of your paid supervisors) saw me as a threat, pointed to my comments here or in Dr. Rood's blog, then directed you to take me down. Mind you, that's just an opinionated assumption on my part, but if I'm at all accurate, I hope you consider that what you're doing here is extraordinarily disingenuous, selfish, and goes against the basic tenants of humanity as it serves only to perpetuate the lie that human-induced global climate change is a myth. To perpetuate this lie is to appeal to the emotional fear in others; that part of each of us that hopes that AGW theory is wrong, and hopes that the scientists have falsified data, and hopes that this is all just a natural cycle.

I wish that hope was well-founded, but the numbers say otherwise.

Below, as I peel away the layers of your maligned written attack on my person (and NOT the science of human-induced climate change), I appeal to your humanity to cease your role in the damaging disinformation campaign in which you have become a part of. If you keep up this charade, you'll continue to damage our lives, ecosystems, and the entire planet just to satisfy your own selfish needs, whatever they may be.

(End assumptive and opinionated rant)

Next, let's look at your opposing argument of "insulative gas exchange in tropospheric convective thermal exchange". One can simply Google the phrase "insulative gas exchange" using quotations for exact phrasing and find that nowhere else does it exist on the internet except here. No science paper has published a paper that includes it, no blog (except this one) has mentioned it. It exists solely as a made-up phrase of your own construction. The same can be said for "tropospheric convective thermal exchange."

If I were to interpret your meaning with the phrase "insulative gas exchange in tropospheric convective thermal exchange", I would translate it as "greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere mix with the rest of the atmosphere." This is an axiom, and a meaningless statement as an argument against human-induced climate change. NOAA's carbon tracker does a very good job showing how carbon dioxide (by far the largest volume greenhouse gas in the atmosphere) mixes within the different layers of the atmosphere. So yes, as a reductive rebuttal to your made-up phrase, greenhouse gasses do indeed mix in the lower atmosphere.



Then actually do one. Don't post links. Just show us you even know how to do a basic analysis of variance using the correct formulas on a simple dataset, then we can talk.




No. Science and statistical testing are not about falsification. This is a common misconception. Anyone with any training in science and statical analysis should know this. I'm sorry if you do not. To quote Schuyler W. Huck from "Statisical Misconceptions":

"Those who think that null hypotheses can be proven false have mixed together, inappropriately, the logic of falsification and the statistical procedure of hypothesis testing... nothing is truly falsified when a null hypothesis is rejected. The observation of one black swan is sufficient to falsify the claim that all swans are white. That single black swan proves that the claim is wrong. It is dangerous to accept or promote the belief that a rejected (null hypothesis) has been proven wrong because sample data never constitute a black swan."




And again, you call me naive. You don't even know me, yet you jump right in and attack my person with pejoratives. I'm sorry if you and your friends who do not understand science feel as if I am a threat to your way of thinking, but that's what science does: It challenges our current way of thinking en-route to a deeper meaning of the universe around us than we would otherwise get.

Here's a thought: When another point-of-view challenges your own way of thinking, don't immediately attack them. Don't degrade them, don't contort their opinion into what you believe to be a fabrication. Try to see it from their point of view, then go and gather all relevant information on the subject -- REAL information (library, university, etc.), not just on the internet -- before passing judgement. Do it for yourself; not to "one-up" your opponent, but for your own personal enrichment. I'll bet you come away with a better understanding of the subject.



First of all, each one of those links do not provide the actual dataset for ANY alternative hypothesis, to say nothing of testing such a dataset to the current state of the science. Second, I have no emotional attachment to the reality of human-induced global warming. As I mentioned above, if there's any emotional attachment I have, it's to the hope that it's not real. This is where you and I differ: I know that my hope will never be fulfilled. I have compared and contrasted scientific sources before running the numbers on AGW theory myself, watched the discussions unfold for the past several decades, and concluded with much trepidation that the numbers are correct. As I've mentioned before, the basic physics, chemistry, and mathematics have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that (1) that CO2 increases in the atmosphere have trapped excess solar radiation at the surface of our planet in the form of heat, (2) these CO2 increases are the primary result of human activities via the burning of fossil fuels, and (3) the increase in trapped solar radiation is causing our planet to warm at an accelerated rate leading to faster-than-normal climate changes across the globe. None of these facts are in doubt, and each are backed by substantial peer-reviewed data that has survived countless reviews and raking over the coals by politicians and pundits.

Perhaps another emotion that I also embody is the anger towards people who lie, swindle, deceive, in order to perpetuate the idea that all of the data that climate scientists have worked on and devoted their careers to is somehow wrong, or that human-induced global warming is somehow not happening. However, I temper that anger with the realization and understanding that I have the facts on my side.

You do not.



Ah! A lie! Easily debunked. Here's a mere sample from what's been published, direct from Dr. Mann's webpage at Penn State:

Mann, M.E., Fuentes, J.D., Rutherford, S. Reply to "Tree-Rings and Volcanic Cooling", Nature Geoscience, 5, 837-838, 2012.

Mann, M.E., Fuentes, J.D., Rutherford, S., Underestimation of Volcanic Cooling in Tree-Ring Based Reconstructions of Hemispheric Temperatures, Nature Geoscience, 5, 202-205, 2012.

Zhang, Z., Mann, M.E., Cook, E.R., Alternative methods of proxy-based climate field reconstruction: application to summer drought over the conterminous United States back to AD 1700 from tree-ring data, The Holocene, 14, 502-516, 2004.

D'Arrigo, R.D., Cook, E.R., Mann, M.E., Jacoby, G.C., Tree-ring reconstructions of temperature and sea-level pressure variability associated with the warm-season Arctic Oscillation since AD 1650, Geophysical Research Letters, 30 (11), 1549, doi: 10.1029/2003GL017250, 2003.

Mann, M.E., Hughes, M.K., Tree-Ring Chronologies and Climate Variability, Science, 296, 848, 2002.




Your jump from "destroyed (or) never released" to "can't be checked or duplicated" shows the hypocrisy of your statements, as well as your own emotional tendency to change the "facts" whenever it suits you. Which one is it? Was the data destroyed? Or was it just never released (as I proved wrong above)? Wait... you just wrote that the data "can't be checked or duplicated"... That means it WAS released, right? For how can it be said that the data can't be checked or duplicated, if it's been attempted? Can anybody actually check for lack of duplication in data that was destroyed or never released?

Do you see the hypocrisy of your statements?

I'm not going to further engage you on the tree ring data, because you've already proven that you cannot hold to the truth, and you move the goalposts whenever it suits you. This is known as "confusing the argument", which is a hallmark of an individual who is attempting to manipulate the argument to plant disinformation.



What does this do to counter the truth of human-induced climate change/anthrophogenic global warming? Yes, it was very warm during the time of dinosaurs. There is no dispute of this in the scientific literature. Yes, there was a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but what is the relevance of that argument? Cannot natural cycles be reproduced or accentuated by human interference? Cannot additional carbon dioxide generated by fossil fuel combustion make the Earth warm again? Cannot the speed and efficiency of dumping gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere in only a few centuries bring about those same conditions in only a fraction of the time it took nature to do the same? Would that not impact life on Earth, which often relies on long timespans to adapt to a new environment?



As mentioned above, my emotions are beside the point. Your attack on me is a correlative fallacy of logic, extending from the proposition that because I am an emotional person (which I do not dispute, because I am human), that my entire argument is suspect. From this, your entire argument here is based on discredit. Because I do not want to tread where others have explained so very well, I offer this quote from Dr. Ricky Rood here at Weather Underground:

Your "... (form of argument relies) on discredit, and it relies on discrediting thousands of scientists, writing many thousands of papers, over many years, from many countries. It is fundamentally conspiratorial, and not only is it conspiratorial it requires that many years before climate change emerged as an important environmental problem, that the foundation for the conspiracy was being laid down. To me, this lacks any credibility in reason, but if conspiratorial beliefs are held, then it is virtually impossible to provide convincing counterarguments to the person who holds those beliefs. If the form of argument relies on conspiracy, then it is immediately suspect."

Based in this, I dub thee red herring:






The two bolded sections contradict each other....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2386
73. Daisyworld
10:09 PM GMT on January 25, 2014
Quoting 68. AGWSpecialist:

Exactly. It IS the way the scientific method, stats, and math works. So I'd like to see a rebuttal from you from the contents in post #60. I have seen nothing from you yet. Do you have it in you?
Quoting 70. AGWSpecialist:

Friend. No need to be so upset. If you can't provide a solid, scientific rebuttal to the empiric scientific evidence presented in comment 60, it is okay. The contents of the post including the links will still stand. No problem. But if you can and therefore can prove me wrong, then great. Okay?


Didn't we have this discussion over in Dr. Rood's blog, AGWSpecialist? You cannot demand someone else rebuke an alternative hypothesis when it has not been statistically tested against the null hypothesis (i.e., the current state of the science) and found to be valid.

You have proven nothing. You've posted no datasets, no linear regression analysis, no anova, and no correlation calculations. You haven't even shown that you did a proper literature review. Put simply, there is nothing substantive that you or The1realist have posted here that shows any sort of proper scientific or statistical analysis against the current state of the science behind human-induced climate change. No one can prove you wrong, because you have not presented anything that scientifically validates your opinion.

And there you go. I hope you enjoy not having a scientific leg to stand on.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 859
72. Daisyworld
9:12 PM GMT on January 25, 2014
Quoting 60. The1realist:
Although I seriously disbelieve that you even understand what a statistical analysis of insulative gas exchange in tropospheric convective thermal exchange is let alone how to do one if you could find the correct data sets.


Hello The1realist. I assume that you just recently signed up for an account here on Weather Underground because one or more of your climate contrarian friends (or perhaps one of your paid supervisors) saw me as a threat, pointed to my comments here or in Dr. Rood's blog, then directed you to take me down. Mind you, that's just an opinionated assumption on my part, but if I'm at all accurate, I hope you consider that what you're doing here is extraordinarily disingenuous, selfish, and goes against the basic tenants of humanity as it serves only to perpetuate the lie that human-induced global climate change is a myth. To perpetuate this lie is to appeal to the emotional fear in others; that part of each of us that hopes that AGW theory is wrong, and hopes that the scientists have falsified data, and hopes that this is all just a natural cycle.

I wish that hope was well-founded, but the numbers say otherwise.

Below, as I peel away the layers of your maligned written attack on my person (and NOT the science of human-induced climate change), I appeal to your humanity to cease your role in the damaging disinformation campaign in which you have become a part of. If you keep up this charade, you'll continue to damage our lives, ecosystems, and the entire planet just to satisfy your own selfish needs, whatever they may be.

(End assumptive and opinionated rant)

Next, let's look at your opposing argument of "insulative gas exchange in tropospheric convective thermal exchange". One can simply Google the phrase "insulative gas exchange" using quotations for exact phrasing and find that nowhere else does it exist on the internet except here. No science paper has published a paper that includes it, no blog (except this one) has mentioned it. It exists solely as a made-up phrase of your own construction. The same can be said for "tropospheric convective thermal exchange."

If I were to interpret your meaning with the phrase "insulative gas exchange in tropospheric convective thermal exchange", I would translate it as "greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere mix with the rest of the atmosphere." This is an axiom, and a meaningless statement as an argument against human-induced climate change. NOAA's carbon tracker does a very good job showing how carbon dioxide (by far the largest volume greenhouse gas in the atmosphere) mixes within the different layers of the atmosphere. So yes, as a reductive rebuttal to your made-up phrase, greenhouse gasses do indeed mix in the lower atmosphere.

A statistical analysis of the data would render information.


Then actually do one. Don't post links. Just show us you even know how to do a basic analysis of variance using the correct formulas on a simple dataset, then we can talk.


Your demand for statistical analysis I figure at this point was supposed to be a statement that if empirical data were used you would reject it in favor of subjective statistical information.


No. Science and statistical testing are not about falsification. This is a common misconception. Anyone with any training in science and statical analysis should know this. I'm sorry if you do not. To quote Schuyler W. Huck from "Statisical Misconceptions":

"Those who think that null hypotheses can be proven false have mixed together, inappropriately, the logic of falsification and the statistical procedure of hypothesis testing... nothing is truly falsified when a null hypothesis is rejected. The observation of one black swan is sufficient to falsify the claim that all swans are white. That single black swan proves that the claim is wrong. It is dangerous to accept or promote the belief that a rejected (null hypothesis) has been proven wrong because sample data never constitute a black swan."


Although it is common for naive people to believe they sound sophisticated using words and phrases only partially understood if at all.


And again, you call me naive. You don't even know me, yet you jump right in and attack my person with pejoratives. I'm sorry if you and your friends who do not understand science feel as if I am a threat to your way of thinking, but that's what science does: It challenges our current way of thinking en-route to a deeper meaning of the universe around us than we would otherwise get.

Here's a thought: When another point-of-view challenges your own way of thinking, don't immediately attack them. Don't degrade them, don't contort their opinion into what you believe to be a fabrication. Try to see it from their point of view, then go and gather all relevant information on the subject -- REAL information (library, university, etc.), not just on the internet -- before passing judgement. Do it for yourself; not to "one-up" your opponent, but for your own personal enrichment. I'll bet you come away with a better understanding of the subject.

The web addresses above provide information, that if you can overcome your emotional attachment to the global warming concept.


First of all, each one of those links do not provide the actual dataset for ANY alternative hypothesis, to say nothing of testing such a dataset to the current state of the science. Second, I have no emotional attachment to the reality of human-induced global warming. As I mentioned above, if there's any emotional attachment I have, it's to the hope that it's not real. This is where you and I differ: I know that my hope will never be fulfilled. I have compared and contrasted scientific sources before running the numbers on AGW theory myself, watched the discussions unfold for the past several decades, and concluded with much trepidation that the numbers are correct. As I've mentioned before, the basic physics, chemistry, and mathematics have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that (1) that CO2 increases in the atmosphere have trapped excess solar radiation at the surface of our planet in the form of heat, (2) these CO2 increases are the primary result of human activities via the burning of fossil fuels, and (3) the increase in trapped solar radiation is causing our planet to warm at an accelerated rate leading to faster-than-normal climate changes across the globe. None of these facts are in doubt, and each are backed by substantial peer-reviewed data that has survived countless reviews and raking over the coals by politicians and pundits.

Perhaps another emotion that I also embody is the anger towards people who lie, swindle, deceive, in order to perpetuate the idea that all of the data that climate scientists have worked on and devoted their careers to is somehow wrong, or that human-induced global warming is somehow not happening. However, I temper that anger with the realization and understanding that I have the facts on my side.

You do not.

The empirical data and formula that was used to establish the "tree ring temperature correlation" was destroyed never released.


Ah! A lie! Easily debunked. Here's a mere sample from what's been published, direct from Dr. Mann's webpage at Penn State:

Mann, M.E., Fuentes, J.D., Rutherford, S. Reply to "Tree-Rings and Volcanic Cooling", Nature Geoscience, 5, 837-838, 2012.

Mann, M.E., Fuentes, J.D., Rutherford, S., Underestimation of Volcanic Cooling in Tree-Ring Based Reconstructions of Hemispheric Temperatures, Nature Geoscience, 5, 202-205, 2012.

Zhang, Z., Mann, M.E., Cook, E.R., Alternative methods of proxy-based climate field reconstruction: application to summer drought over the conterminous United States back to AD 1700 from tree-ring data, The Holocene, 14, 502-516, 2004.

D'Arrigo, R.D., Cook, E.R., Mann, M.E., Jacoby, G.C., Tree-ring reconstructions of temperature and sea-level pressure variability associated with the warm-season Arctic Oscillation since AD 1650, Geophysical Research Letters, 30 (11), 1549, doi: 10.1029/2003GL017250, 2003.

Mann, M.E., Hughes, M.K., Tree-Ring Chronologies and Climate Variability, Science, 296, 848, 2002.


This information is still used by "climate alarmists" even thought it can't be checked or duplicated. I believe that the discrepancies were a result of the researchers emotional attachment to the need to be right, this would explain the unduplicatable process easily.


Your jump from "destroyed (or) never released" to "can't be checked or duplicated" shows the hypocrisy of your statements, as well as your own emotional tendency to change the "facts" whenever it suits you. Which one is it? Was the data destroyed? Or was it just never released (as I proved wrong above)? Wait... you just wrote that the data "can't be checked or duplicated"... That means it WAS released, right? For how can it be said that the data can't be checked or duplicated, if it's been attempted? Can anybody actually check for lack of duplication in data that was destroyed or never released?

Do you see the hypocrisy of your statements?

I'm not going to further engage you on the tree ring data, because you've already proven that you cannot hold to the truth, and you move the goalposts whenever it suits you. This is known as "confusing the argument", which is a hallmark of an individual who is attempting to manipulate the argument to plant disinformation.

the second URL posted is a simple information graph that shows the period that had the highest estimated biological support capabilities were periods of time when the global mean temperature was above what is is now. It further shows that it was warmer than now for more time than human history encompasses. In fact it shows the majority of Earth's history was much warmer than any point in human existence.


What does this do to counter the truth of human-induced climate change/anthrophogenic global warming? Yes, it was very warm during the time of dinosaurs. There is no dispute of this in the scientific literature. Yes, there was a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but what is the relevance of that argument? Cannot natural cycles be reproduced or accentuated by human interference? Cannot additional carbon dioxide generated by fossil fuel combustion make the Earth warm again? Cannot the speed and efficiency of dumping gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere in only a few centuries bring about those same conditions in only a fraction of the time it took nature to do the same? Would that not impact life on Earth, which often relies on long timespans to adapt to a new environment?

Please do not feel that I wish to disabuse your notion that you have obtained information on the subject that atmospheric gasses do have an effect on the climate. I do however wish you would disassociate your emotions from the debate. If you can detach yourself emotionally long enough to watch a TEDTALKS video please cut an paste this address and watch. This is an alternative explanation for the "greenhouse effect".


As mentioned above, my emotions are beside the point. Your attack on me is a correlative fallacy of logic, extending from the proposition that because I am an emotional person (which I do not dispute, because I am human), that my entire argument is suspect. From this, your entire argument here is based on discredit. Because I do not want to tread where others have explained so very well, I offer this quote from Dr. Ricky Rood here at Weather Underground:

Your "... (form of argument relies) on discredit, and it relies on discrediting thousands of scientists, writing many thousands of papers, over many years, from many countries. It is fundamentally conspiratorial, and not only is it conspiratorial it requires that many years before climate change emerged as an important environmental problem, that the foundation for the conspiracy was being laid down. To me, this lacks any credibility in reason, but if conspiratorial beliefs are held, then it is virtually impossible to provide convincing counterarguments to the person who holds those beliefs. If the form of argument relies on conspiracy, then it is immediately suspect."

Based in this, I dub thee red herring:



Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 859
71. Naga5000
2:48 AM GMT on January 25, 2014
Quoting 70. AGWSpecialist:

Friend. No need to be so upset. If you can't provide a solid, scientific rebuttal to the empiric scientific evidence presented in comment 60, it is okay. The contents of the post including the links will still stand. No problem. But if you can and can prove me wrong, then great. Okay?


If climate is averaged over at least a 30 year period how is it possible to use 8 or 13 or any number less than 30 to try and claim a valid trend? Can you explain this?
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3596
69. Naga5000
2:43 AM GMT on January 25, 2014
Quoting 68. AGWSpecialist:

Exactly. It IS the way the scientific method, stats, and math works. So I'd like to see a rebuttal from you from the contents in post #60. I have seen nothing from you yet. Do you have it in you?


Your so smart, tell me why it would be okay to use 8 or 13 years of data to get a climatological trend (The standard time period is 30 years to define climate) Also explain why it is okay to ignore the energy used to warm to oceans in trying to get an accurate global temperature trend. I'll wait on you to explain the methodology.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3596
67. Naga5000
2:35 AM GMT on January 25, 2014
Quoting 66. AGWSpecialist:

In your opinion, okay. Fine. But I am not interested in your opinion. And either is science. Sure, throw around names, accuse us of cherry picking and posting nonsense. But your job is to explain WHY it is nonsense. Refute it. Go ahead. Just don't say "I don't Like it!!!" and run away.


It's not valid methodology. It's not science. That's not my opinion, that's the way research methodology, statistics, and math works. Man, you are dense.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3596
65. Naga5000
2:32 AM GMT on January 25, 2014
Quoting 64. AGWSpecialist:

Okay. But, you still did not elaborate or even comment about anything in the paragraph below all the links. We'll be waiting...


Cherry picking start points for graphs isn't valid. Looking at only surface temps and ignoring the ocean is not valid. Why do I have to refute anything you dolts post? It's all garbage..you either are maliciously posting it or ignorant. By your attitude, I'm going with #1.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3596
63. The1realist
2:25 AM GMT on January 25, 2014
Quoting 6. Daisyworld:
Good to see you posting again, Angela. Thank you for your contributions.

I did some work several years ago on frost-boil ecosystems just north of the Brooks Range. I remember kayaking up (down) the Sagavanirktok River towards Deadhorse, and setting up camp by a cliff area to look at some mudstone outcroppings for a day. There, on the desolate tundra without anything taller than a 4-foot willow bush for hundreds of miles around, I found the fossilized remains of a birch tree leaf from millions of years prior. It was amazing to be reminded of how dynamic our planet's climate is; and very sobering to realize just how quickly the area I was standing in could be transformed back to conditions where that birch leaf once prospered.


Yes the climate on this planet has been very much warmer before humans I guess the dinosaurs must have been driving SUVs and building factories. Thank goodness the extinction question is answered.
Member Since: January 24, 2014 Posts: 0 Comments: 2
62. JohnLonergan
2:25 AM GMT on January 25, 2014
Quoting 61. Naga5000:
@ #60 What a denialist treasure trove of pure nonsense complete with links to conspiracy blogs. In the future, please don't reference statistics and notrickszone in the same statement. It's insulting.


I just came over here after I saw your post pop p.
Looks like this thread is overrun with anti science maroons.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3452
61. Naga5000
2:21 AM GMT on January 25, 2014
@ #60 What a denialist treasure trove of pure nonsense complete with links to conspiracy blogs. In the future, please don't reference statistics and notrickszone in the same statement. It's insulting.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3596
60. The1realist
2:11 AM GMT on January 25, 2014
Quoting 58. Daisyworld:


Show us the data supporting your conclusion that HUman-induced global warming is false.

No links. No diversions. Just your data.

Warning: If you cannot establish your alternate hypothesis, nor adequately show us that you've done a sufficient literature review, nor correctly applied statistical analysis on your data to support your conclusion, your statement that "man-made global warming theory has been proven false" is without merit and meaningless (aka, you're lying).

So have it. We're all waiting with baited breath.



Daisyworld http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/08/the-s quandering-of-45-trillion-for-an-imaginary-threat- 2456234.html

http://facweb.bhc.edu/academics/science/harwoodr/ GEOG101/Study/Images/Entire_Earth_History_Record.g if

http://cdn1.alexanderhiggins.com/wp-content/uploa ds/2012/08/Correlation-of-global-temperatures-to-C 02-emissions.gif

http://notrickszone.com/2013/09/12/no-warming-lef t-to-deny-global-cooling-takes-over-cet-annual-mea n-temperature-plunges-1c-since-2000/

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/cu rrent.anom.south.jpg

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/0 9/Hoskins-CET-Chart.jpg

Although I seriously disbelieve that you even understand what a statistical analysis of insulative gas exchange in tropospheric convective thermal exchange is let alone how to do one if you could find the correct data sets. A statistical analysis of the data would render information. Your demand for statistical analysis I figure at this point was supposed to be a statement that if empirical data were used you would reject it in favor of subjective statistical information.
Although it is common for naive people to believe they sound sophisticated using words and phrases only partially understood if at all. The web addresses above provide information, that if you can overcome your emotional attachment to the global warming concept. The empirical data and formula that was used to establish the "tree ring temperature correlation" was destroyed never released. This information is still used by "climate alarmists" even thought it can't be checked or duplicated. I believe that the discrepancies were a result of the researchers emotional attachment to the need to be right, this would explain the unduplicatable process easily.
the second URL posted is a simple information graph that shows the period that had the highest estimated biological support capabilities were periods of time when the global mean temperature was above what is is now. It further shows that it was warmer than now for more time than human history encompasses. In fact it shows the majority of Earth's history was much warmer than any point in human existence.
Please do not feel that I wish to disabuse your notion that you have obtained information on the subject that atmospheric gasses do have an effect on the climate. I do however wish you would disassociate your emotions from the debate. If you can detach yourself emotionally long enough to watch a TEDTALKS video please cut an paste this address and watch. This is an alternative explanation for the "greenhouse effect".
Member Since: January 24, 2014 Posts: 0 Comments: 2
59. The1realist
12:06 AM GMT on January 25, 2014
Quoting 52. leftlink:
In the Wunderground discussion of "stratospheric cooling" there is the following excerpt:

"The explanation of this greenhouse gas-caused surface heating and upper air cooling is not simple, but good discussions can be found at Max Planck Institute for Chemistry and realclimate.org for those unafraid of radiative transfer theory. One way to think about the problem is that the amount of infrared heat energy radiated out to space by a planet is roughly equal to the amount of solar energy it receives from the sun."

I am wondering if this explanation is too complicated. Wouldn't a simpler explanation be that when you insulate the floor of your attic, the temperature in your house will go up (if you keep burning as much fuel to heat your house each winter) but the temperature in the attic will go down.


The issue with troposphere warming without warming beyond is the insulation interrupts convection by being a solid barrier, co2 is a gas and is part of the convective currents. Even being an insular gas it still must follow the rules of thermal exchange in thermal convective heat exchange.
Member Since: January 24, 2014 Posts: 0 Comments: 2
58. Daisyworld
1:56 AM GMT on January 10, 2014
Quoting 57. dutchessweather:
I'd say the truth is what is likely missing from any IPCC report! The data are in (30 years since the theory was seriously considered, along with thousands of years of paleo-records), and the man-made global warming theory has been proven false! Of course, now that the fraudsters call it "climate change", anything fits the theory, right?


Show us the data supporting your conclusion that HUman-induced global warming is false.

No links. No diversions. Just your data.

Warning: If you cannot establish your alternate hypothesis, nor adequately show us that you've done a sufficient literature review, nor correctly applied statistical analysis on your data to support your conclusion, your statement that "man-made global warming theory has been proven false" is without merit and meaningless (aka, you're lying).

So have it. We're all waiting with baited breath.

Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 859
57. dutchessweather
11:37 PM GMT on January 06, 2014
I'd say the truth is what is likely missing from any IPCC report! The data are in (30+ years since the theory was seriously considered, along with thousands of years of paleo-records), and the man-made global warming theory has been proven false! Of course, now that the fraudsters call it "climate change", anything fits the theory, right?
Member Since: October 3, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 16
55. logomachon
7:05 PM GMT on December 08, 2013
"To put that in perspective, the earth has already warmed around 1.5°F since 1901".

This is so problematic that it is virtually meaningless. Why pick 1901 as the baseline? Has "the earth warmed" in 112 years, or do we happen to be in one of the recurring, intermittent warmer periods that have occurred in that time? How many times in the past centuries has it been this warm?
Is the permafrost really affected by what warming has occurred? Most of the warming captured in that single figure of increase in average global temperature is the result of warming of the coldest temperatures and longer warm seasons. The permafrost won't have as far to warm, but it won't warm any faster, which can have an effect going through the solid-liquid transition.
Climate models are defective in other ways. They don't account for increased infra-red radiation into space as surface temperature increases. They also haven't predicted the current 12-year halt in warming as CO2 levels have continued to increase.
Member Since: August 30, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 0
54. eutrophicated1
9:00 PM GMT on November 19, 2013
Thank you, Angela, for keeping the IPCC honest. Can there be any doubt of how big a role we allow politics to play in this issue? Nationally, and internationally, we must continue to speak to the scientific facts; we must keep as much of the painful truth as is possible in front of our eyes and ears.

It would also be helpful to continue to point to the ways we already have in hand that we can use to stop cooking our planet. I have every confidence that together, we can gain the will to turn our destructive activities to constructive ends. We must implement non-carbon based energy means of power generation in all areas of our civilization.

If necessary, and I believe it will be necessary, we must as individual households across the world set about turning to non-carbon based sources of energy.
We have the means to save ourselves, one family unit at a time.
Member Since: March 30, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 0
53. whitewabit (Mod)
6:20 PM GMT on November 14, 2013
A
Summary for Policymakers
Third Symposium on the Ocean in a High-CO2 World
Member Since: August 17, 2005 Posts: 365 Comments: 31739
52. leftlink
2:02 AM GMT on November 11, 2013
In the Wunderground discussion of "stratospheric cooling" there is the following excerpt:

"The explanation of this greenhouse gas-caused surface heating and upper air cooling is not simple, but good discussions can be found at Max Planck Institute for Chemistry and realclimate.org for those unafraid of radiative transfer theory. One way to think about the problem is that the amount of infrared heat energy radiated out to space by a planet is roughly equal to the amount of solar energy it receives from the sun."

I am wondering if this explanation is too complicated. Wouldn't a simpler explanation be that when you insulate the floor of your attic, the temperature in your house will go up (if you keep burning as much fuel to heat your house each winter) but the temperature in the attic will go down.
Member Since: December 28, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 134
51. DaveFive
8:07 AM GMT on November 10, 2013
Hello Angelafritz, I'm Dave from San Jose, CA. Your blog about greenhouse gases and permafrost melting is factbase and educational. Finally, something will be done about this by the government. Pollution will be cut by 17%. So hopefully the permafrost will stop melting. The weather in my location of the big city of San Jose, CA. has been dry since April, eventhough that the north area of the city have received some measurable precipitation.
Member Since: August 16, 2013 Posts: 9 Comments: 311
50. PensacolaDoug
10:34 AM GMT on October 31, 2013
I learned something about soil in the northern latitudes here. Interesting.
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 591
49. FLwolverine
9:22 PM GMT on October 30, 2013
This was posted on Dr Rood's blog. It's also relevant here.

Quoting 1146. cyclonebuster:
Thawing Permafrost: The Speed of Coastal Erosion in Eastern Siberia Has Nearly Doubled

Oct. 29, 2013 The high cliffs of Eastern Siberia -- which mainly consist of permafrost -- continue to erode at an ever quickening pace. This is the conclusion which scientists of the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research have reached after their evaluation of data and aerial photographs of the coastal regions for the last 40 years. According to the researchers, the reasons for this increasing erosion are rising summer temperatures in the Russian permafrost regions as well the retreat of the Arctic sea ice. This coastal protection recedes more and more on an annual basis. As a result, waves undermine the shores. At the same time, the land surface begins to sink. The small island of Muostakh east of the Lena Delta is especially affected by these changes. Experts fear that it might even disappear altogether should the loss of land continue.

The interconnectedness is clear and unambiguous: The warmer the east Siberian permafrost regions become, the quicker the coast erodes. "If the average temperature rises by 1 degree Celsius in the summer, erosion accelerates by 1.2 metres annually," says AWI geographer Frank G%uFFFDnther, who investigates the causes of the coastal breakdown in Eastern Siberia together with German and Russian colleagues, and who has published his findings in two scientific articles.

In these studies, he and his team evaluated high resolution air and satellite photos from 1951 to 2012 as well as measurements of the past four years. In addition, the researchers surveyed four coastal sections along the Laptev Sea (see map) and on the island of Muostakh.

One example of the changes documented in their research are the warming summers. While the temperatures during the period of investigation exceeded zero degrees Celsius on an average of 110 days per year, the scientists counted a total of 127 days in the years 2010 and 2011. The following year, 2012, the number of days with temperatures above freezing increased to 134.

This increase in temperature is not without consequences. Whereas a thick layer of sea ice used to protect the frozen soil almost all year round, it now recedes in this part of the Arctic for increasing periods of time during the summer months. The number of summer days on which the sea ice in the southern Laptew Sea vanishes completely grows steadily. "During the past two decades, there were, on average, fewer than 80 ice-free days in this region per year. During the past three years, however, we counted 96 ice-free days on average. Thus, the waves can nibble at the permafrost coasts for approximately two more weeks each year," explains AWI permafrost researcher Paul Overduin.

The waves dig deep recesses into the base of the high coasts. The result: The undermined slopes break off bit by bit. During the past 40 years, the coastal areas surveyed retreated on average 2.2 meters per year. "During the past four years, this value has increased at least 1.6 times, in certain instances up to 2.4 times to reach 5.3 meters per year," says Paul Overduin.

For the little island of Muostakh east of the harbour town of Tiksi, this may well mean extinction. "In fewer than one hundred years, the island will break up into several sections, and then it will disappear quickly," predicts Frank G%uFFFDnther. On its northern tip, the island shows fluctuating annual erosion rates between 10 and 20 meters per year, and it has already lost 24 per cent of its area in the past 60 years. Because the subsurface here consists of more than 80 per cent of ice that has formed within the soil, and since the ice is gradually melting, the island's surface collapses as well. The scientists speak of a 34 per cent loss in volume. "If one bears in mind that it took tens of thousands of years for the island to form through sedimentary deposition, then its disintegration is proceeding at a very rapid pace," says Paul Overduin.

In addition, long-term studies conducted by AWI scientists show the impact of coastal erosion for the sea as well. Depending on the kind of erosion and the particular structure of the coast, between 88 and 800 tons of plant-, animal, and microorganism-based carbon are currently washed into the sea per year and kilometer of coastline -- these are materials that had been sealed in the permafrost thus far. With regard to the Laptev Sea, this translates into approximately one eighth of the organic carbon that is transported by the Lena River annually -- and the Lena is a river that encompasses a drainage basin the size of the Mediterranean. "We can, however, assume larger quantities if this accelerating coastal erosion we currently observe continues," the scientists write in their subject-specific paper for the Biogeosciences special volume: "Interactions between the land and sea in the Lena Delta Region." Once in the water, carbon may turn into carbon dioxide and, as a result, contribute to the acidification of the oceans: the composition of our oceans becomes less alkaline.






Link
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2403
48. Daisyworld
7:37 AM GMT on October 27, 2013
Quoting 47. RichardBLong:
[Sources]
"Text pasted from source"


Quoting: [your article]:
%u201CThis effect, called the permafrost carbon feedback, is not present in the global climate change models used to estimate how warm the earth could get over the next century.%u201D
%u201CScientists predict that greenhouse gas from permafrost alone could lead to an additional 1.5�F of warming by the end of this century, on top of our day-to-day human emissions.%u201D

Quoting [Final Draft (7 June 2013), Chapter 6, page 6-76, IPCC WGI Fifth Assessment Report] %u201CModeling studies of permafrost dynamics and greenhouse gas emissions indicate a relatively slow positive feedback, on time scales of hundreds of years. Until the year 2100, up to 200 PgC could be released as carbon dioxide, and up to five Pg as methane. Given methane's stronger greenhouse warming potential, that corresponds to a further 100 PgC of equivalent carbon dioxide released until the year 2100. These amounts are similar in magnitude to other biogeochemical feedbacks, e.g., the additional carbon dioxide released by the global warming of terrestrial soils.%u201D





Quoting: [Final Draft (7 June 2013,) page 4 of 5, Chapter 4, IPCC WGI Fifth Assessment Report]:
%u201CIn many regions, the depth and extent of seasonally frozen ground has changed in recent decades (high confidence). In these areas, active layer thicknesses increased since the 1990s (medium confidence), although the magnitude of the increase varied from a few centimeters to tens of centimeters.%u201D


Quoting [S. Morris Engel, "Fallacies and Pitfalls of Language: The Language Trap" (Dover, 1994), pp. 27-30; from The Fallacy Files.]
"To quote out of context is to remove a passage from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its meaning. The context in which a passage occurs always contributes to its meaning, and the shorter the passage the larger the contribution..."
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 859
47. RichardBLong
6:15 AM GMT on October 27, 2013
[Sources]
"Text pasted from source"


Quoting: [your article]:
%u201CThis effect, called the permafrost carbon feedback, is not present in the global climate change models used to estimate how warm the earth could get over the next century.%u201D
%u201CScientists predict that greenhouse gas from permafrost alone could lead to an additional 1.5F of warming by the end of this century, on top of our day-to-day human emissions.%u201D

Quoting [Final Draft (7 June 2013), Chapter 6, page 6-76, IPCC WGI Fifth Assessment Report] %u201CModeling studies of permafrost dynamics and greenhouse gas emissions indicate a relatively slow positive feedback, on time scales of hundreds of years. Until the year 2100, up to 200 PgC could be released as carbon dioxide, and up to five Pg as methane. Given methane's stronger greenhouse warming potential, that corresponds to a further 100 PgC of equivalent carbon dioxide released until the year 2100. These amounts are similar in magnitude to other biogeochemical feedbacks, e.g., the additional carbon dioxide released by the global warming of terrestrial soils.%u201D





Quoting: [Final Draft (7 June 2013,) page 4 of 5, Chapter 4, IPCC WGI Fifth Assessment Report]:
%u201CIn many regions, the depth and extent of seasonally frozen ground has changed in recent decades (high confidence). In these areas, active layer thicknesses increased since the 1990s (medium confidence), although the magnitude of the increase varied from a few centimeters to tens of centimeters.%u201D









Member Since: July 25, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 5
46. Daisyworld
4:20 AM GMT on October 11, 2013
Quoting 44. Xulonn:
Thanks for persevering and taking the time to demolish the b.s. of the denialist industry hit squad, Daisyworld. Well done! That was an excellent, measured, but powerful rebuttal that is as solid as a rock, and restrained in avoiding actual ad hominem attacks.

On another note, I wasn't aware that you were a soil scientist. Angela's post - written for laypersons - addresses some of the AGW/CC issues related to permafrost and soil, which are a very important component in our rapidly changing high latitude regions. Most people, even those with science degrees, have no clue about the world of soil formation and soil science. The unsuitability of most of these high latitude soils for crops like those grown in the temperate region prairie soils is an unknown factor to most people. (Of course, the insanely fertile, very young volcanic soils here on the slopes of Volcan Baru in Western Panama - soils that support the most amazing and prolific array of rain forest plant life - are another story.)

I attended U.C. Berkeley in the mid 1970's and earned a B.S. degree in Conservation of Natural Resources. I was was honored to have a couple of Hans Jenny's former grad students as leaders on a field trip to the Pygmy Forest on the ancient marine terraces at Jughandle State Reserve in Mendocino County on the Northern California coast. This small, very unique ecosystem was a big part of Dr. Jenny's inspiration and research on soil formation, dynamics, and evolution, and his masterful synthesis of modern soil science, based on "The Five Factors of Soil Formation." The field trip was part of an upper division Forestry Department course on Biomes and Subsystems taught by Arnold Schultz, another great Berkeley professor and natural sciences innovator.




Thanks Xulonn. I'm actually not a soil scientist, but my field is an interdisciplinary science that requires at least a baseline understanding of soil science. In truth, anyone with any ecology or natural resources training today also have a decent background in soil science; at least enough for them to understand the active layers. I'm sure we can all thank Hans Jenny for that.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 859
45. yoboi
3:19 AM GMT on October 10, 2013
Quoting 44. Xulonn:
Thanks for persevering and taking the time to demolish the b.s. of the denialist industry hit squad, Daisyworld. Well done! That was an excellent, measured, but powerful rebuttal that is as solid as a rock, and restrained in avoiding actual ad hominem attacks.

On another note, I wasn't aware that you were a soil scientist. Angela's post - written for laypersons - addresses some of the AGW/CC issues related to permafrost and soil, which are a very important component in our rapidly changing high latitude regions. Most people, even those with science degrees, have no clue about the world of soil formation and soil science. The unsuitability of most of these high latitude soils for crops like those grown in the temperate region prairie soils is an unknown factor to most people. (Of course, the insanely fertile, very young volcanic soils here on the slopes of Volcan Baru in Western Panama - soils that support the most amazing and prolific array of rain forest plant life - are another story.)

I attended U.C. Berkeley in the mid 1970's and earned a B.S. degree in Conservation of Natural Resources. I was was honored to have a couple of Hans Jenny's former grad students as leaders on a field trip to the Pygmy Forest on the ancient marine terraces at Jughandle State Reserve in Mendocino County on the Northern California coast. This small, very unique ecosystem was a big part of Dr. Jenny's inspiration and research on soil formation, dynamics, and evolution, and his masterful synthesis of modern soil science. The field trip was part of an upper division Forestry Department course on Biomes and Subsystems taught by Arnold Schultz, another great Berkeley professor and natural sciences innovator.





TBS....XTEC
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2386
44. Xulonn
3:13 AM GMT on October 10, 2013
Quoting 39. Daisyworld:
Bravo. I congratulate you. I sincerely do. That comment must have taken quite a while to write. Since you spent so much time writing it, I'll respond in kind. However, since you've managed to severely distract from the main premise of Angela's blog, I do not take pleasure in engaging with your rhetoric, as I view it as nothing but a diversionary tactic. Nevertheless it warrants a rebuttal:Expertly authored, I must say. This is a full-blown, Manufactured Doubt industry attack tactic on my questioning of your motives. It's a very old misinformation tactic...
Thanks for persevering and taking the time to demolish the b.s. of the denialist industry hit squad, Daisyworld. Well done! That was an excellent, measured, but powerful rebuttal that is as solid as a rock, and restrained in avoiding actual ad hominem attacks.

On another note, I wasn't aware that you were a soil scientist. Angela's post - written for laypersons - addresses some of the AGW/CC issues related to permafrost and soil, which are a very important component in our rapidly changing high latitude regions. Most people, even those with science degrees, have no clue about the world of soil formation and soil science. The unsuitability of most of these high latitude soils for crops like those grown in the temperate region prairie soils is an unknown factor to most people. (Of course, the insanely fertile, very young volcanic soils here on the slopes of Volcan Baru in Western Panama - soils that support the most amazing and prolific array of rain forest plant life - are another story.)

I attended U.C. Berkeley in the mid 1970's and earned a B.S. degree in Conservation of Natural Resources. I was was honored to have a couple of Hans Jenny's former grad students as leaders on a field trip to the Pygmy Forest on the ancient marine terraces at Jughandle State Reserve in Mendocino County on the Northern California coast. This small, very unique ecosystem was a big part of Dr. Jenny's inspiration and research on soil formation, dynamics, and evolution, and his masterful synthesis of modern soil science, based on "The Five Factors of Soil Formation." The field trip was part of an upper division Forestry Department course on Biomes and Subsystems taught by Arnold Schultz, another great Berkeley professor and natural sciences innovator.


Calisphere on Dr. Hans Jenny::
After returning to Missouri for a final stint, he joined the faculty at Berkeley in 1936 as Associate Professor of soil chemistry and morphology. He was promoted to Professor in 1940, and served as chair of his department in 1943-49. Following his retirement, he was awarded an honorary LL.D. degree from Berkeley in 1967 for distinguished achievements, recorded in more than 120 publications, that %u201Cushered in a new era of research into the origin and distribution of soils on the earth's surface.%u201D

International recognition came to Hans after the publication, in 1941, of Factors of Soil Formation, a book that has spawned two generations of worldwide scholarship, and whose basic paradigm has been diffused so widely that today it forms part of the school science curriculum everywhere. In this book, he brought the diverse ideas of earlier pedologists (including his great predecessor at Berkeley, Eugene W. Hilgard) to fruition by a brilliant synthesis of field studies with the abstract formalism of physical chemistry. He thereby set down the generic mathematical relationship that connects the observed properties of soil with the independent factors that determine them: climate, organismal pool, topography, parent material and time. This systematic unification of the driving mechanisms for soil formation has had an impact on the resource sciences no less stunning than did the seminal notions of Darwin and Lyell a century before. Its organizing principle is sufficiently powerful that it was extended by others to encompass the study of terrestrial ecosystems a decade later. The Jenny equation has come to have life of its own as the prototypical systems approach to understanding the patterns of diversity and stability in communities that are part of the continental biosphere.

Soon after his arrival at Berkeley, Hans was fascinated to learn of the Pygmy Forest, a remarkable community of ericaceous and coniferous plant species whose stunted growth and grotesquely twisted morphology reveal a long and tortured struggle for survival on some ancient marine terraces in Mendocino County. The Pygmy Forest became an ecological Rosetta Stone for Hans, and he dedicated much of his post-retirement life to deciphering its relationship to his five factors of soil formation, work that he continued until just months before his death. His intellectual obsession with the Pygmy Forest also led Hans to a renewed perception of the uniqueness and fragility of soil ecosystems.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1489
43. indianrivguy
9:17 PM GMT on October 09, 2013
Member Since: September 23, 2006 Posts: 1 Comments: 2585
42. ColoradoBob1
4:17 PM GMT on October 09, 2013
“We have entered a new ecological state,” says Smol .............................

The study says the change is “unprecedented in the past approximately 1500 years,” based on analysis of sediments in the region.

Smol says there plenty of other signs of the remarkable shift underway in the region, including the fish kills caused by heat stress, dropping water levels, and three weeks less ice cover on Hudson Bay than there was prior to 1995.

“This is unprecedented,” Smol says of the changes. “We are entering new ecological states and we are not really prepared.”

.......................


Link
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 2723
41. Pipejazz
2:34 PM GMT on October 09, 2013
Quoting 5. Some1Has2BtheRookie:As I have said before, Angela, it is up to your generation to wrest control away from the older generation if your generation wishes to have a say in what climate it will inherit. A strong and united voice now by your generation is required to make any difference at all.



This needs to be shared in Dr. Masters blog daily. You're no rookie.
Member Since: September 2, 2008 Posts: 1 Comments: 182
40. Neapolitan
2:26 PM GMT on October 09, 2013
Quoting 39. Daisyworld:
In summary, your words have shown that you:

1. Discredit your opponent
2. Inject misinformation
3. Accuse others
4. Deflect the argument
5. Attack the science
6. Establish yourself as a (false) authority
7. Amplify your message.

These are your tactics. They define your motives. They explain why you are here...
I hesitate to tell you this, CamKatBSL, but I do believe that's game, set, and match. Now, I see that Singer, Watts, and Monckton are warming up over on the next court while they look for an equal doubles partner. Am I correct in assuming you'll be rejoining them back over there?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13597
39. Daisyworld
4:59 AM GMT on October 05, 2013
Quoting 37. CamKatBSL:[...]
Bravo. I congratulate you. I sincerely do. That comment must have taken quite a while to write. Since you spent so much time writing it, I'll respond in kind. However, since you've managed to severely distract from the main premise of Angela's blog, I do not take pleasure in engaging with your rhetoric, as I view it as nothing but a diversionary tactic. Nevertheless it warrants a rebuttal:
Thanks so much for schooling me in rhetoric. As an expert in fallacious arguments you should know that your attack is a non sequitur as you attempt to assign motives to me based your personal inference rather than citing any premise stated in my post. You admit as much when you state "... And now you feign ad hominem instead of engaging in civil conversation, thus igniting yet another fabricated controversy. This lends credence to the suggestion that you're commenting in this forum to distract from the main subject of the blog entry...". So, what do you call it when you attribute sinister motives where none exist? You're the fallacious argument expert, you tell me.
Expertly authored, I must say. This is a full-blown, Manufactured Doubt industry attack tactic on my questioning of your motives. It's a very old misinformation tactic used to discredit one's opponent, and often used by the popular media organization, Fox News. According to research, you are engaging in what's known as "Projection" or "Flipping", which is basically accusing your opponent of using the same underhanded tactics that you're using against them.

You see, I have only suggested what your motives are here, which is based on your original comment that (1) took issue with a minuscule and wholly unassuming portion of Angela's post ("acts like a massive cryogenic chamber"), then in a fallacy of quoting out of context, used that cherry-picked piece of text to (2) call into question her scientific integrity and skills as an atmospheric scientist by writing, "it seems to me that an atmospheric scientists should know this." This known as caricaturing your opponent so they are easier to attack, and it is a logical fallacy that falls under the straw man attack, also known as "the fallacy of extension." This line of reasoning about your motives is not in doubt.

At the very best, you are picking a scab just so you can complain that it hurts; at the very worst you establishing a red herring which was contrived by YOU just so you can initiate an attack on Angela.

As far as accusing me of "non-sequitor" reasoning, which suggests my conclusion supposedly does not follow from its premise: As I proved above, you are wrong. All I have done is spell out that you have attacked Angela using tactics from the Manufactured Doubt industry, and since there's no way to affirmatively prove that you are or aren't from that industry, that is where my logic stands firm, and yours falls down, as I have gone no further than point out your tactics. YOU took it to the next level based on assumption and emotional disdain. Now who's appealing to emotion and not reason? That would be YOU.

I've got nothing to hide here. For the record, I'm a scientist and an engineer and I'm keenly interested in climate science. My personal opinion is that there is plenty of good observational evidence to support the premise that the planet is warming (just how much is debatable but the trend is clearly there). On the other hand, I think the evidence to support the notion that man is the primary cause of this warming is less strong. While humans may be contributing to this trend, I have strong doubts that this is the end of the story. I think there are other long term trends at work. That's my opinion based on my reading of the science. I'm not denying anything. I'm just not convinced.
And now we see how you inject your misinformed opinion, and make it appear as if it is more factual than it really is because you declared yourself as "a scientist and an engineer." "For the record", this is where your logic fails yet again, as does your understanding of climate science in general: The fingerprint of humans on the rising CO2 is very clear, and it's 50-100 times that of natural background volcanic origin. The evidence is:

(1) Measurements of the CO2 output from both volcanoes and fossil fuel burning show that fossil fuel burning far exceeds that of present-day volcanoes. (Link)

(2) The increase in atmospheric CO2 is proportional to a decrease in atmospheric O2, which shows that the CO2 is being created from combustion. (Link)

(3) The carbon isotope signature of the CO2 shows an increase in 12C, which comes from living organisms. There's NO relevant increase in 13C, which comes from melting rocks (volcanoes), and NO increase in 14C, which comes from recently dead living organisms. Therefore, the carbon in CO2 is coming from once living organisms that have been dead for a very long time . . . aka fossil fuels. (Link)

Debate and pull this apart as you like. Climate change denialists try to do it all the time, but their arguments never hold up, and never paints them in a better light. Point in fact, they tend to start leaning toward conspiracy theories eventually, but that's a different debate altogether.

(You may want to quote the previous statements for your next post where you choose one of your fallacious constructs to paint me as a drooling idiot because I don't strictly adhere to the orthodoxy that climate science is settled and that man is sole culprit. Go ahead and have at it.)
Absolutely. There are so many logical fallacies here, I have difficulty in deciding which to point out. Again, we see projection and flipping by accusing me of slinging around "fallacious constructs", but I think I'll point at where you accuse me of painting you as a "drooling idiot because (you) don't strictly adhere to the orthodoxy (of) climate science." First: I never said that, and you know it. That's called putting words in someone else's mouth. Some might call it lying. Second: If you truly feel this way, it is because you are getting angry at the notion that I've called you out on your misinformation tactics. Again, who's appealing to emotion and not reason? Again, that would be YOU.

Yes, as I outline above, the science is clear that HUmans are the sole culprit for the rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere, which is trapping the sun's heat at the surface of our planet. (Incidentally, I would appreciate it if you included women along with men when you try to describe civilization as a whole -- just to be accurate with words.) Overall, the number of quality, peer-reviewed studies proving this far exceeds by several orders of magnitude those that still remain uncertain about the subject. If you wish to side on that minuscule portion, then have at it, but you would be part of an ineffectual minority, and continue to be proven wrong at every turn.

The fact is, anybody who claims that any science is settled is no scientist at all. Such an individuals are better described as politicians. Many theories have explained our observations of nature extraordinarily well only to be later found inaccurate or incomplete. Newton's laws where a stunning breakthrough yet Einstein later created an improved construct that described physical phenomena with even greater precision. Scientists are now working on a variety of theories that will improve upon and unify the work performed by Einstein. Do we dismissively refer to string theorists as "Einstein Deniers"?
More logical fallacies. Highest among them being deflection: Taking the debate in a weird but predictable direction to avoid accountability. If you want to take a trip through historical science that was later found inaccurate, incomplete, or needing improvement, I'd suggest looking at Lamarckian evolution or Charles Wilber's theory of climatology, as they are better contrasts to modern climate science.

If the science is good, it will stand the test of time on its own merits. A sound argument supported by observational evidence doesn't need self-appointed thought police to attack anyone who expresses the slightest doubt. It needs people to attack it so it becomes stronger.
Finally! You admit that you're on the attack here. I'm glad that you cleared that up. It's so much easier when you explain what your motive is here in this blog, and now we all know: Attack the climate science.

Yes, science WILL stand the test of time based on it's own merits. The premise behind human-induced climate science has withstood more scrutiny and criticism than any other subject I have studied over the years. The basic physics, chemistry, and mathematics have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that:

(1) Carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere have trapped excess solar radiation at the surface of our planet in the form of heat.
(2) These carbon dioxide increases are the primary result of human activities via the burning of fossil fuels.
(3) The increase in trapped solar radiation is causing our planet to warm at an accelerated rate leading to faster-than-normal climate changes across the globe.

None of these facts are in doubt. The science community has long ago accepted these as unequivocal axiom, and moved on. Anyone still "debating" these three facts in their entirety are WAY behind in their understanding of the general science, and for all intensive purposes, do not know what they are talking about. Again, if you choose to be among the portion that does not know what they are talking about, that is your choice.

As to my understanding of cryogenics, I did learn a thing or two during a stint as a propulsion test engineer in NASA's space shuttle main engine program. In case you didn't know, the shuttle main engines where fueled liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen driven by 70,000 horsepower turbo pumps operating at temperatures as low as -423 degrees F. The physics at these cryogenic temperatures can be quite bizarre but "molecular stabilization of materials" is never a term that sprang into my mind to describe what was going on.
Actually, I know plenty about the space program and aeronautical science, and your attempt to establish yourself as an authority on cryogenics is lackluster at best. "Molecular stabilization of materials" is a comment a chemist might make, and if - as an engineer - you cannot see this, then maybe you need to revisit your physical chemistry textbook, assuming you had any training in that field at all.

In truth, I believe this is yet another attempt to discredit others by trying to caricature someone else (yourself) as an authority in a field, and again using the fallacy of extension to suggest that I do not know what I'm talking about (much as you did with Angela). This does nothing more that to deliberately confuse the argument, as you subtly use your self-established "authority" to insist that your own logic is airtight, implying that anyone else who disagrees with you is too fanatical to follow along.

In truth, this is just a climate blog (the comments section even), and your background cannot be truly determined. Regardless, I submit that your supposed background in propulsion engineering has absolutely nothing to do with climate science, and you are using this in an attempt to make yourself sound more plausible than you really are on the subject of climate science. That, in effect, is the REAL non sequitur here.

By the way, I'm not an expert in climate models but I do know more than a little about numerical modeling of natural systems in general and, I am more than capable of understanding the challenges associated with developing and initializing models that will produce results that accurately predict observed data. In short, I feel more than comfortable in forming my own educated opinions to satisfy my personal curiosity.
This is sounding all too familiar. . .

Quoteth aerospace engineer (and climate change denialist/disinformer) Burt Rutan:

"My study is NOT as a climatologist, but from a completely different perspective in which I am an expert . . . For decades, as a professional experimental test engineer, I have analyzed experimental data and watched others massage and present data. . ."

I'll make this one succinct: Just because you supposedly understand one small part of the puzzle, doesn't make you an expert of the whole. It's a correlative fallacy of logic, and yet another distraction.

Unlike you, I'm not trying to convince anyone that my point of view represents immutable fact. You accuse me of being an organ of the so called "manufactured doubt industry". If you are representing the "no doubt whatsoever industry" then tell me where I can sign up. When did doubt become a bad thing? Doubt is an essential part of the scientific process. It's the essence of what drives scientific discovery forward. It seems to me that you wish for me and the rest of us evil doubters just shut up and just accept that your science is perfect. Once upon a time, nobody doubted that the earth was flat. As a result, no one ventured beyond the visible horizon for fear of falling off the edge of the world. What are you really afraid of and why should I accept what you say without question?
Doubt is a bad thing when it's being used to lie to the public. Doubt is a bad thing when it's being used to hide the scientific truth. Doubt is a bad thing when you use it to cloak your lack of scientific premise with claims that you are a champion of science and the scientific process. This is about as disingenuous as it comes. I grow tired of pointing out your seemingly endless fallacies of logic. Let us cut to the chase:
To amplify my original post, words matter in science. There is simply no place for appeals to emotion in science which is why I disdain the use sensational adjectives to describe scientific phenomena. If you would have paid attention to the substance of my original post rather than attributing a sinister motive to it, you might have learned something useful.
And THAT is the whole premise of your attack: To amplify your original message. Believe me, I DID pay attention to the substance of your comments. I saw your accusations, assumptions, and contrivances hiding within the written words of a dishonest yet educated person. I saw your lack of objectivity and your own appeals to emotion; all wrapped up in a verbose, naturalistic fallacy intended to reap discredit on the author of this blog and confuse it's readers: In summary, your words have shown that you:

1. Discredit your opponent
2. Inject misinformation
3. Accuse others
4. Deflect the argument
5. Attack the science
6. Establish yourself as a (false) authority
7. Amplify your message.

These are your tactics. They define your motives. They explain why you are here:
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 859

Viewing: 89 - 39

Page: 1 | 2Blog Index

Top of Page

About angelafritz

Atmospheric Scientist here at Weather Underground, with serious nerd love for tropical cyclones and climate change. Twitter: @WunderAngela

Local Weather

Partly Cloudy
65 °F
Partly Cloudy