You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Global warming LOL (part 3) -Scientist admit they were wrong
- Thread starter John_Wensink
- Start date
I would have found your point more compelling if NASA and science did not tell us that CO2 is a thermostat.
I am quite concerned that oceans release co2 to block out the suns heating energy as we know co2 repels energy back into space in the upper atmosphere. I am also seeing papers which show that as you add more co2 to the lower atmosphere it helps conduct energy into the upper atmosphere.. (this last part does seem more speculative.)
And therefore, if man is responsible for an increase co2 in the atmosphere, man may be causing cooling or preventing more natural wamring in the long run.
So I would prefer... if the agw nutters would just stick to facts and reasonable assumptions rather than polluting science with lies.
It may not be doing us any good to be releasing all this co2 and maybe we should cut a back a bit... without giving the govt new ways to control us and tax us.
I am quite concerned that oceans release co2 to block out the suns heating energy as we know co2 repels energy back into space in the upper atmosphere. I am also seeing papers which show that as you add more co2 to the lower atmosphere it helps conduct energy into the upper atmosphere.. (this last part does seem more speculative.)
And therefore, if man is responsible for an increase co2 in the atmosphere, man may be causing cooling or preventing more natural wamring in the long run.
So I would prefer... if the agw nutters would just stick to facts and reasonable assumptions rather than polluting science with lies.
It may not be doing us any good to be releasing all this co2 and maybe we should cut a back a bit... without giving the govt new ways to control us and tax us.
Quote from Ricter:
If we could just stick to that argument, for the next 30 or 40 years, at least until such time as we could confidently say "warming is over"!
High altitude CO2 may have some "thermostatic" properties (who knows how much hotter Venus would be if it didn't?), but will the new equilibrium reached (assuming we stop adding CO2) be friendly to agriculture?Quote from jem:
I would have found your point more compelling if NASA and science did not tell us that CO2 is a thermostat.
I am quite concerned that oceans release co2 to block out the suns heating energy as we know co2 repels energy back into space in the upper atmosphere. I am also seeing papers which show that as you add more co2 to the lower atmosphere it helps conduct energy into the upper atmosphere.. (this last part does seem more speculative.)
And therefore, if man is responsible for an increase co2 in the atmosphere, man may be causing cooling or preventing more natural wamring in the long run.
So I would prefer... if the agw nutters would just stick to facts and reasonable assumptions rather than polluting science with lies.
It may not be doing us any good to be releasing all this co2 and maybe we should cut a back a bit... without giving the govt new ways to control us and tax us.
Quote from jem:
I would have found your point more compelling if NASA and science did not tell us that CO2 is a thermostat.
I am quite concerned that oceans release co2 to block out the suns heating energy as we know co2 repels energy back into space in the upper atmosphere. I am also seeing papers which show that as you add more co2 to the lower atmosphere it helps conduct energy into the upper atmosphere.. (this last part does seem more speculative.)
And therefore, if man is responsible for an increase co2 in the atmosphere, man may be causing cooling or preventing more natural wamring in the long run.
So I would prefer... if the agw nutters would just stick to facts and reasonable assumptions rather than polluting science with lies.
It may not be doing us any good to be releasing all this co2 and maybe we should cut a back a bit... without giving the govt new ways to control us and tax us.
I find it compelling that tobacco companies say that smoking does not cause cancer. Since smoke kills germs maybe it prevents the common cold. I'm not a doctor, just like you are not climatologist, but still I'm pretty sure smoking is good for you because smoke acts as preservative for the lungs.
fc your quote is preserved for future generations...
fc is what agw nutter super loons turn into when confronted by science and the fact that co2 is a natural thermostat.
in short... fc is the prototype leftist drone... brain filled with slogans, feed him by a shallow education which did not teach critical thinking skills or a desire to stand out and challenge his masters....
compare this with ricter's response.
ricter gets it and after a few quips, incoporates it into his leftist spin.
ricters is a rare leftist with a brain... something typically only found in crony leftists.
fc is what agw nutter super loons turn into when confronted by science and the fact that co2 is a natural thermostat.
in short... fc is the prototype leftist drone... brain filled with slogans, feed him by a shallow education which did not teach critical thinking skills or a desire to stand out and challenge his masters....
compare this with ricter's response.
ricter gets it and after a few quips, incoporates it into his leftist spin.
ricters is a rare leftist with a brain... something typically only found in crony leftists.
Quote from futurecurrents:
I find it compelling that tobacco companies say that smoking does not cause cancer. Since smoke kills germs maybe it prevents the common cold. I'm not a doctor, just like you are not climatologist, but still I'm pretty sure smoking is good for you because smoke acts as preservative for the lungs.
Quote from jem:
fc your quote is preserved for future generations...
fc is what agw nutter super loons turn into when confronted by science and the fact that co2 is a natural thermostat.
in short... fc is the prototype leftist drone... brain filled with slogans, feed him by a shallow education which did not teach critical thinking skills or a desire to stand out and challenge his masters....
compare this with ricter's response.
ricter gets it and after a few quips, incoporates it into his leftist spin.
ricters is a rare leftist with a brain... something typically only found in crony leftists.
So basically you're saying you are smarter than the climatologists and come to a different conclusion than they do. Because they say CO2 will make us hotter. With 97% certainty. And more CO2 will make us hotter still. Like it has been doing.
Grasping at straws. They are poking out of your head.
Quote from jem:
Lets grant that glaciers are melting overall.
Is it the sun?
Is it the tides?
Is it the warming of the ocean?
(underground volanoes?)
Is it CO2?
what science do we have showing this is outside natural variability?
This is one of your most intelligent posts, jem - I hate to say it, but it may be the only one. Stick with this line of reasoning, young man. Forget the global warming is caused by liberals line of reasoning, and we will listen.
By the way, the answer you're going to get to your question is "the ice core data". But personally I think the interpretation of that data is wrong, and Salby has it right. He is going to run head on into the establishment, and it won't be easy for him until someone else, preferably a European, confirms his work. I think that will happen, but it could take a couple years.
Here is a start though...in everyday language that most can follow.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/07/swedish-scientist-replicates-dr-murry.html
It is conceivable that Salby could eventually be awarded the Nobel prize if he is shown to be correct. (Until is work is published and subjected to broad criticism, we have to allow that he may be wrong.) He is definitely a maverick, and apparently a little hard to get along with. That will not serve him well,as the Nobel is very political.
Salby, whatever you may think of his personality, is an accomplished scientist with top notch training and experience. He is no quack, and because of his personality it is unimaginable that he could ever be in the Koch brothers' pocket. Any time you break from conventional thinking in science you'll run into a brick wall that is very hard to penetrate, but ultimately science wins out. It always does.
Multiple lines of evidence make it very clear that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to human emissions.
Murry Salby, a professor at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, has an upcoming paper that attempts to pin the current rise in carbon dioxide on rising temperatures. Having listened to a podcast of a talk Salby gave at the Sydney Institute earlier this week, he demonstrates a remarkably poor understanding of the carbon cycle, and his hypothesis seems to stem from this fundamental misunderstanding.
Salby's carbon cycle confusion
"current CO2 values are 380pmmv"(parts per million by volume)
Not an encouraging start that he cites the atmospheric CO2 concentration as it was in 2005, rather than the 393 parts per million by volume (ppmv) it currently is in 2011. Not a fatal flaw of course, but not encouraging either.
"Net annual emission has an average increase of about 1.5ppmv per year. We're on the right planet. That's the annual average increase you just saw. But it varies between years, dramatically by over 100%. From nearly zero in some years to 3ppmv in others. Net global emission of CO2 changes independently of of the human contribution"
At this point the accentuation and drama in Salby's voice make it sound as though he has stumbled onto something momentous, something no one else has noticed before. On the face of it, it seems preposterous that the army of scientists that have worked on carbon cycling over the years could have missed something so glaringly obvious. No, of course they haven't.
The question & answer session at the end of Salby's talk throws up a few more comments that just reinforce that he has strayed into a field of science which he just simply doesn't understand. Witness:
"I think it's a pitfall that people look at the ice proxy of CO2 and take it literally. It's not atmospheric CO2, and I don't believe it's CO2 that was even in the atmosphere when that piece of snow was layed down"
This is nonsense. Perhaps Professor Salby should have acquainted himself with glaciology research before making such comments, because CO2 from ancient air trapped in the ice cores is precisely what is measured, albeit with some uncertainty in dating some sections.
"CO2 after the turn of the (21st) century continued to increase, in fact if anything slightly faster, but global temperature didn't. If anything it decreased in the first decade of the 21st century. Now I'm confident the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) will come up with an explanation, in fact they've come up with several"
It's here we need to back the truck up a bit. Salby's entire premise is that CO2 in the air directly dependent upon temperature - increase temperature and you increase CO2. Yet here he argues that CO2 can increase without an accompanying increase in temperature. Which contradicts his 'model'. By this time Salby is too focused on 'dissing' the IPCC to notice his own incoherency, and none of the audience picks up on this either.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-Confused-About-The-Carbon-Cycle.html
Murry Salby, a professor at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, has an upcoming paper that attempts to pin the current rise in carbon dioxide on rising temperatures. Having listened to a podcast of a talk Salby gave at the Sydney Institute earlier this week, he demonstrates a remarkably poor understanding of the carbon cycle, and his hypothesis seems to stem from this fundamental misunderstanding.
Salby's carbon cycle confusion
"current CO2 values are 380pmmv"(parts per million by volume)
Not an encouraging start that he cites the atmospheric CO2 concentration as it was in 2005, rather than the 393 parts per million by volume (ppmv) it currently is in 2011. Not a fatal flaw of course, but not encouraging either.
"Net annual emission has an average increase of about 1.5ppmv per year. We're on the right planet. That's the annual average increase you just saw. But it varies between years, dramatically by over 100%. From nearly zero in some years to 3ppmv in others. Net global emission of CO2 changes independently of of the human contribution"
At this point the accentuation and drama in Salby's voice make it sound as though he has stumbled onto something momentous, something no one else has noticed before. On the face of it, it seems preposterous that the army of scientists that have worked on carbon cycling over the years could have missed something so glaringly obvious. No, of course they haven't.
The question & answer session at the end of Salby's talk throws up a few more comments that just reinforce that he has strayed into a field of science which he just simply doesn't understand. Witness:
"I think it's a pitfall that people look at the ice proxy of CO2 and take it literally. It's not atmospheric CO2, and I don't believe it's CO2 that was even in the atmosphere when that piece of snow was layed down"
This is nonsense. Perhaps Professor Salby should have acquainted himself with glaciology research before making such comments, because CO2 from ancient air trapped in the ice cores is precisely what is measured, albeit with some uncertainty in dating some sections.
"CO2 after the turn of the (21st) century continued to increase, in fact if anything slightly faster, but global temperature didn't. If anything it decreased in the first decade of the 21st century. Now I'm confident the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) will come up with an explanation, in fact they've come up with several"
It's here we need to back the truck up a bit. Salby's entire premise is that CO2 in the air directly dependent upon temperature - increase temperature and you increase CO2. Yet here he argues that CO2 can increase without an accompanying increase in temperature. Which contradicts his 'model'. By this time Salby is too focused on 'dissing' the IPCC to notice his own incoherency, and none of the audience picks up on this either.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-Confused-About-The-Carbon-Cycle.html
Quote from futurecurrents:
So basically you're saying you are smarter than the climatologists and come to a different conclusion than they do. Because they say CO2 will make us hotter. With 97% certainty. And more CO2 will make us hotter still. Like it has been doing.
Grasping at straws. They are poking out of your head.
I'm just waiting for the year 2040 when you will be claiming that CO2 is making us colder.... and that we should spend trillions of dollars world-wide to 'solve' this issue.
Quote from futurecurrents:
Multiple lines of evidence make it very clear that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to human emissions.
Murry Salby, a professor at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, has an upcoming paper that attempts to pin the current rise in carbon dioxide on rising temperatures. Having listened to a podcast of a talk Salby gave at the Sydney Institute earlier this week, he demonstrates a remarkably poor understanding of the carbon cycle, and his hypothesis seems to stem from this fundamental misunderstanding.
Salby's carbon cycle confusion
"current CO2 values are 380pmmv"(parts per million by volume)
Not an encouraging start that he cites the atmospheric CO2 concentration as it was in 2005, rather than the 393 parts per million by volume (ppmv) it currently is in 2011. Not a fatal flaw of course, but not encouraging either.
"Net annual emission has an average increase of about 1.5ppmv per year. We're on the right planet. That's the annual average increase you just saw. But it varies between years, dramatically by over 100%. From nearly zero in some years to 3ppmv in others. Net global emission of CO2 changes independently of of the human contribution"
At this point the accentuation and drama in Salby's voice make it sound as though he has stumbled onto something momentous, something no one else has noticed before. On the face of it, it seems preposterous that the army of scientists that have worked on carbon cycling over the years could have missed something so glaringly obvious. No, of course they haven't.
The question & answer session at the end of Salby's talk throws up a few more comments that just reinforce that he has strayed into a field of science which he just simply doesn't understand. Witness:
"I think it's a pitfall that people look at the ice proxy of CO2 and take it literally. It's not atmospheric CO2, and I don't believe it's CO2 that was even in the atmosphere when that piece of snow was layed down"
This is nonsense. Perhaps Professor Salby should have acquainted himself with glaciology research before making such comments, because CO2 from ancient air trapped in the ice cores is precisely what is measured, albeit with some uncertainty in dating some sections.
"CO2 after the turn of the (21st) century continued to increase, in fact if anything slightly faster, but global temperature didn't. If anything it decreased in the first decade of the 21st century. Now I'm confident the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) will come up with an explanation, in fact they've come up with several"
It's here we need to back the truck up a bit. Salby's entire premise is that CO2 in the air directly dependent upon temperature - increase temperature and you increase CO2. Yet here he argues that CO2 can increase without an accompanying increase in temperature. Which contradicts his 'model'. By this time Salby is too focused on 'dissing' the IPCC to notice his own incoherency, and none of the audience picks up on this either.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-Confused-About-The-Carbon-Cycle.html
That could be the positive feed back loop. Increase temperature (source undefined) and you increase CO2. that in turn increases temperature. If that exceeds the buffer capacity of the troposphere we are in trouble!