NC State Global Warming Professor accused of "recklessly falsified work"

[jem]

there is a reason those comments are not peer reviewed.
Shooting down strawman they are not what Salby either implied or stated is slime.

1. that first article makes bonehead statements ... that the very first comment came from the author the bonehead was mis characterizing..
so to his credit... the author wrote this...

"Edit: Lars Karlsson has made a couple of comments pointing out that the issues in Gösta Pettersson's article are not as simple as I made them out to be. (See comments below)."

2. the author made a ridiculous strawmen in the main el nino / la nina section... apparently because he did not realize that Salbys work... looked at more granular monthly changes.
that is what happens when you go to print prior to salby even giving his talk. That mistake completely invalidates his critique. its criticism from ignorance.

When you see this --- you know you are reading ignorance, a strawman and a hatchet job at the same time...

"There is simply no reason why the annual fluctuation should match the human contribution. At least Salby doesn't explain why he expects this to be the case. "

Pettersson and Salby are both error prone and two of the least respected climate scientists in the world. So I wonder why piehole refers to them with such reverence.

For a discussion on Pettersson's errors

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/07/co2-is-resident-of-atmosphere.html


And it is truly flabbergasting that piehole would refer to Salby as a topnotch atmospheric scientist when in fact it's quite the opposite.

For a discussion of Salby's stupity

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-Confused-About-The-Carbon-Cycle.html
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/12/murry-salby-galileo-bozo-or-p-t-barnum

It clear that piehole has ZERO interest in actually finding out the truth here and is just another ideologically warped denialist.

 

[jem]

the c 14 dilution issues... leaves out one important factor..
the bern model is just a model.
Stu... speaks as if it is proven science.

There is no proven science in this area.
We do not know how fast carbon is cycling through our atmosphere.
There was a study out a few years ago which showed that earth off gases co2 as well... so there is a strong chance we are not even a closed system.


We should also note if c-14 was just being diluted then there should physically be so much still in the atmosphere.

There was a comment that stated that is absolutely not the case. Its not just diluted it is has left the atmosphere at a faster rate than bern would show.

 

[futurecurrents]

there is a reason those comments are not peer reviewed.
Shooting down strawman they are not what Salby either implied or stated is slime.

1. that first article makes bonehead statements ... that the very first comment came from the author the bonehead was mis characterizing..
so to his credit... the author wrote this...

"Edit: Lars Karlsson has made a couple of comments pointing out that the issues in Gösta Pettersson's article are not as simple as I made them out to be. (See comments below)."

2. the author made a ridiculous strawmen in the main el nino / la nina section... apparently because he did not realize that Salbys work... looked at more granular monthly changes.
that is what happens when you go to print prior to salby even giving his talk. That mistake completely invalidates his critique. its criticism from ignorance.

When you see this --- you know you are reading ignorance, a strawman and a hatchet job at the same time...

"There is simply no reason why the annual fluctuation should match the human contribution. At least Salby doesn't explain why he expects this to be the case. "

Wrong. Do you ever tire of being wrong.

You know that the critiques of them are true, why do you pretend they are not?

 

[Lucrum]

the bern model is just a model.
Stu... speaks as if it is proven science....

Stewie does that a lot I've noticed.

 

[piezoe]

Thank you Stu for the very clear discussion which I won't repeat here. I am not familiar with the fine points of the Bern Model. If it is known for certain what the turnover time for CO2 in the atmosphere is, or just knowing that it is far too long to explain the rapid decrease in C-14 following the Bomb tests by other than dilution with C-14 depleted CO2, then it is almost a trivial matter to correct the C-14 measurements for natural decay and get an underestimate of the CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere. (The actual amount we add would of course be greater because some of what we add is not depleted. And then too, we assume there are not natural sources of C-14 depleted CO2 being added.)

However, my concern is what happens if the Bern model is not correct and the turn over rate for CO2 is much greater than the IPCC is assuming. That wouldn't mean we didn't dump all that CO2 into the air, but a much more rapid turnover than the IPCC is assuming would certainly have important implications. For one, Pettersson would be right and we could use the Bomb C-14 signal to get a very good estimate of CO2 turn over rate. That would be a very useful number! It would also mean, of course, that we could not use C-14 to follow dilution by anthro-fossil-fuel CO2. Knowing what the turnover rate is is important. You and FC seem to be convinced that we know it. I'm not convinced we aren't just guessing.

In any case, not being able to follow anthro CO2 present in the atmosphere using C-14 because of rapid turnover wouldn't mean that we are not increasing the total CO2. Turn over is just that! Its exchange of one CO2 molecule for another. What really becomes important is getting the correct turnover rate in conjunction with the correct difference between total sourcing and sinking.

I don't agree with either you or FC in this respect. It seems to me we are still a long ways off from having those numbers we need with the accuracy and precision we need if we expect our models to be worth anything! I'm not saying those models are wrong, I'm saying there is no indication that we have any idea whether they are right or wrong. I consider them to be practically useless so far.

 

[piezoe]

Salby is an idiot. This is how important anthro CO2 is...

I don't believe Salby has ever said anthro CO2 is not important. He has said that the integrated temperature is the most important factor determining the Atmosphere's CO2 content. He has mainly pointed out where our current climate science is inconsistent with the data. We can't figure out what the effect of our CO2 emissions will be unless we can get the science right. That's where he has made monumental contributions. There is nothing odd about those being resistant to new thinking who formed a viewpoint based on what is now shown to be incorrect work . That's entirely normal. We are creatures of our nature, just like all other organisms. The truth will win out in the end.

 

[stu]

Thank you Stu for the very clear discussion which I won't repeat here. I am not familiar with the fine points of the Bern Model. If it is known for certain what the turnover time for CO2 in the atmosphere is, or just knowing that it is far too long to explain the rapid decrease in C-14 following the Bomb tests by other than dilution with C-14 depleted CO2, then it is almost a trivial matter to correct the C-14 measurements for natural decay and get an underestimate of the CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere. (The actual amount we add would of course be greater because some of what we add is not depleted. And then too, we assume there are not natural sources of C-14 depleted CO2 being added.)

However, my concern is what happens if the Bern model is not correct and the turn over rate for CO2 is much greater than the IPCC is assuming. That wouldn't mean we didn't dump all that CO2 into the air, but a much more rapid turnover than the IPCC is assuming would certainly have important implications. For one, Pettersson would be right and we could use the Bomb C-14 signal to get a very good estimate of CO2 turn over rate. That would be a very useful number! It would also mean, of course, that we could not use C-14 to follow dilution by anthro-fossil-fuel CO2. Knowing what the turnover rate is is important. You and FC seem to be convinced that we know it. I'm not convinced we aren't just guessing.

In any case, not being able to follow anthro CO2 present in the atmosphere using C-14 because of rapid turnover wouldn't mean that we are not increasing the total CO2. Turn over is just that! Its exchange of one CO2 molecule for another. What really becomes important is getting the correct turnover rate in conjunction with the correct difference between total sourcing and sinking.

I don't agree with either you or FC in this respect. It seems to me we are still a long ways off from having those numbers we need with the accuracy and precision we need if we expect our models to be worth anything! I'm not saying those models are wrong, I'm saying there is no indication that we have any idea whether they are right or wrong. I consider them to be practically useless so far.

Thanks also piezo. I'm not sure we can go much further as it appears there is no valid argument being put by skeptic/deniers here. One turnover time of atmosphere as it were, is a false argument in respect to this issue. A distraction based on a wrong assumption. Turnover in the atmosphere say at 50 years, is one phase to do with dispersion, dilution and depletion within the whole of the Carbon Cycle which is around 500 years turnover. It comes across as just another of those ploys from people in denial of AGW. Your point about correcting C14 is not clear. The concentration of naturally occurring C14 in the atmosphere is normally close to constant, therefore the continuous addition of anthropic C14 significantly increases CO2 and dilutes the natural concentration.

What happens if the Bern model is not correct ? In what respect? Are you suggesting such things wrong because Peterson times one turnover when using of bomb data, or are you suggesting the IPCC could be wrong because they use more appropriate turnover, observed and evidenced thro'out the carbon cycle?
It makes no difference if Peterson says it only takes a 5 minute turnover rate, except of course he would then be wrong about that too. The IPCC and Bern Model are about the complete cycle. Peterson is not referring to the complete carbon cycle, but only one element of it. Furthermore in any event it's not clear where you are going with this as a rapid turnover rate of CO2 is not the disappearance of CO2 anyway. It is being exchanged, not vanished!
I suggest you have this ass over tit and the contrary is true, that there are no numbers of any accuracy and precision worth anything which are needed to show AGW models wrong and no proper reason to assume they are. But an interesting chat nevertheless.

 

[Ricter]

Scientists unmask the climate uncertainty monster
PUBLIC RELEASE DATE:
4-Apr-2014

"Scientific uncertainty has been described as a 'monster' that prevents understanding and delays mitigative action in response to climate change. New research by Professor Stephan Lewandowsky of the University of Bristol, and international colleagues, shows that uncertainty should make us more rather than less concerned about climate change.

"In two companion papers, published today in Climatic Change, the researchers investigated the mathematics of uncertainty in the climate system and showed that increased scientific uncertainty necessitates even greater action to mitigate climate change.

"The scientists used an ordinal approach – a range of mathematical methods that address the question: 'What would the consequences be if uncertainty is even greater than we think it is?'

"They show that as uncertainty in the temperature increase expected with a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels rises, so do the economic damages of increased climate change. Greater uncertainty also increases the likelihood of exceeding 'safe' temperature limits and the probability of failing to reach mitigation targets. The authors highlight this with the case of future sea level, as larger uncertainty in sea level rise requires greater precautionary action to manage flood risk.

"Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, Chair in Cognitive Psychology and member of the Cabot Institute at the University of Bristol, said: "We can understand the implications of uncertainty, and in the case of the climate system, it is very clear that greater uncertainty will make things even worse. This means that we can never say that there is too much uncertainty for us to act. If you appeal to uncertainty to make a policy decision the legitimate conclusion is to increase the urgency of mitigation."

"Co-author, Dr James Risbey of Australia's CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, said: "Some point to uncertainty as a way to minimize the climate change problem, when in fact it means that the problem is more likely to be worse than expected in the absence of that uncertainty. This result is robust to a range of assumptions and shows that uncertainty does not excuse inaction."

"These new findings challenge the frequent public misinterpretation of uncertainty as a reason to delay action. Arguing against mitigation by appealing to uncertainty is therefore misplaced: any appeal to uncertainty should provoke a greater, rather than weaker, concern about climate change than in the absence of uncertainty.

###

"The research team included scientists from the University of Bristol, University of Western Australia, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Australian National University, University of New South Wales and the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre.

"The research was funded by a number of research bodies, including the Australian Research Council, the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Climate Systems Science and the Royal Society."

More>>

 

[Arnie]

Scientific uncertainty

So, they do admit that there is uncertainty among scientists regarding AGW. What happened to consensus?

 

[Ricter]

Scientific uncertainty

So, they do admit that there is uncertainty among scientists regarding AGW. What happened to consensus?

"They show that as uncertainty in the temperature increase expected with a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels rises..."