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

[jem]

Fortunately for us Mr. Pettersson addressed some of this in a follow up with the nutters..



1. The bern model is fatally flawed .
If you understand what Salby found with respect to the el nino / la nina you now know the assumption that anthropogenic emission being the only cause of co2 going up the keeling curve is ridiculous. CO2 is going up at least in part because as the ocean warms it releases CO2.



see...


http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/12/biochemistry-professor-explains-why-man.html


The Bern model has been constructed and calibrated based on the premise that only anthropogenic emissions contributed to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration under Keeling Curve. Blue curve in Figure 1 shows the graph of the model's "impulse response function", ie. the relaxation function that specifies under which the time course a pulse rate of carbon dioxide excess on the model is removed from the atmosphere. The model considers all carbon isotopes as kinetically identical, why blue curve also indicates the model regulations relating to the relaxation process of an excess pulse of C14 emissions.

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.

 

[jem]

I have now read twice the bomb test curve is corrected for the Suess effect.


In other words the C-14 dilution argument Stu made was already accounted for in the equations showing the difference between the bomb test and bern.
It seems Stu's entire dilution argument was made in ignorance.

 

[piezoe]

I was thinking of a different kind of uncertainty due to random or systematic errors in the numbers plugged into equations and hence into climate models. To make this extremely simply, suppose you have y = f(x). If x changes, how much will y change? That's the kind of error analysis I am thinking of, and of course you can have any number of independent variable and the function can be very complex. As long as the function can be differentiated you can do this kind of error analysis using Taylor's series. otherwise you have to use a numerical method. But nevertheless, any time you have a new relationship that uses experimental data, such an error analysis needs to be done.

Has anyone done this for the various climate models? I don't know, but it certainly should be.

 

[jem]

I was thinking of a different kind of uncertainty due to random or systematic errors in the numbers plugged into equations and hence into climate models. To make this extremely simply, suppose you have y = f(x). If x changes, how much will y change? That's the kind of error analysis I am thinking of, and of course you can have any number of independent variable and the function can be very complex. As long as the function can be differentiated you can do this kind of error analysis using Taylor's series. otherwise you have to use a numerical method. But nevertheless, any time you have a new relationship that uses experimental data, such an error analysis needs to be done.

Has anyone done this for the various climate models? I don't know, but it certainly should be.

I believe Petterson did do that towards the end of the link I just presented.

The bern model is made slushy so that you could never really get hard numbers to plug into your equation like yours. Bern is like... y = f1(x) or y equal f2 (x) if the f1 fails. or f3 etc.


When an observational test comes up... for instance c-14 after the nuclear tests... to compare what happens to c-14 in the atmospshere vs their projections.... you see that their model completely fails. but then nutters like Stu pullout the buzzwords and bullshit and speak of 50 years cycles to 500 year cycles and different sinks.

Bern is an inelegant solution that smells like bullshit. Designed to withstand the very tests you are seeking. Bern says you can't tell us man made co2 is not the cause of the increasing keeling curve because every turnover rate is possible. Bern was therefore looking good as long as you could say... CO2 is going up, temps are going up and man made co2 is why CO2 is going up.

With temperatures no long going up... but co2 still going up... all of a sudden the whole agw framework is suspect.
We have learned that warming oceans off gas co2. And that more co2 has not equaled warming for 17 years.

 

[stu]

Ah right... so Patterson speaks of 50 years turnaround cycles forming his own ahem.. model, so he must be a nutter pulling out buzzwords and bullshit . Got it.

Just doubting stuff for no real reason, or just assuming (or is it a hope) that error analysis hasn't been done, is not valid argument.

Nothing you've been able to say about Patterson or Salby has altered the fact that AGW is more to do with the actual carbon cycle itself than either of those two have yet managed to achieve.

 

[piezoe]

Jem, you continue to supply interesting follow up links, for which I thank you.

I hadn't even heard of the Bern Model before this Pettersson business. Now I understand that the Bern model starts with the assumption that all of the observed increase in CO2 is anthro. In other words if there is any othernet source of CO2, the Bern model does not take it into account! The blue line in Pettersson's graphs is the amount of Bomb C-14 that should be present according to the Bern model. But the C-14 bomb spike has disappeared much more rapidly than the Bern Model predicts. And the error is very significant! This is then how Pettersson was able to conclude that the Disappearance of the Bomb spike could not be due primarily to dilution with C-14 depleted anthro CO2. Pettersson used the Bern Model to predict what the bomb spike C-14 decay should look like. But it doesn't look like that at all!!! The Bern Model is clearly wrong. This is conclusive!!!

The turnover rate, i.e., exchange of one molecule of CO2 for another, is far greater than the IPCC and the Bern Model has allowed for. There doesn't seem to be any alternative, the CO2 is going somewhere, and exchanging rather rapidly. "That missing CO2 sink turned out to be the Oceans."

It is also interesting to note that Pettersson has now corrected his own model for Bomb Spike decay to take into account the slightly greater amount of C-14 present in the latter part of the bomb spike decay due to sourcing from the oceans because of increasing global temperatures during the second half of the twentieth century. This is still another piece of very nice work and is again consistent with Salby's findings.

I have to say that Pettersson's follow-up note is very hard to read because of the Google translation.

We must not conclude from any of this that Anthro CO2 emissions are necessarily inconsequential (though they could yet turn out to be) it simply means that the models the IPCC has been relying on are wrong, majorly wrong!

Following CO2 in the atmosphere is turning out to be almost as tricky as figuring out who are the mortgagees inside a CDO.

 

[stu]

I hadn't even heard of the Bern Model before this Pettersson business. Now I understand that the Bern model starts with the assumption that all of the observed increase in CO2 is anthro. In other words if there is any othernet source of CO2, the Bern model does not take it into account!

Seriously?! The Bern model is used for studying the relationship between anthropogenic carbon emissions and atmospheric CO2. It is not the assumption all observed increases in CO2 is anthro.
Try again.

 

[jem]

here is petterson's paper..

it addresses the error stu is making again in the body of the body of the paper.
But it also makes it clear on page 9 in the concluding remarks.



http://daedalearth.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/paper1.pdf

" Designers of the Bern model have chosen the converse approach of presuming that the increasing carbon dioxide levels derive exclusively from anthropogenic emissions. Tuning their model to the Keeling curve, they arrive at a relaxation function which gives a clear picture (fig 2) of how slowly and incompletely emission would have to be removed to be consistent with their basic presumption. The bobmtest curve shows how far this model picture is from reality, i.e. from the empirically observed relaxation process.

The IPCC states (23) that it takes a few centruries to remove the first 80% of a carbon dioxide emission from the atmosphere, which is a description of the predictions of the Bern model. The bombtest curve establishes that 80% of an emisison of carbon dioxide actually is roved within less thatn 25 years.


And stu before you go bullshiting again... read the paper. I will disabuse you of some of the bullshit you pretended was a valid criticism.


http://daedalearth.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/paper1.pdf

Seriously?! The Bern model is used for studying the relationship between anthropogenic carbon emissions and atmospheric CO2. It is not the assumption all observed increases in CO2 is anthro.
Try again.

 

[stu]

Petterson doesn't stand for reasons given. Salby doesn't stand for reasons given. Science behind AGW is not based on two wrongs make a right.

 

[jem]

The "science" of AGW is not based on 2 wrongs it is based on conjecture and speculation... like the Bern model.
The "science" of AGW runs counter to observation.

There is no science other than failed models supporting the idea that man made co2 causes warming. If you had it you would have a nobel prize.

Finally Stu don't you grow tired of misleading so many with your specious statements about science.
You had piezoe fooled for a while there into thinking you were a legitimate and knowledgeable poster.
You really do have talent for making bullshit sound convincing.
You own morality and integrity should force you t to put it to good use, instead of trolling as a professional bullshitter to get post counts up.

Petterson doesn't stand for reasons given. Salby doesn't stand for reasons given. Science behind AGW is not based on two wrongs make a right.