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

[piezoe]

So, for now, it's ok to keep dumping CO2 into the atmosphere?

My point would be that this global warming business is a very difficult matter and we are barely beyond the guessing stage. So, while it is prudent to reduce CO2 emissions, before getting involved in massive efforts at massive costs we should look dispassionately at the data, at the science, at the risks. If you conclude that the present science is telling us that there exists no evidence in support of the Hansen hypothesis and that therefore drastically reducing CO2 emission would likely have little if any affect on climate, then you might want to put your time, effort and money into something that is liable to yield a better return. Possibly that might be population control, general pollution abatement, reduction in thermal pollution, or any number of other actions that might make more sense. I would put general destruction of the biosphere ahead of CO2 emissions in urgency, given our present knowledge.

I would guess that a dispassionate look at the global warming issue would tell us that we don't know very much yet and there isn't any evidence, so far, that any observed climate change is outside normal climate variation.

I think we need to continue the research. As of today Friday, March 28th, I am inclined to think that global arming should be a more urgent concern than global warming.

All we know is that our planets atmosphere is chaotic and complex, CO2 is going up and we are adding a lot to the atmosphere. But CO2 is still well within historical values according to the latest research (Salby), and the temperature is going up and down as usual -- currently leveling out and well within historical records.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Whoa, pie makes some good points. None of us wants to live in a pizza oven. But we conservatives also don't want to wreck our economy just to make an empty gesture.

 

[futurecurrents]

This chart, which is either erroneous in presentation or in interpretation, or possibly both -- it is impossible to tell which from the chart alone -- and to which I have objected for other reasons in previous posts, seems, like a zombie, to be impossible to kill. It keeps popping up no matter how many times its obvious defects are pointed out.

Although this is not its major defect, a simple matter of chart ethics would dictate that total atmospheric CO2 in dimensionless units of ppm not be directly compared to anthropomorphic carbon emissions in gigatons of C per year, and on two completely different scales. This would obfuscate the correct relative relation between man-emitted C and total atmospheric CO2 even if such a relationship was useful, which, sadly, it isn't very. The correct useful, relative relationship still eludes us even though we are in hot pursuit. So it wouldn't have been possible for the originators of this colorful chart to give a useful chart in any case, but they mustn't be let off the hook that easily.

We don't have a very good idea of the relationship we are really interested in as of yet because CO2 is involved in multiple, simultaneous, dynamic, temperature dependent equilibria with monstrously slow forward and backward rate constants. And thus obtaining anything like accurate equilibrium concentrations of man produced CO2 in our atmosphere has so far eluded us. And not only because we are altering the CO2 concentration more rapidly than equilibrium can be reached, but also because true equilibrium can probably only be obtained in a static biosphere, and ours is anything but static!

We know with reasonable accuracy how much CO2 per year we are dumping into the atmosphere and we know with adequate accuracy the average total atmospheric concentration of CO2 globally over some reasonably short time periods. But sadly those numbers alone can't get us to our destination.

There are many natural sources and sinks for CO2 that completely swamp in size man-produced CO2, and for these latter numbers we are still searching. But we know they are large. We think we know them to at least one significant figure and possibly now two. And we get continually better at estimating them.

Because it is impossible to chart without great uncertainty the actual relationships of interest, the present chart was, I suppose, produced as a next best effort-- where "best", of course, is horribly inadequate. [And here I am admittedly being way too kind to the makers of the above chart, because I have allowed that they had something worthwhile charting in the first place!]

Now look very carefully at the above chart, which FC has so kindly provided. Ask yourself this question: "Why does the little hump in atmos.CO2 start forming at ~1775 whereas we see virtually no rise in man-made C until ~1850, seventy-five years later. It does appear that natural CO2 is leading Man-produced C by at least half a century, and we also note that the "little hump" maximum in the atmospheric (brown) CO2 precedes the man-made C (pink-yellow) by a century. That's odd! Somehow Mother Nature's CO2 has gotten very much out of sync with ours. I wonder if Mother Nature's been paying attention. Apparently not, because she started her steep rise in atmospheric CO2 around 1850, whereas we did not get really busy dumping C into the atmosphere until 1950! Mother Nature jumped the gun by a full century!!! What are you up to Mother Nature?

So after the last time I made you look stupid you ignored it and went away for awhile and now you are back with more BS.

You are so full of shit that it's not even funny. Bottom line: there is absolutely nothing wrong with the chart. No thing. Those data points are facts. I do wish they did not try to make 3D. Once you again you say a lot and sound impressive...... but are wrong. The chart (facts) are so obvious that they speak for themselves.

The following are indisputable facts: We have raised CO2 levels 40%. CO2 by the most conservative way of looking at it, it is responsible for 20% of the earth's greenhouse effect. Temps are rising with no other good explanation.

Right off the bat you're batty

Although this is not its major defect, a simple matter of chart ethics would dictate that total atmospheric CO2 in dimensionless units of ppm not be directly compared to anthropomorphic carbon emissions in gigatons of C per year, and on two completely different scales

Total bullshit. There is absolutely no reason to not have different scales for different things. It's done all the time in time comparative charts dipshit. Those data points are true and factual at those times.

From there your post get's even more ridiculous and insubstantial. Who the hell do you think you are kidding?

Of course we know how much we putting into the air and yes the biosphere has a large part...no shit.

Then you babble about how we can't chart it that way, but yes, we can and science does it all the time so again you are wrong and full of shit.

Could CO2 have started up before we started fossil fuel use? Duh, we were burning trees and clearing land way before that.

In short.. you should work for a conservative "think tank" as a professional bullshitter, if you don't already.

 

[futurecurrents]

My point would be that this global warming business is a very difficult matter and we are barely beyond the guessing stage. So, while it is prudent to reduce CO2 emissions, before getting involved in massive efforts at massive costs we should look dispassionately at the data, at the science, at the risks. If you conclude that the present science is telling us that there exists no evidence in support of the Hansen hypothesis and that therefore drastically reducing CO2 emission would likely have little if any affect on climate, then you might want to put your time, effort and money into something that is liable to yield a better return. Possibly that might be population control, general pollution abatement, reduction in thermal pollution, or any number of other actions that might make more sense. I would put general destruction of the biosphere ahead of CO2 emissions in urgency, given our present knowledge.

I would guess that a dispassionate look at the global warming issue would tell us that we don't know very much yet and there isn't any evidence, so far, that any observed climate change is outside normal climate variation.

I think we need to continue the research. As of today Friday, March 28th, I am inclined to think that global arming should be a more urgent concern than global warming.

All we know is that our planets atmosphere is chaotic and complex, CO2 is going up and we are adding a lot to the atmosphere. But CO2 is still well within historical values according to the latest research (Salby), and the temperature is going up and down as usual -- currently leveling out and well within historical records.

If you conclude that the present science is telling us that there exists no evidence in support of the Hansen hypothesis

........

then you would be absurdly wrong based on a mistaken assumption about what the science is telling us..

not need to go further in your post. You are fucking whacked or working for the conservative propaganda machine, or both. You're basically saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

Then you have the balls to state CO2 levels are normal? And temps are going up and as usual? And then quote Salby?

If I had any doubt that you are a professional denier before I have none now. You don't even believe what you say do you?

Any respect I ever had for you in this matter is totally gone now. You're just another liar.

 

[piezoe]

I'm afraid you are making a very common error; assuming correlation means causality, when correlation is only a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one.

You have also assumed, as did Hansen and others early on, that by knowing how much CO2 we dump into the atmosphere, and we do know it, that simple arithmetic would give us the amount of observed CO2 increase that is due to mans emission of CO2.

That, of course, requires a closed system like a Mason jar filled with whiskey and water. We pour in 50 ml of Jack Daniels and observe that the total volume of liquid in the jar is 500 ml. We conclude that the Jar contains 10% by volume of Jack Daniels for which we are responsible. Any other Jack Daniels that's there is not our doing.

But now assume the jar is not a closed system, and that not only do we add Jack Daniels but there is a pipe dumping Jack Daniels into the jar at an unkown rate. Then further assume there is still another pipe removing Jack Daniels at another unknown rate. Assume these extra pipes are connected directly to the Brewery, so that, compared to our one-fifth supply of Jack Daniels, their source of supply is orders of magnitude greater. And there are two more pipes, one dumping water into the jar at an unknown rate and another removing it at an unknown rate but at just the right rates to keep the total volume in the jar at 500ml.

The best we can due now is to sample the liquid in the jar and determine how much Jack Daniels is there at any moment. But we have no idea what fraction of the Jack Daniels that's there at that moment is due to what we put in! And to make matters worse, If we check the concentration of Jack Daniels some while later it will have changed. In this relatively simple dynamic system we can't make much sense of our Jack Daniels measurement without knowing the rates for addition and subtraction of Jack Daniels and elapsed time. But if we could make enough measurements over a long enough time we could eventually figure out exactly how the Jack Daniels concentration would change with time, assuming all the rates of addition and subtraction of substances to the jar were constant and did not change while we were trying to make our measurements.

I have described is extremely simple system, however, compared to the chaos of the Earth's atmosphere and its dynamically changing gas concentrations. One can not make simple calculations to arrive at what fraction of atmospheric CO2 is due to man without making assumptions about the relative size of the temperature dependent rate constants affecting the various dynamic CO2 equilibria. And of course we have to know what the equilibria reactions are to start with. I question the validity of the assumptions being made given our current state of knowledge.

I'd like to suggest that you attempt to read your chart a little more carefully, paying attention to the lining up of points on the time axis with those on the corresponding CO2 ppm and giga tons of carbon axes, respectively. What does the chart say to you about the timing for anthro CO2 emission relative to total atmospheric CO2.

You see, FC, for a long while most scientists just assumed that the climate science that was receiving so much attention was being done correctly. The only ones with serious questions were the experts who from early on had concerns about the data's interpretation, and there was a paucity of good data until recently. But the matter had so quickly become politicized that these expert's protestations were not being heard. Now, finally we have enough highly competent experts, such as Salby, getting involved that the questions are being paid more attention and defects in the early work are at last getting the exposure they deserved all along. It is finally being recognized that the experts raising the questions have nothing to do with the Koch Brothers, the fossil fuel industry, or the Republican Caucus, but are disinterested scientists. Science will, I assure you, win out in the end, but it may take a while.

 

[stu]

But we have no idea what fraction of the Jack Daniels that's there at that moment is what we put in!

Your analogy as it applies in regards to the actual circumstances of CO2 in the atmosphere is completely inappropriate and factually untrue.

Radioactive isotope 14C / radiocarbon is a distinct trace signature for burned fossil fuel. The only burned fossil fuel is anthropic ie caused by humans. The amount of human emitted CO2 in the atmosphere is thereby measured and known scientific fact.

Now, finally we have enough highly competent experts, such as Salby, getting involved that the questions are being paid more attention and defects in the early work are at last getting the exposure they deserved all along. It is finally being recognized that the experts raising the questions have nothing to do with the Koch Brothers, the fossil fuel industry, or the Republican Caucus, but are disinterested scientists.

Unfortunately Salby has not been competent enough to follow proper process on this subject. What Salby has achieved on AGW is to voice a skeptical opinion, from which he has done little else than raise bigger questions about his motives rather than produce any hard science . Unsurprisingly then along with some very obvious basic problems in supporting his reasoning , he has presented no scientific paper for review.

Science will, I assure you, win out in the end, but it may take a while.

That is true. That is what the scientific process will do. And it has won out in some ways so far at least. Regardless of what you choose to believe, AGW is as much of a scientific fact as it gets.

 

[futurecurrents]

I'm afraid you are making a very common error; assuming correlation means causality, when correlation is only a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one.

You have also assumed, as did Hansen and others early on, that by knowing how much CO2 we dump into the atmosphere, and we do know it, that simple arithmetic would give us the amount of observed CO2 increase that is due to mans emission of CO2.

That, of course, requires a closed system like a Mason jar filled with whiskey and water. We pour in 50 ml of Jack Daniels and observe that the total volume of liquid in the jar is 500 ml. We conclude that the Jar contains 10% by volume of Jack Daniels for which we are responsible. Any other Jack Daniels that's there is not our doing.

But now assume the jar is not a closed system, and that not only do we add Jack Daniels but there is a pipe dumping Jack Daniels into the jar at an unkown rate. Then further assume there is still another pipe removing Jack Daniels at another unknown rate. Assume these extra pipes are connected directly to the Brewery, so that, compared to our one-fifth supply of Jack Daniels, their source of supply is orders of magnitude greater. And there are two more pipes, one dumping water into the jar at an unknown rate and another removing it at an unknown rate but at just the right rates to keep the total volume in the jar at 500ml.

The best we can due now is to sample the liquid in the jar and determine how much Jack Daniels is there at any moment. But we have no idea what fraction of the Jack Daniels that's there at that moment is due to what we put in! And to make matters worse, If we check the concentration of Jack Daniels some while later it will have changed. In this relatively simple dynamic system we can't make much sense of our Jack Daniels measurement without knowing the rates for addition and subtraction of Jack Daniels and elapsed time. But if we could make enough measurements over a long enough time we could eventually figure out exactly how the Jack Daniels concentration would change with time, assuming all the rates of addition and subtraction of substances to the jar were constant and did not change while we were trying to make our measurements.

I have described is extremely simple system, however, compared to the chaos of the Earth's atmosphere and its dynamically changing gas concentrations. One can not make simple calculations to arrive at what fraction of atmospheric CO2 is due to man without making assumptions about the relative size of the temperature dependent rate constants affecting the various dynamic CO2 equilibria. And of course we have to know what the equilibria reactions are to start with. I question the validity of the assumptions being made given our current state of knowledge.

I'd like to suggest that you attempt to read your chart a little more carefully, paying attention to the lining up of points on the time axis with those on the corresponding CO2 ppm and giga tons of carbon axes, respectively. What does the chart say to you about the timing for anthro CO2 emission relative to total atmospheric CO2.

You see, FC, for a long while most scientists just assumed that the climate science that was receiving so much attention was being done correctly. The only ones with serious questions were the experts who from early on had concerns about the data's interpretation, and there was a paucity of good data until recently. But the matter had so quickly become politicized that these expert's protestations were not being heard. Now, finally we have enough highly competent experts, such as Salby, getting involved that the questions are being paid more attention and defects in the early work are at last getting the exposure they deserved all along. It is finally being recognized that the experts raising the questions have nothing to do with the Koch Brothers, the fossil fuel industry, or the Republican Caucus, but are disinterested scientists. Science will, I assure you, win out in the end, but it may take a while.

Holy crap, you just drone on and on and on and on and still come up with the wrong answer. Amazing. All while addressing none of my previous destruction of your vacuous "argument".

Man has caused most if not all of the warming over the last forty years. Period. If you don't think that is true you are denying common sense science and empirical observation and the consensus of virtually the entire science community of the world. Man HAS raised CO2 by 40%. CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. Nothing else explains the the temp rise. That's really all you have to know.

Whatever else you are babbling about is just that. Denialist propaganda machine babble and bullshit. Again, if you don't work for some conservative think tank propaganda apparatus, you should.

And again with the Salby! Salby is a fool. You are either an idiot or a liar.


“They laughed at Galileo … but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown” might be appled to Murry Salby, who until May was a Professor of Environmental Science at Australia's Macquarie University (MU). P.T. Barnum might fit better, as Salby has a well-documented history of deception and financial chicanery that got him debarred from Federal funding in the USA.

Galileo? In 2011, he proclaimed a recent rise in CO2 to be natural, not human-caused, which if true, would qualify for Galileo level. This was received with great praise or at least taken seriously at The Sydney Institute (thinktank), Andrew Bolt in Herald Sun, JoNova, Jennifer Marohasy, WUWT (Steve Brown, Benny Peiser/GWPF, Ronald Voisin, Vincent Gray, Anthony Watts), Bishop Hill (Andrew Montford), Climate Depot (Marc Morano), Climate Etc (Judith Curry, who knew Salby at U Colorado), SPPI (Robert Ferguson reblogs Curry), NotrickZone (P. Gosselin), GWPF (reblogs Gosselin), The Hockey Schtick, to name just a few.

Bozo? SkS lists “Murray Salby finds CO2 rise is natural” as #188 in the catalog of bad arguments, following this and this earlier articles. MU Professor Colin Prentice took the time to write “How we know the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic”, but scientists rarely waste much time debunking wrong arguments. They wait until bad ideas get into credible peer-reviewed journals, beyond thinktank talks or even poster sessions.

 

[futurecurrents]

Your analogy as it applies in regards to the actual circumstances of CO2 in the atmosphere is completely inappropriate and factually untrue.

Radioactive isotope 14C / radiocarbon is a distinct trace signature for burned fossil fuel. The only burned fossil fuel is anthropic ie caused by humans. The amount of human emitted CO2 in the atmosphere is thereby measured and known scientific fact.



Unfortunately Salby has not been competent enough to follow proper process on this subject. What Salby has achieved on AGW is to voice a skeptical opinion, from which he has done little else than raise bigger questions about his motives rather than produce any hard science . Unsurprisingly then along with some very obvious basic problems in supporting his reasoning , he has presented no scientific paper for review.


That is true. That is what the scientific process will do. And it has won out in some ways so far at least. Regardless of what you choose to believe, AGW is as much of a scientific fact as it gets.

Well said.

I wonder about piezoe. It doesn't make sense. He has to know he is slinging bullshit.

 

[wjk]

That is true. That is what the scientific process will do. And it has won out in some ways so far at least. Regardless of what you choose to believe, AGW is as much of a scientific fact as it gets.

I actually tend to agree with this statement. What bothers me is what radicals in power will use it for and to what end. Many like myself feel that power hungry politicians will use it to further other ends. That's what some on the left don't understand about some of us...unless they have no problem with the ends said politicians want to use it to. And some of those ends have nothing to do with or would be limited to climate change and how to deal with the aspect of it that is or may be caused by man.

 

[stu]

Indeed, but then it is as extreme and perverse to choose the denial of AGW because some politicians are being dysfunctional about it. Not to say you are doing so, but there are those, that align with the far right wing on this subject, who for the same reasons you outline, distortedly and rather unintelligently attempt to cut off the scientific nose of AGW fact merely as a means to spite the face of their political opponents.
AGW is fact, is science. What's to be done about that fact is politics. Two distinct issues entirely. To deny the first because one doesn't like aspects within the second is, well, simply plain dumb.