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

[jem]

wow ... another can of worms.
as someone who has no problem with evolution once life began I did not pay much attention to the carbon dating issue.

That is a very good question... how is it that things millions of years old have detectable levels of c-14. We should only be able to date things about 60,000 years old and younger?

Did c-4 decay in spurts or at faster levels in the past?

How does this thought get impacted if c-14 relaxes faster than bern convention?

no wonder piezoe stopped thinking about this.
how can I do my work this afternoon?

But Richter this is exactly what I feared. This suggests two thing, one of which is wrong. C-14 in fossil fuels is not zero! Though it should be in theory. It apparently isn't known for sure why it is not zero but several explanations have been proposed. The other thing the article suggests is that all the very old natural sources of CO2, and therefore also very low in C-14, are just being ignored! I'd certainly like to know why these can be ignored, Volcanoes for example. Ocean CO2 too should be just a bit lower in C14 than the atmosphere, I doubt that is significant though. (I won't go into why that should be. Ask if you're curious.) But what about that whopping spike in C-14 in the mid 1950. We will see a steady decline in atmospheric C-14 from the 195Os on. I hope someone is paying attention to THAT! (Until I can read one of the peer reviewed papers on this topic my education forces me to remain skeptical.)

Please don't assume I am concluding that the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is not due to man. I am not concluding anything of the sort. It very well could be, but at the same time it very well may not be! I just want the science to make sense.

 

[piezoe]

A couple of your recent posts seem to imply, I could be wrong, that there is some naturally "preferred" temperature equilibrium on Earth, presumably one that is friendly to Man.

But wouldn't that require that God, or Jem's intelligent designer, work more than just 6 days? I wonder if he/she/it got time and a half for overtime.

On a more serious note, our situation must be rather fortuitous. Consider all the many planets, known and unknown, that must have atmospheres that are not hospitable to man, and where the temperature must suck from an anthropomorphic point of view..

 

[stu]

your point is to a stick your finger in your ears and say I am not listening and then call names.

your statement, not logically written, is apparently based on the bern model.
apparently you provided a definition and missed the entire point of the paper which is that observational evidence challenges the idea of the turnover time of Carbon assumed by the bern model.

additionally the only side I am taking on this argument is that most likely you are wrong because you always argue for the leftist drone point of view. A view which is rarely accurate.

in short you make an assumption which is almost always wrong...

Stu said: "There is nothing else, no other source, no other reason like nuclear tests, or volcanoes, or anything else to explain it. "
But of course there are other possible reasons.

The paper said: observational data shows Carbon turnover time is 10 years instead of 100. (which if true explains why the curve goes down so much faster than the bern model. This also makes much more sense than your illogical dilution concept. (another point you miss is thermal outgassing would also counter you assumptions and is also discussed in the paper)

In short if you understood what you were typing you lied when you made that statement as other explanations wer given in the paper.
But, I suspect you were just reciting a definition and did not understand what you were regurgitating.

I've made no reference to any bern model nor to any paper you may have mentioned. I was referring only to that information from which AGW, C-14 and the precise measurement of human emissions in the atmosphere is known and understood according to science and the fundamental basic laws of physics.

I realize you want to try and make yourself sound clever, but it really isn't working.

 

[stu]

Thank you, stu, for responding to my question and my post. I wasn't referring to subtraction between two isotopes concentrations. My remarks were meant to point out the difficulty of obtaining any arithmetic result from experiment data by subtraction when you are either subtracting two nearly equal numbers ,or subtracting two numbers that differ markedly in magnitude, and neither number is known with much precision or accuracy. I don't question the C-14 content measurements by scintillation counting, I question their interpretation.

The reason I believe that C-13 and C-14 are liable to encounter the same problems with regard to interpretation is that I assumed they were both being used in essentially the same way as markers, i.e., the concentration of both were being monitored. If both C-13 and C-14 are being used in this same way, then I would think that the problems that have plagued interpretation of the C-13 data would carry over to C-14 as well.

But am I wrong about how C-14 is being used?

Do you know how C-14 is being used as a marker for anthro carbon in the atmosphere? That's really what I'd like to know. I guess I'll have to spend more time with Google!

Incidently, fossil fuels, at least coal, are not zero in C-14. The C-14 content of fossil fuels should be zero, but this is never found in practice so far as I know. Coal for example, when it is burned in large quantities, contributes a measureable amount of C-14 to the atmosphere. C-14 in coal corresponds to a carbon dating of about 30000-40000 years, so obviously that's too young (or is it?, I thought coal was millions of years old!). I don't know where the C-14 in fossil fuels comes from, but a small amount is still there. Uranium is often concentrated in coal, and there is a path to C14 via U decay, so possibly that is one contributor, who knows?

Another thing one would have to correct for is decay of the C-14 spike from the atmospheric bomb tests in the 1950's. If you just looked at C-14 in the air today you are going to see a steady decline in beta emission just due to the decay of all that extra C-14 that popped up in the mid-1950's. I know the competent scientists will be correcting for these things, but there is some pretty shoddy work out there when it comes to climate research. For example the early ice core measurements were apparently misinterpreted because correction for diffusion over the very long times involved was not done properly.

I realize you have more confidence than i do in the early work. As far as I'm concerned we are just now seeing really good work being published. It seems to me that in the 1980s and 1990s everyone was just jumping to conclusions without giving proper thought to their results. It is easy to get caught up in the feeding frenzy once an issue has been popularized and politicized.

The only scientific papers I have read and studied in some detail with regard to AGW were Lindzens, years ago now. It was obvious to me, though he stopped short of coming right out and saying it, that Lindzen had a very low opinion of Hansen's science. I then lost interest in the subject until you guys got me interested again.

Forgive my misunderstanding of your previous apparent comparison in math with C13 and C14 piezo. In all fairness your post was ambiguous at least in that regard as is your current one, so let's just say my bad. I don't understand why you think there is a reason to include C-13 here. It plays no part in this measurement or its interpretation. Ok , so all these carbon isotopes make the same identical bonds with other atoms, but that has nothing to do with this, so I see no justifiable reason why you include C-13 to carry over as you say into C-14 data, or into any of the data at all. I do think you are wrong about how C-14 is being used.

We can venture into the minutiae of carbon isotopes and their properties, but I agree with you, there is always somewhere data can be sloppy or improved upon or whatever. Can there ever be such a thing as CO2 containing absolute zero C-14. Well, it's not even necessary to go there anyway. It may be in other realms of physics about detecting neutrinos or something similar to that, but it is not possible to reasonably dismiss the whole of measurement by means of radiocarbon because there could be some possible discrepancy, just to avoid the whole truckload of the bleeding obvious that comes out of its application. That's a very similar line to that which creationists take on carbon dating.

In this instance we are talking about something happening for which out of all possible candidates, there can be only one capable of being responsible. Despite all the alleged or any real variability in data, sampling , reports, assessments, commentary, interpretations.... whatever.... the only contributor capable of causing such a strong trend of C-14 dilution in the atmosphere is anthropogenic CO2 from C-14 free fossil fuels. Margins of error won't negate an overwhelmingly precisely measured trend of this.

I appreciate your remarks about being sure and that's fine, but really dude, don't people pretty much generally know shitting in the bed is not a good idea? And even if there is not an absolute zero margin of error in the scientific data and explanation of blankets beds and crap, it doesn't deflect from the knowledge and understanding science provides of exactly why its not good.
There is more than enough confirmed science in all of this to at least realize it is the sound of a runaway truck you hear on the horizon, even if you don't personally see it yet.

 

[jem]

you did not have to reference the bern model explicity. For you to make any sense it was implicit in your argument.
Its statements like that which makes it seem you do not understand what you are writing.

When you write "the only contributor capable of causing such a strong trend of C-14 dilution in the atmosphere is anthropogenic CO2 from C-14 free fossil fuels."
To what ratio are you comparing the trend of dilution if not a bern derived ratio?

I will help you out.
The next link I present covers this area pretty well and then winds up explaining that Salby figured it out.

I will quote Salby and you should click on the link to see the charts.




http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/21/on-co2-residence-times-the-chicken-or-the-egg/

and this is an excerpt.

Professor Salby, having shown by careful cross-correlations on all timescales, even short ones (Fig. 4, left), that CO2 concentration change lags temperature change, demonstrated that in the Mauna Loa record, if one examines it at a higher resolution than what is usually displayed (Fig. 4, right), there is a variation of up to 3 µatm from year to year in the annual CO2 concentration increment (which equals net emission).

clip_image024clip_image026

Figure 4. Left: CO2 change lags and may be caused by temperature change. Right: The mean annual CO2 increment is 1.5 µatm, but the year-on-year variability is twice that.

The annual changes in anthropogenic CO2 emission are nothing like 3 µatm (Fig. 5, left). However, Professor Salby has detected – and, I think, may have been the first to observe – that the annual fluctuations in the CO2 concentration increment are very closely correlated with annual fluctuations in surface conditions (Fig. 5, right).

clip_image028clip_image030

Figure 5. Left: global annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions rise near-monotonically and the annual differences are small. Right: an index of surface conditions (blue: 80% temperature change, 20% soil-moisture content) is closely correlated with fluctuations in CO2 concentration (green).

Annual fluctuations of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are small, but those of atmospheric CO2 concentration are very much larger, from which Professor Salby infers that their major cause is not Man but Nature, via changes in temperature. For instance, Henry’s Law holds that a cooler ocean can take up more CO2.

In that thought, perhaps, lies the reconciliation of the Born and Pettersson viewpoints. For the sources and sinks of CO2 are not static, as Mr. Born’s equations (1-4) and analogy assume, but dynamic. Increase the CO2 concentration and the biosphere responds with an observed global increase in net plant productivity. The planet gets greener as trees and plants gobble up the plant food we emit for them.

I've made no reference to any bern model nor to any paper you may have mentioned. I was referring only to that information from which AGW, C-14 and the precise measurement of human emissions in the atmosphere is known and understood according to science and the fundamental basic laws of physics.

I realize you want to try and make yourself sound clever, but it really isn't working.

 

[stu]

you did not have to reference the bern model explicity. For you to make any sense it was implicit in your argument.

What makes any sense to you is anyone's guess.

And as for Salby and websites in denial...I suggest you try being skeptical about them as much as you are in denial on just about everything to do with AGW.

 

[jem]

Let me know when you have some proof that man made co2 is causing warming on earth.

I do not deny that is possible adding man made co2 could cause warming.
However, since the recent studies show change in co2 trails change in ocean temps by about one year... I doubt man made co2 is doing much if any warming right now.

What makes any sense to you is anyone's guess.

And as for Salby and websites in denial...I suggest you try being skeptical about them as much as you are in denial on just about everything to do with AGW.

 

[futurecurrents]

The only scientific papers I have read and studied in some detail with regard to AGW were Lindzens, years ago now. It was obvious to me, though he stopped short of coming right out and saying it, that Lindzen had a very low opinion of Hansen's science. I then lost interest in the subject until you guys got me interested again.

So basically you admit that you are talking out of your ass while throwing around some science words in pseudo intellectual masturbation. All the while trying to sound impressive. Thank you.

And the one name you bring up Lindzen, is an ass. You're a piece of work. Wow, just wow.

For just few examples of how fucked up Lindzen is. There are many more.

Quotes by Richard Lindzen

Climate Myth What the Science Says
""We’ve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing) and that has produced very little warming""
25 July 2012 (Source)
This argument ignores the cooling effect of aerosols and the planet's thermal inertia.
"If I’m wrong, we’ll know it in 50 years and can do something."
30 April 2012 (Source)
A large amount of warming is delayed, and if we don’t act now we could pass tipping points.

"Only with positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds does one get the large warmings that are associated with alarm. What the satellite data seems to show is that these positive feedbacks are model artifacts."
22 February 2012 (Source)
Evidence is building that net cloud feedback is likely positive and unlikely to be strongly negative.
"...one can see no warming since 1997."
22 February 2012 (Source)
Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was the hottest recorded.

"As Phil Jones acknowledged, there has been no statistically significant warming in 15 years."
22 February 2012 (Source)
Phil Jones was misquoted.
"You have to remember, this is an issue where what most scientists agree on has nothing to do with the alarm. I think the real problem is so many scientists have gone along with it without pointing out that what has been established reasonably well has nothing to do with the urgency that’s being promoted, which is largely a political matter."
6 April 2011 (Source)
A large amount of warming is delayed, and if we don’t act now we could pass tipping points.

"In the North Pole, you don’t have a [ice] cap, you have sea ice; it’s very variable. And as far as Greenland and Antarctica go, there’s no evidence of any significant change. I mean, you know, again your measurements aren’t that great, but any reports you hear are again focusing on tiny changes that would have no implication."
6 April 2011 (Source)
Arctic sea ice has shrunk by an area equal to Western Australia, and summer or multi-year sea ice might be all gone within a decade.

"The crucial thing is sensitivity: you know, what do you expect a doubling of CO2 to do? If it's only a degree, then you could go through at least two doublings and probably exhaust much of your fossil fuel before you would do anything that would bother anyone."
6 April 2011 (Source)
Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.
"[Emissions cuts] would be a moral disaster, because it would mean that much of the world would preclude development and so they'd be more vulnerable to the disasters that occur regardless of man [...] Your vulnerability increases as your wealth decreases."
6 April 2011 (Source)
Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change.

"The evidence is pretty good that even if everyone [cut emissions] in the whole world it wouldn't make a lot of difference."
6 April 2011 (Source)
If every nation agrees to limit CO2 emissions, we can achieve significant cuts on a global scale.

"It's a heavy cost for no benefit, and it's no benefit for you, no benefit for your children, no benefit for your grandchildren, no benefit for your great-great-great-great-grandchildren. I mean, what's the point of that?"
6 April 2011 (Source)
The benefits of a price on carbon outweigh the costs several times over.

"For Australia to act now is, you know, a bit bizarre, and certainly cannot be justified by any impact it would have on Australia or anyone."
6 April 2011 (Source)
A large amount of warming is delayed, and if we don’t act now we could pass tipping points.

"I think even Flannery acknowledged that Australia doing this [a carbon tax] would have no discernible impact for virtually a millennium, even if Australia's output during that millennium was increasing exponentially."
6 April 2011 (Source)
CO2 limits won't cool the planet, but they can make the difference between continued accelerating global warming to catastrophic levels vs. slowing and eventually stopping the warming at hopefully safe levels
"If we doubled CO2, it's well accepted that you should get about 1 degree warming if nothing else happened. [...] But 1 degree is reckoned as not very significant. The question then is: is what we've seen so far suggesting that you have more than that, and the answer is no."

 

[piezoe]

Thanks so much Jem for that link to the German Biochemist Blog on the Keeling curve and the Bern model for atmospheric turnover of CO2. That really answered many questions for me and now I am fairly well convinced that my concerns regarding the analysis of the C-14 data were justified. The C-14 was turning over far more rapidly than had been assumed and of course far faster than its decay rate.

It seems as though those atmospheric bomb tests had an unanticipated benefit! Because of these tests we know that the atmosphere's CO2 turns over about every 25 years with a relaxation time of 5-7 years; not a turn over time of a hundred or more years as the IPCC was accepting as valid. This work is also consistent with Salby's finding that Temperature is an important driver of CO2 content in addition to man's activities.

Thanks again for the link.

 

[futurecurrents]

Please don't assume I am concluding that the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is not due to man. I am not concluding anything of the sort. It very well could be, but at the same time it very well may not be! I just want the science to make sense.[/I]

You keep saying nothing. To say that the spike in CO2 that occurred right when man started burning stuff might not be from man is absurd to say the least.

Have you or jerm any common sense? Logic?