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

[jem]

here was Stu's predicted buzzwords and bullshit.
no real science - absence of sense.

Seeing how apparently amazingly easy you find something likely to be correct, I won't make the vacuously snide remark (as all Lucrum's posts tend to be)...
" if it's anti-AGW climate change...then you would".

Thing is piezo ,what you are now suggesting is that it's not possible to use C-14 in the measurement of isotopic composition attributed to human emissions because somebody is questioning how quickly C-14 bomb residue diminishes. However that quite clearly goes on to direct attention to the decline which all of that shows to have continued after the end of the nuclear testing, additionally confirming the way a re-emergence from former high levels of man made enriched C-14 CO2 from the blasts in the atmosphere is accurately measured in ocean surface waters as depleted C-14 CO2, due to being away quite long enough for the significant marker C14 radioactive decay to occur.
But I haven't even included or mentioned or taken as need for corroboration, any thermonuclear C-14 analysis or bern report, yet they are things being used for no good reason to argue against an ability to measure and distinguish anthropogenic emissions in the atmosphere. That is patently wrong. You don't rationally denounce the use of chalk because there is cheese!

There are various sources of CO2. Each has a distinct signature or fingerprint. C-14 is one such unique signature. Never mind arguing the to and fro of what are the correct interpretations for trailing data after atmospheric thermonuclear spiking which is relying on C-14 to demonstrate the spike in the first place. It would require the refusal to accept basic hard core ongoing observational measurable science to deny the ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, in this case C-14 depleted CO2 within detailed continuous wide ranging sampling undertaken over decades.

In one respect I agree with you.It is incorrect to blindly accept what gets reported as science but very well may not be.
However throwing up vast quantities of irrelevant, incorrect ,contrary to basic knowledge disconnects, is one way not skeptics, but more precisely deniers like Salby for instance and certain blogs, obscure basic information and known fact. They in the least beg as many questions of skepticism equally against themselves, as they raise.

The format for measuring how much anthropic CO2 in the carbon cycle through C-14 uses long standing basic fundamental classical physics. Basing work on things like the Suess effect for instance. There are no discrepancies in any way that counter such overwhelming observational findings soundly determining the values and ratios of atmospheric CO2 including the extremely large human one clearly and precisely identified within Earth's carbon cycle.

 

[jem]

of course, instead of addressing the science the resident leftist troll goes for the for the ad hom / character attack.
Don't you ever get tired of attacking character instead of addressing the science.

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is "a caricature English peer",[2] former deputy leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP)[3] and a climate change denier. He constitutes an excellent argument in favour of revolutionary socialism.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton

In his role as UKIP science spokesman, Monckton said that they would cut funding for climate science unless there arose "sufficient evidence" to change his mind. He also said that health risks associated with excessive salt consumption are merely "unjustifiable fears" and compared embryonic stem cell research to "the killing of very small children."[4] Monckton is a big promoter of the global warming conspiracy theory in which Barack Obama will cede US sovereignty to the United Nations, which will then enact a communist world government.[5]


And this is the kind of guy you are looking at pie? Now I know why you are so confused.

 

[jem]

part of the reason I first read that analysis is because of things you said here.
I knew you would find it interesting.

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

Jem, that's a beautiful, critical review of the recent work. I'll admit that I am saying that because it presents some of the same arguments, using a nearly identical analogy, I have made previously in a much less elegant manner. So obviously I am in agreement.

It seems Professor Salby is headed for the Nobel Prize. I'm quite serious.

It is almost ridiculous how flawed the earlier science is.

 

[futurecurrents]

of course, instead of addressing the science the resident leftist troll goes for the for the ad hom / character attack.
Don't you ever get tired of attacking character instead of addressing the science.

Yes, when someone is known asshole, like you, I think that has some bearing on how seriously to take them. Like you for instance, not at all. You don't even believe the shit you say. You believe in AGW.

 

[jem]

What I believe is that month by month the theory of man made co2 is causing warming on earth is looking less and less viable.

1. right now even the nutters have admitted the climate is less sensitive to co2 than they proposed.

2. land temps have not gone up in 17 years further showing the agw nutter models failed.

3. there is no science showing man made co2 is warming our environment.

4. Think about this...
We know as oceans warm they release co2. if co2 kept causing warming... we would have a disastrous feedback cycle and we would turn into a venus like hot house.

Why not? Because... NASA told us. CO2 also cools.

I think we will find, most likely, that CO2 is an important part of a negative feedback cycle.

Yes, when someone is known asshole, like you, I think that has some bearing on how seriously to take them. Like you for instance, not at all. You don't even believe the shit you say. You believe in AGW.

 

[futurecurrents]

What I believe is that month by month the theory of man made co2 is causing warming on earth is looking less and less viable.

1. right now even the nutters have admitted the climate is less sensitive to co2 than they proposed.

2. land temps have not gone up in 17 years further showing the agw nutter models failed.

3. there is not science showing man made co2 is warming our environment.

4. Think about this...
We know as oceans warm they release co2. if co2 kept causing warming... we would have a disastrous feedback cycle and we would turn into a venus like hot house.

Why not? Because... NASA told us. CO2 also cools.

I think we will find, most likely, that CO2 is an important part of a negative feedback cycle.

but you believe in AGW you disingenuous piece of shit.

 

[jem]

what I wrote above was obvious to most and an IQ test for those with an under 90 IQ.

you failed it.

but you believe in AGW you disingenuous piece of shit.

 

[piezoe]

Seeing how apparently amazingly easy you find something likely to be correct, I won't make the vacuously snide remark (as all Lucrum's posts tend to be)...
" if it's anti-AGW climate change...then you would".

Thing is piezo ,what you are now suggesting is that it's not possible to use C-14 in the measurement of isotopic composition attributed to human emissions because somebody is questioning how quickly C-14 bomb residue diminishes. However that quite clearly goes on to direct attention to the decline which all of that shows to have continued after the end of the nuclear testing, additionally confirming the way a re-emergence from former high levels of man made enriched C-14 CO2 from the blasts in the atmosphere is accurately measured in ocean surface waters as depleted C-14 CO2, due to being away quite long enough for the significant marker C14 radioactive decay to occur.
But I haven't even included or mentioned or taken as need for corroboration, any thermonuclear C-14 analysis or bern report, yet they are things being used for no good reason to argue against an ability to measure and distinguish anthropogenic emissions in the atmosphere. That is patently wrong. You don't rationally denounce the use of chalk because there is cheese!

There are various sources of CO2. Each has a distinct signature or fingerprint. C-14 is one such unique signature. Never mind arguing the to and fro of what are the correct interpretations for trailing data after atmospheric thermonuclear spiking which is relying on C-14 to demonstrate the spike in the first place. It would require the refusal to accept basic hard core ongoing observational measurable science to deny the ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, in this case C-14 depleted CO2 within detailed continuous wide ranging sampling undertaken over decades.

In one respect I agree with you.It is incorrect to blindly accept what gets reported as science but very well may not be.
However throwing up vast quantities of irrelevant, incorrect ,contrary to basic knowledge disconnects, is one way not skeptics, but more precisely deniers like Salby for instance and certain blogs, obscure basic information and known fact. They in the least beg as many questions of skepticism equally against themselves, as they raise.

The format for measuring how much anthropic CO2 in the carbon cycle through C-14 uses long standing basic fundamental classical physics. Basing work on things like the Suess effect for instance. There are no discrepancies in any way that counter such overwhelming observational findings soundly determining the values and ratios of atmospheric CO2 including the extremely large human one clearly and precisely identified within Earth's carbon cycle.

Stu, thanks for discussing the science rather than personalities. I don't know who Monckton is but he admits he is not much of a scientist. I guess he is a global warming "hobbyist" as some of us here are. But I did think that much of his critique of Pettersson and Born was scientifically sound. I noticed a number of obvious errors but I didn't think they were substantive. Pettersson on the other hand is a well trained scientist and his training makes him especially qualified with regard to using radioisotopes as a label.

I want to look at Petterssons work more carefully, because I am still unclear on how he was able to distinguish disappearance of Bomb C-14 due to more rapid turnover, from disappearance due to dilution from anthro-CO2 with slower turnover. The argument is there I'm sure, I just have to dig for it.

Salby's work seems to me almost genius in its consistency and its meticulous consideration of phase shifts. His finding that CO2 mirrors very closely the integrated Temperature with the temperature leading and CO2 lagging is a beautiful price of work as far as i'm concerned.. Going forward, I think any models that are inconsistent with Salbys work will have to be seriously questioned. Salby has never intimated that that's all there is too it, or that Anthro CO2 plays no role at all, but it is apparently less important than previously supposed.

 

[Lucrum]

No. I just find you are unnervingly wrong all the time.

Thereby admitting you're one of those haughty closed minded holier than thou know it all types who think they're always right about everything all the time.

Making me right, this time.

 

[futurecurrents]

this how important anthropogenic CO2 is. Plain as day. To objective eyes that have even a smidgeon of intelligence and the knowledge that CO2 is the earth's most important greenhouse gas.