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

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


Co2ClimateChangeAndFossilFuel.jpg
 
Lucrum said:
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.
More...
Not me being right, just making you wrong that time, as usual.
 
piezoe said:
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.
More...
No, thank you Piezo, but may I ask , what are you doing? Are you going to be scientific about this or just want to run that confirmatory bias you said you have?
You stated in words to the effect that C14 cannot be used to determine anthropic CO2 in the atmosphere. Then you are bowled over by those like Mockton et al who use a measurement of anthropic CO2's C14 diminishing in the atmosphere. You can't have it both ways.

On the separate issue of your effusive willingness to run toward Mockten and Salby, that seems to suggest you tend toward AGW denial rather than constructive skepticism. They raise queries (some of them very unsound if not downright ridiculous) which then immediately begs more questions. For instance, the Bern Model brought up (not by you) as a red herring against the main issue of using C14 in the first place, establishes itself as being designed to cover the redistribution of carbon in time scales of decades, through to centuries for the full carbon cycle. Not just for short term periods of decay.

I dare say there are adjustments and rethinks on many aspects to do with this so that more knowledge can be brought to it. Doubting the doubters gets to the science also, rather than curve fitting denial into things and trying to overturn the laws of physics that allow for the anthropic measurement of CO2, and facts like AGW.
 
The bern model a red herring? yet you use it now explicitly as I stated you had to be using it implicitly before.
Yes you troll... its the foundation of AGW nutter models and predictions.

Piezoe does not deny agw, he states that the science is not in.
If the science did show that made made co2 is net warming our planet...

you would produce the science right here right now and then you would be the most famous nobel prize winner in the world.
its that simple you have no science showing the impact of man made co2 in our dynamic environment. just conjecture based on models which have not worked so far.





stu said:
No, thank you Piezo, but may I ask , what are you doing? Are you going to be scientific about this or just want to run that confirmatory bias you said you have?
You stated in words to the effect that C14 cannot be used to determine anthropic CO2 in the atmosphere. Then you are bowled over by those like Mockton et al who use a measurement of anthropic CO2's C14 diminishing in the atmosphere. You can't have it both ways.

On the separate issue of your effusive willingness to run toward Mockten and Salby, that seems to suggest you tend toward AGW denial rather than constructive skepticism. They raise queries (some of them very unsound if not downright ridiculous) which then immediately begs more questions. For instance, the Bern Model brought up (not by you) as a red herring against the main issue of using C14 in the first place, establishes itself as being designed to cover the redistribution of carbon in time scales of decades, through to centuries for the full carbon cycle. Not just for short term periods of decay.

I dare say there are adjustments and rethinks on many aspects to do with this so that more knowledge can be brought to it. Doubting the doubters gets to the science also, rather than curve fitting denial into things and trying to overturn the laws of physics that allow for the anthropic measurement of CO2, and facts like AGW.
More...
 
stu said:
No, thank you Piezo, but may I ask , what are you doing? Are you going to be scientific about this or just want to run that confirmatory bias you said you have?
You stated in words to the effect that C14 cannot be used to determine anthropic CO2 in the atmosphere. Then you are bowled over by those like Mockton et al who use a measurement of anthropic CO2's C14 diminishing in the atmosphere. You can't have it both ways.

On the separate issue of your effusive willingness to run toward Mockten and Salby, that seems to suggest you tend toward AGW denial rather than constructive skepticism. They raise queries (some of them very unsound if not downright ridiculous) which then immediately begs more questions. For instance, the Bern Model brought up (not by you) as a red herring against the main issue of using C14 in the first place, establishes itself as being designed to cover the redistribution of carbon in time scales of decades, through to centuries for the full carbon cycle. Not just for short term periods of decay.

I dare say there are adjustments and rethinks on many aspects to do with this so that more knowledge can be brought to it. Doubting the doubters gets to the science also, rather than curve fitting denial into things and trying to overturn the laws of physics that allow for the anthropic measurement of CO2, and facts like AGW.
More...
You have a good point. I overstated if I said or implied that C-14 could not be used to follow anthro C contribution to the atmosphere. If I did that, I was wrong, and I should have said instead that I have serious questions about the validity of that method. And that was before I read Pettersson. I was basing my opinion at that point on a scientifically informed guess on my part. Then when I read Pettersson (Mockton doesn't enter in here) I found his arguments pretty compelling. Here is the thing, Pettersson has said that the spike in C-14 from the bomb testing furnished the perfect opporunity to determine the turn-over rate of CO2 by following the disappearance of C-14 in the atmosphere. The Bomb testing just about doubled the C-14 content. One knows the radio decay rate and also the rate of disappearance of C14 from the atmosphere. The latter is much in excess of the decay, which is very small over fifty years since the half life is 5700 yrs. But I want to figure out how Pettersson determined that the disappearance is due to CO2 turn-over rather than dilution by anthro-CO2. It seems that the IPCC is assumming a long turnover time. Is that correct however? There must be another observation or assumption to be able to distinguish between dilution and rapid turnover. Maybe it's obvious to you, but it is not to me. I'm looking for that additional assumption or bit of information. I'll let you know if I find it. I'll admit to bias here, as a much shorter turn over than the IPCC has assumed seems intuitively correct to me, considering the uptake by plants and the rough estimates of the natural sinking and sourcing from, I think, mostly satellite data. The rates of natural sinking and sourcing, according to Salby, are close to two orders greater than the anthro-C contribution rate. And Salby is a first-rate atmosphere physicist. Anyone can make a mistake, but there is no question about his training and experience. It seems his personality has created difficulties for him, but he is definitely no armchair scientist.
 
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.
 
piezoe said:
It seems that the IPCC is assuming a long turnover time. Is that correct however? There must be another observation or assumption to be able to distinguish between dilution and rapid turnover. Maybe it's obvious to you, but it is not to me.
More...
With respect piezo I think you are looking for an incorrect thing. I mentioned all this above, but just to recap.
In general terms I take it then we are now agreed that basically because of C14, anthropic Co2 can be traced in the atmosphere. It is therefore understood how much anthropic CO2 gets artificially pumped up there. That's important because it is a precise measurement of how much extra CO2 is occurring than would otherwise naturally be.
But I see your point . However, the long turnover time is correct. I mentioned above, the Bern Model defines residency time as it applies to all the reservoirs in the Carbon Cycle, not just residency time in only one of them, the atmosphere, which Patterson inaccurately does. Using the Bern Model that way is of course being used as a red-herring.
The Bern Model defines CO2 time periods of anything from I think it is 20-50 years (in the atmosphere) to around 500 years (moving through the Carbon Cycle). Using atmosphere alone, Patterson's short residency time for CO2 is being applied to the bomb chart to say IPPC is wrong and there's no problem. That is either intentionally or mistakenly disingenuous.
As far as the bomb residue goes, the non depleted bomb source of anthropic CO2 cycles through the Carbon Cycle getting diluted by more and more depleted anthropic CO2 being pumped up there. That's all part of the whole 500 year calculation. Of course you know CO2 of any description, when it leaves the atmosphere, doesn't just conveniently disappear.
As I say, because the C14 element of CO2 can be so well measured it is seen how much more there is against naturally occurring CO2. The sum total is bottle-necking Carbon reservoirs with no small help from the enormous amounts being pumped into one of them. The atmosphere.
As far as Salby goes well, if you are genuinely that impressed by people using faulty reasoning as validity like the Patterson nonsense for evidence against IPCC, the Bern Model and the Carbon Cycle, then all I can suggest is, at least futurecurrent's links provide some basic common sense as to why people like that are being absurd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top