That's hilarious Hoofy. Thanks.Who, you, Pie?
You old devil you.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Only 6% of scientists vote Republican
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
Woodcock, being a scientist, simply recognized that ppm calculated by multiplying mole fraction by a million could be interpreted as molecules per million molecules. That's all. There are twelve more molecules of CO2 now per hundred thousand air molecules than there was in the late nineteenth century. That is obviously not enough more to have a measurable effect. And the data confirms that. That was his point.
You said something about woodcock and Salby having to submit papers. Woodcock is retired and doesn't have to do anything if he doesn't feel like it. Frankly, I doubt he'll be bothered by your not agreeing with him. He probably doesn't know you exist. And how on earth would you know whether Salby has "submitted papers", unless you have corresponded with him recently? Chances are he has, in which case they'll be under review. That can take a long time if the paper is controversial. Be patient. I'm confident you'll see further papers from him in due time.
Oh brother.
As a scientist, why the hell would he suggest anyone is calculating ppm from multiplying the mole fraction (multiplying the result!) by a million?Woodcock, being a scientist, simply recognized that ppm calculated by multiplying mole fraction by a million could be interpreted as molecules per million molecules. That's all.
Did we shift over to parts per hundred thousand so as to not look like a measurable effect?There are twelve more molecules of CO2 now per hundred thousand air molecules than there was in the late nineteenth century. That is obviously not enough more to have a measurable effect. And the data confirms that. That was his point.
Really, is that all this is. Trying to create confusion about the simple representation of parts per million.
The number of CO2 molecules in every million molecules of air is perfectly straightforward. 280 molecules of CO2 per million molecules of air before the industrial revolution, 372 now.
That's very immature of you. It's Woodcock and Salby, as scientists, that should be concerned about science not agreeing with them.You said something about woodcock and Salby having to submit papers. Woodcock is retired and doesn't have to do anything if he doesn't feel like it. Frankly, I doubt he'll be bothered by your not agreeing with him. He probably doesn't know you exist. And how on earth would you know whether Salby has "submitted papers", unless you have corresponded with him recently? Chances are he has, in which case they'll be under review. That can take a long time if the paper is controversial. Be patient. I'm confident you'll see further papers from him in due time.
Woodcock is retired now and doesn't have an argument here anyway which isn't flying in the face of reality, and Salby is in denial of the carbon cycle with a bunch of convoluted nonsense. Of course no formal paper or date for one, nor will there ever likely be any.
Are you being patient in the way you suggest - for cold fusion papers to be published?
Funny how AGW deniers are skeptic about science, never about each other.
Precisely.Oh brother.
If piezoe is being paid to post this stuff, people are going to be asking for their money back.
I just saw this, "there are twelve more molecules of CO2 now per hundred thousand air molecules than there was in the late nineteenth century. That is obviously not enough more to have a measurable effect. And the data confirms that. That was his point."
There's nothing "obvious" about it, it doesn't take into consideration any qualitative properties of the CO2 molecule.
There's nothing "obvious" about it, it doesn't take into consideration any qualitative properties of the CO2 molecule.
I just saw this, "there are twelve more molecules of CO2 now per hundred thousand air molecules than there was in the late nineteenth century. That is obviously not enough more to have a measurable effect. And the data confirms that. That was his point."
There's nothing "obvious" about it, it doesn't take into consideration any qualitative properties of the CO2 molecule.
Exactly. It's statements like those that just baffle me and lead me to suspect he is working.
Next he will say that a just a few micro-grams more of polonium in the body is not fatal.
He was probably one of those guys who looked at the tiny tab of LSD and just swallowed it down figuring it could do nothing and then ended up at the psych ward. Would also explain his current lack of logic. He's always having flashbacks.
Well we are talking about the photo properties here. That's what is important as far as the greenhouse effect goes. In that case what's important is the change in the number of molecules relative to the other molecules that affect the Earths temperature. You see FC has always used that 40 % increase figure for CO2, and that's essentially correct! The 40% increase comes from comparing CO2 to itself, and if there is very little CO2 to begin with than a little increase is a big percentage increase. That's why my bathtub analogy was apropos.I just saw this, "there are twelve more molecules of CO2 now per hundred thousand air molecules than there was in the late nineteenth century. That is obviously not enough more to have a measurable effect. And the data confirms that. That was his point."
There's nothing "obvious" about it, it doesn't take into consideration any qualitative properties of the CO2 molecule.
You're one of the smartest posters here, so i know you'll understand what I'm talking about. When it comes to the relative importance of CO2 in regard to its warming effect, and that's what FC has been dwelling on, one is interested in CO2 warming by all mechanisms, including the greenhouse effect, relative to the warming effect of all other gases, by all mechanisms. Now the important change in CO2 is not the change relative to itself, but the change relative to all the other gasses that may contribute to warming. And after warming is considered, cooling effects of these gases must also be considered. As you can easily see it is way too complex a problem to just simply say, "CO2 is a greenhouse, it's gone up 40% (relative to itself! FC always leaves out mention of the denominator), and therefore any warming we find is caused by the increase in CO2." Frankly that's complete nonsense. I mean his argument, not the idea that CO2 increase might be causing some warming. However when we look closely at the data now available, we see that the Hansen hypothesis is not born out. That's consistent with our observation that the increase in CO2 molecules per million molecules of air components (including CO2) is just 120 since the industrial revolution began. Something else, other than the small increase in the number of CO2 molecules relative to the number of air molecules, has caused the recent warming, and something else is responsible for the warming hiatus we note.
This Hansen hypothesis will go down as one of the embarrassing science errors of the twentieth century along with poly water and quite a few lesser known science faux pas.
Last edited:
As far as I am aware, NSF is still funding some cold fusion research, in which case there will be recent papers. Why don't you check this out for me and get back with the news. I'd like to know if they are still funding it. I thought Pons and Fleischmann's ideas pretty interesting. They are both bright scientists, by the way.Are you being patient in the way you suggest - for cold fusion papers to be published?
I would note much of the importance of what Salby is saying has already been published in peer reviewed papers...
this one shows co2 lags change in ocean temps by 11-12 months and co2 lags air temps by 10 months.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
Abstract
Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.
Highlights
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. ► Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
this one shows co2 lags change in ocean temps by 11-12 months and co2 lags air temps by 10 months.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
Abstract
Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.
Highlights
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. ► Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
Last edited:
Swedish scientist replicates Dr. Murry Salby's work, finding man-made CO2 does not drive climate change
Swedish climate scientist Pehr Björnbom has recently replicated the work of Dr. Murry Salby, finding that temperature, not man-made CO2, drives CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Dr. Björnbom confirms Salby's hypothesis that the rate of change in carbon dioxide concentration in the air follows an equation that only depends on temperature change, detailed in his report Reconstruction of Murry Salby's theory that carbon dioxide increase is temperature driven [Google translation].
Dr. Björnbom discusses his findings in this post from The Stockholm Initiative[Google translation + light editing]:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/07/swedish-scientist-replicates-dr-murry.html
Swedish climate scientist Pehr Björnbom has recently replicated the work of Dr. Murry Salby, finding that temperature, not man-made CO2, drives CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Dr. Björnbom confirms Salby's hypothesis that the rate of change in carbon dioxide concentration in the air follows an equation that only depends on temperature change, detailed in his report Reconstruction of Murry Salby's theory that carbon dioxide increase is temperature driven [Google translation].
Dr. Björnbom discusses his findings in this post from The Stockholm Initiative[Google translation + light editing]:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/07/swedish-scientist-replicates-dr-murry.html