The Carbon Flame War
Display Avatars Sort By:
jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: padded cell on 08/04/2012 10:06:29 MDT Print View

It seems like the CO2 data from ice cores is pretty unambiguous:

co2400ky

The amount of CO2 increase approximately corresponds to the amount and time of fossil fuel burning

I'll agree with Rog that pretty much everything else is less clear

Like, there is no agreement on what caused the "little ice age" from several hundred years ago which was way worse than anything we're seeing today.

If we don't understand what caused that, then whatever it was could easily be causing any changes we've seem so far.

I think that it will take at least 100 years to really start seeing what the effect of the increased CO2 is. But, we are so short term focused that it's hard to mobilize around a problem that some scientist says will occur in 100 years.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
spliced up co2 data on 08/04/2012 11:04:42 MDT Print View

Oh noes, a hockey stick.

Lol.

Try reading up on diffusion co2 trapped within ice cores Jerry. The basic issue is the length of time it takes for(gas permeable) compacted snow to turn to ice. The results from ice cores are anything but unambiguous. Splicing atmospheric levels on the end of the ice core data is a complete no-no. You can't mix data types like this with any validity.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: spliced up co2 data on 08/04/2012 11:34:30 MDT Print View

Atmospheric data has only been taken for a few decades

Older than that you have to use ice cores

And amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere is pretty easy to calculate, it's got to go somewhere

No one - you, me, climate scientists,... know what's going to be the result

Better to at least do the easy things like conservation, developing alternate energy, removing the subsidies on fossil fuels,...

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: spliced up co2 data on 08/04/2012 12:40:53 MDT Print View

Atmospheric data has only been taken for a few decades

Incorrect: Atmospheric measurements began in the 1800's.

Older than that you have to use ice cores

Incorrect: As well as Ice proxies, we also have leaf stomata studies

And amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere is pretty easy to calculate, it's got to go somewhere

Incorrect: Just because it has to go somewhere doesn't mean it's easy to calculate. Uncertainties for developed countries are estimated to be in the 2-5% range. Estimates for developing countries are higher. China is a question mark, and so are emissions from biomass burning.

No one - you, me, climate scientists,... know what's going to be the result

Well given that temperature has risen and fallen in the past while co2 levels have been anywhere between 270ppm and 8000ppm (eight thousand ppm) and these temperature changes have always PRECEEDED the changes in co2 levels,you'll forgive me for applying the law of cause and effect and not working up a sweat about it.

Better to at least do the easy things like conservation, developing alternate energy, removing the subsidies on fossil fuels,...

I'm all for research and development of clean energy. I'm agaiunst deploying it on an industrial scale when it poisons rivers in China for little benefit to our power distribution systems though.

Lyan Jordan
(redmonk)

Locale: Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
The Carbon Flame War on 08/04/2012 12:54:49 MDT Print View

I missed the part where Rogs analysis was published after passing review by peers educated in the field.


Link to actual journal article ?

dan mchale
(wildlife) - MLife

Locale: Cascadia
don't need no peer-think on 08/04/2012 13:15:26 MDT Print View

Cameron, you missed the part where Rog's side does not indulge in group-think. They don't need no stinkin peer review. I was going to suggest Rog wear a turtleneck when he visits with the Royal Society - they probably want to put him in a Laughing Stock - he'll need some neck protection.

As far as CO2 diffussion in ice goes, one does not have to look very far to see what Rog's Peerless Society wants is the diffusion of Science. One does not have to look very far to see that the diffusion is statistically accounted for in the process of analysis.

This is funny - a website designed shine light on Rog's right hand man Anthony Watts;

http://wottsupwiththat.com/category/half-of-the-story/

Sorry, the Cylon love-fest is over for awhile.

Edited by wildlife on 08/04/2012 13:18:09 MDT.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: don't need no peer-think on 08/04/2012 13:54:02 MDT Print View

From: Phil Jones


To: "Michael E. Mann"
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

Mike,
Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY - don't pass on. Relevant paras are the last
2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia
for years. He knows the're wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him
to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !
I didn't say any of this, so be careful how you use it - if at all. Keep quiet also
that you have the pdf.
The attachment is a very good paper - I've been pushing Adrian over the last weeks
to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also
for ERA-40. The basic message is clear - you have to put enough surface and sonde
obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand
out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.
The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also
losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see
it.
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them
out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Cheers
Phil

Lyan Jordan
(redmonk)

Locale: Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
The Carbon Flame War on 08/04/2012 14:04:15 MDT Print View

You must have accumulated some rejection letters IF you have attempted to publish at all. What reasons have the journals given for rejection to publish your work ?

There is a big difference in blocking articles from publication, and limiting publications to those that meet criteria for a report. The oil and gas industry publishes their franking is clean studies. The nuclear energy industry publishes that radiation is beneficial. The finance industry publishes on the benefits of micro second trading to ensuring liquidity in the market.


Highly biased studies get published by industries to advance their position all the time. They arent always suitable for inclusion in documents meant to influence policy. Your team hasn't even put together a publishable story, let alone a scientifically sound alternative.

Edited by redmonk on 08/04/2012 14:12:08 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: spliced up co2 data on 08/04/2012 14:14:47 MDT Print View

We can have dueling scientific data : )

The further back you go, the less accurate the atmospheric data is. How long have they been sampling Mauna Kea for example? And 1800 is 21 decades.

Okay you can't estimate amount of fossil fuel burned to within 10%, but maybe within 50%. This is not exact science.

In the last 800,000 years the CO2 level has been between 180 and 280 PPM, until recently when it's gone up to 380 PPM. 8000 PPM is a long time ago when the climate was much different, we don't want to go back there.

Yes, in the last 800,000 years Temperature change preceeded CO2 levels. But that was in the absence of us burning all this fossil fuel. What happened was that when it's warmer, the oceans absorb less CO2, so there's more in the atmosphere.

So, if we add a bunch of CO2 from burning fossil fuel, and due to greenhouse effect, it warms up, then the oceans will release more CO2 so even more greenhouse effect - it's called positive feedback.

"They" say that a good debater can take either side of an argument and "win". You're a pretty good debater.

Are you sure you're not being paid for this?

dan mchale
(wildlife) - MLife

Locale: Cascadia
Aug 3rd post by Rog on 08/04/2012 15:04:01 MDT Print View

Many of you, when you read Rog's post of that day that I copied below, probably thought he sat down and wrote out a thoughtful 'at the moment statement'. All he did was copy his own postion statement from his own website 'Tallbloke'.

I know it's a small thing but it's this type of disingenuousness that typifies him. You make a good robot Rog;

"Many scientists within the scientific community have been continuing to do impartial and objective science. Many of them have resigned from the scientific institutions of which they were formerly members because they object to the administrators who run those institutions making *position statements* on 'global warming' despite the high level of uncertainty on key issues such as the attribution of climate change to specific causes. Hence my reference to ruling committees. This was not a "blanket statement" about 'the scientific community'.

Matthew asked:
"The real questions are; do we spend our resources preventing the change or adapting to the change?"

Nail on the head.
Given that we have not a clue whether the climate is going to remain warm, get warmer or get cooler, the only sensible policy to invest in is that of readiness for change, whichever direction that change takes.

In deciding how much of a priority determining policy and spending levels for climate change should be, we need better assessments which are made against data which are produced in accordance with agreed standards. That is standard practice in other areas of science and policy activity and climate science should not be exempt.

There was a strong push from the interested parties to railroad the public into massive spending and lifestyle change during the period when the temperature measurments seemed to indicate a rapidly accelerating change in climate. But for the last decade, the measured surface temperature has changed very little, apart from years when natural phenomena such as El Nino and La Nina have been dominant.

Also during this period, it has come to light that there has been a goodly amount of data bending going on with the temperature records in many countries. The recent scandal in New Zealand is a good exemplar. This matter is now before the courts. Furthermore, the theory on which the claim that human activity has strongly influenced surface temperature is based have been taking a lot of hits as science moves on and makes new discoveries.

Cardellini et al's 2011 empirical work on measuring the co2 emission from old lava fields in central Italy at 9 Giga-tons a year is a case in point. This calls into question the assumption that humans are responsible for all the increase in airborne co2 since the 50's, which is based on theoretical calculations which put the *global* emission of co2 from volcanic sources at 0.138 giga-tons a year - nearly 100 times less than *a small part of Italy*

Science progresses, new facts are discovered, old tired theories sometimes need to be discarded. But when politics and money rule science, dogma trumps truth. We need to embrace new knowledge, not be in denial of it in order to suit a political or emotional agendas.

I care about our environment and it grieves me to see the environmental lobby hitching its horse to the global warming bandwagon. When the theory falls, as it will, the environmental movement will suffer in the backlash. We need to be dealing with real environmental issues, not tilting with windmills.

The politicians love 'global warming' because it gives them a platform to make high sounding speeches about saving the planet while reaping tax and doing nothing. If the co2 emissions really were a serious threat, the 170 Billion Euro which disappeared into the fat cats pockets could have replaced the European continent's fleet of coal fired power stations with gas turbines and cleaner coal fired plants using the latest flue emission technology and cut co2 emissions across the continent by 40% or more. It would also have solved the unemployment crisis. We could even have put a lot more solar panels on roofs to keep people like Dan happy too.

Edited by wildlife on 08/04/2012 15:07:49 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Aug 3rd post by Rog on 08/04/2012 15:22:52 MDT Print View

Don't you have anything better to do, Dan, than read Rog's website? : )

Is copying his own "position statement" as though it was "at the moment" worse than splicing ice core data onto atmospheric data?

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Aug 3rd post by Rog on 08/04/2012 15:43:40 MDT Print View

Dan McHale opines:
Many of you, when you read Rog's post of that day that I copied below, probably thought he sat down and wrote out a thoughtful 'at the moment statement'. All he did was copy his own postion statement from his own website 'Tallbloke'.

I know it's a small thing but it's this type of disingenuousness that typifies him. You make a good robot Rog;


You have things back to front Dan.I did write it as a "thoughtful 'at the moment' statement" on this site.
The timestamp on the first comment in reply to the copy I put on my site is at 8.58am on 3rd August. Why don't you try working out the time difference between that and the timestamp on the original I wrote and posted here before you offer your apology for telling everyone here that I'm "disingenuous".

If you have the cojones.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: The Carbon Flame War on 08/04/2012 15:53:27 MDT Print View

From: Tom Wigley
To: Timothy Carter
Subject: Re: Java climate model
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:17:29 -0600
Cc: Mike Hulme , Phil Jones



Tim,


I do not know the best way to handle the specifics of the
editoring. Hans von Storch is partly to blame -- he encourages the
publication of crap science 'in order to stimulate debate'. One approach
is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their
journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation
under the guise of refereed work. I use the word 'perceived' here, since
whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about -- it is
how the journal is seen by the community that counts.

I think we could get a large group of highly credentialed scientists to
sign such a letter -- 50+ people.

Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones.
Mike's idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not
work -- must get rid of von Storch too
, otherwise holes will eventually
fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer,
etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so
the above approach might remove that hurdle too.

dan mchale
(wildlife) - MLife

Locale: Cascadia
$$ on 08/04/2012 16:05:06 MDT Print View

Rog, I don't buy it any more than I buy anything you say. The statement is bull anyway.

Edited by wildlife on 08/04/2012 16:16:23 MDT.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: $$ on 08/04/2012 16:20:49 MDT Print View

Dan says:
"I don't buy it"

I don't have a need to sell you anything.

The facts speak for themselves.

dan mchale
(wildlife) - MLife

Locale: Cascadia
to general on 08/04/2012 16:24:51 MDT Print View

The generalities in the statement show where it was posted first. It explains why it was out of context with the thread and why Craig questioned your blanket statements.

Dave T
(DaveT) - F
cameron. on 08/04/2012 16:32:59 MDT Print View

Cameron,

Are you forgetting about the global conspiracy to suppress Rog's groundbreaking research?

It's important to keep that in mind.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: spliced up co2 data on 08/04/2012 16:42:41 MDT Print View

Jerry says:
In the last 800,000 years the CO2 level has been between 180 and 280 PPM

Whilst the Firn (compacted snow) is settling under the compression of the weight of snow above it, gases can diffuse through it. Finally it turns to ice and the trapped gases in it represent the average (due to diffusion) of up to around eight decades of fluctuations in co2 levels.

Thus if co2 levels started falling today at the same rate they rose, we may expect to see a level of around 350ppm in the 2012 ice in around 60 years time, and levels of 320ppm in 1960 ice.

The evidence from fossilized leaf stomata counts suggests that levels fluctuated by 50-60ppm or more over this eight decade timescale in antiquity.

The residence time of 99% of co2 in the atmosphere is around 5 years. When a curve based on this figure is plotted against the Mauna Loa record it is clear that around half the rise in co2 since 1950 is natural, and due to a combination of factors including but not limited to:-

Reduced photosynthesis by oceanic plankton in warmer oceans
Reduced solubility of co2 in warmer oceans ~16-20ppm/deg C
Increased volcanic activity
Increased emission from warmer solidified lava fields

Elevated co2 levels are due to higher surface temperatures, not the other way round. The temperature rose before the co2 did. Temperature change precedes co2 change at all timescales from day/night to seasonal to annual to ice ages.

dan mchale
(wildlife) - MLife

Locale: Cascadia
$$ on 08/04/2012 17:11:32 MDT Print View

Have you ever paid to be a member here Rog? It's a real convenient place to spread your rot for free isn't it?

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: cameron. on 08/04/2012 17:11:51 MDT Print View

> >I think
> >the skeptics will use
> > this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of
> >
> >years if it goes
> > unchallenged.
> >
> > I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having
> >nothing more to do with it until they
> > rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the
> >editorial board, but papers
> > get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.

> >
> > Cheers
> > Phil

Edited by tallbloke on 08/04/2012 17:13:23 MDT.