“he starts with a clear statement of his result”
That’s what I quoted. Clear? OK, do you know what model he’s talking about? Or what the IPCC assumed? Or how he disproved it?
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Nick Stokes
↧
↧
Comment on Is federal funding biasing climate research? by steveharris92
When I see publicly funded climate research go to zero, i.e. back to better times when weather was the topic, only then will I regain some trust of publicly funded research. Weather research provides something of value, where results are readily measurable. Predictions of the coming week are compared to actual data. Every day we get another data point to measure performance. Climate research has no easily measurable prediction performance metrics. Instead of one day it’s more like 10 yrs to get a single performance data point. This is an ideal environment for corruption to flourish. Thank you Dr. Curry for your integrity.
↧
Comment on Is federal funding biasing climate research? by steveharris92
These are different times. Not only to previous supporters now see the emperor has no clothes, we would also like to see him drawn and quartered for the huge wardrobe budget completely wasted.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Don Monfort
This is not like going up against McIntyre, nicky. You got a winner here. This stuff is straight from Denierville. Don’t let them intimidate you, nicky.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by ordvic
Greg Goodman seemed to like it.
↧
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by agnostic2015
Where was it taken apart? I read Greg Goodmans excellent responses to it on his blog. The main problem as I see it (and touched on by Nick Stokes) is lack of references or further support and justification for some assertions, and the appearance of over fitting.
It seems more a problem of presentation rather than substance. Or is that what you meant by it being “taken apart”? If so then I think that’s an unfair characterisation, since “taken apart” is often implies “discredited”. That would be ironic if you were yourself being unclear in criticising someone for not being clear enough.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by agnostic2015
This post is NOT incomprehensible, but I fully agree that documentation and support for assertions is lacking. It needs to be far more rigorously presented IMO, I think Greg Goodman’s remarks on his blog to be an excellent review.
↧
Comment on Is federal funding biasing climate research? by donaitkin
Judith,
The Hardwig essay on the Ethics of Climate Expertise is very relevant here.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by ...and Then There's Physics
Jeepers, seriously? Read Eli’s post if you can’t get this. The basic formula is
Delta = AE + NE – NS
where Delta is the increase in atmospheric CO2, AE is the anthropogenic emissions, NE is the natural emissions, and NS is the natural sinks. Clearly, Delta and AE are positive, and AE > Delta. This allows you to write
Delta – AE = NE – NS,
which must be less than zero. Therefore, the natural sinks are greater than the natural emissions and, consequently, the source cannot be natural, and must be anthropogenic.
↧
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by climatereason
Judith
Is there some special point in posting this at this time?
I see the original article dates back to 2011. It was then revised last February. Presumably that was because it was found to be incorrect, at least in part?
Without knowing the nature of the revisions, why they were made and why this has been resurrected at this time it is a bit difficult to make any substantive comment.
tonyb
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by HAS
Willard
Your first contribution to this thread was:
“> In reality, there is no hard evidence to support the contention that more than half of post 1950 warming is due to CO2 emissions.
“Evidence is what presents itself to the (mind’s) eye.
“In Chapter 10 of the AR5, many empirical lines of evidence are presented.
Cf. the Executive Summary.”
You were wrong about Chpt 10 presenting any (let alone many) lines of empirical evidence of attribution. Nor did your references to Held add anything in this regard
Can we agree about that, then you can wander off talking about detection.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by ...and Then There's Physics
You’re forgetting the Sun, which was fainter when CO2 was around 7000ppm than it is now. Strange that, given that it’s almost always the Sun, except when it’s not.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Mike Flynn
ATTP,
So the Sun got brighter after the advent of Man? How much brighter, would you say? How much did the Antarctic warm owing to this brighter Sun?
The Antarctic remains frozen, in spite of the warmer Sun. I’m forgetting nothing. The GHE didn’t work for four billion years, and it doesn’t work now. Sorry about that.
↧
↧
Comment on Is federal funding biasing climate research? by Peter Lang
+10
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by ...and Then There's Physics
Mike,
No, stars get brighter as the move along the main-sequence. A star like the Sun was probably about 3-4% fainter 500Myr ago than it is now. So, that would reduce solar forcing by maybe 10W/^2. A CO2 concentration of 7000ppm would produce a radiative forcing of around 17W/m^2 relative to pre-industrial times. So, the slightly fainter Sun would imply that the Earth would have been cooler than today, but the higher CO2 compensates for that, to produce a net increase in forcing of around 7W/m^2 relative to pre-industrial. This is about 2 doublings of CO2 relative to pre-industrial times and is consistent with temperatures being about 10C higher then than they are now.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Mike Flynn
ATTP,
You’re forgetting that plant growth increases with the availability of additional CO2. NS therefore increases, and your assumption is clearly incorrect.
Sorry about that, also.
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by Jaime
Willard, as HAS points out, you asserted that Ch. 10 presented ‘many empirical lines of evidence’ and vaguely referenced Held in that respect. When pushed, you explicitly referred to a few lines in an abstract of a 2000 paper by Held and asserted that this met my demands for empirical evidence. Most obviously it did not.
So now you switch the emphasis to declaring that attribution studies cannot be looked upon as empirical evidence (even though you have stated that they are based upon empirical evidence), that the suggestion is absurd, but that, mysteriously, they are still scientifically valid as regards ‘fingerprinting’ the anthropogenic contribution to recent global warming. You furthermore state that my requirement for empirical evidence re. anthropogenic fingerprinting ‘begs an impossible demand’. So in effect you are agreeing with me that attribution studies are not empirical evidence and you have tacitly acknowledged (by your silence) that there is a complete lack of empirical evidence in Ch. 10, Despite this however you label my ‘rant’ against attribution studies on the basis that they are not empirical evidence as ‘absurd’ and ‘beyond ridiculous’, whereas your acceptance of them as ‘evidence’ (whilst still acknowledging that they are not physical/empirical evidence) is somehow more firmly rooted in the scientific method!
I am in awe.
↧
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by ...and Then There's Physics
You’re forgetting that plant growth increases with the availability of additional CO2. NS therefore increases, and your assumption is clearly incorrect.
No, it’s not and suggesting that it is particularly silly. That NS goes up makes it even harder to argue for a natural source. Think about this. There is more CO2 in the oceans and in the biosphere than before we started emitting. How can they be the source if they’ve absorbed more CO2 than they’ve emitted? This is not even all that complicated.
↧
Comment on Is federal funding biasing climate research? by Peter Lang
NREL is a renewable energy advocacy agency
NRC is called the “Nuclear Rejection Commission” – they have made nuclear power uncompetitive world wide.
↧
Comment on Is federal funding biasing climate research? by Peter Lang
I agree.
DoD also funding research to produce hydrocarbon transport fuels from seawater using nuclear power.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
