As the above comment shows, nobody has found anything <b>substantive</b> wrong with Lomborg's work.
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by AK
↧
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Hugh Roper
Dear Dr Curry, I would have placed this comment on your blog but am unfortunately now excluded by your rules from doing so. However I think you could with advantage provide some balance to your re-blogging of Fred Haynie’s essay by providing equal coverage to Ferdinand Engelbeen’s professional discussion of the same issue. Regards, Coldish. From: Climate Etc. To: roundton@yahoo.co.uk Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2015, 4:27 Subject: [New post] Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 #yiv2276022009 a:hover {color:red;}#yiv2276022009 a {text-decoration:none;color:#0088cc;}#yiv2276022009 a.yiv2276022009primaryactionlink:link, #yiv2276022009 a.yiv2276022009primaryactionlink:visited {background-color:#2585B2;color:#fff;}#yiv2276022009 a.yiv2276022009primaryactionlink:hover, #yiv2276022009 a.yiv2276022009primaryactionlink:active {background-color:#11729E;color:#fff;}#yiv2276022009 WordPress.com | curryja posted: “by Fred HaynieI conclude that, the IPCC’s model assumptions that long-term natural net rate of accumulation is constant and anthropogenic emission rates are the only contributor to total long-term accumulation of atmospheric CO2, is false.All ” | |
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Ragnaar
“This upwelling, and thus the CO2 flux to the atmosphere, is heavily modulated by the El Niño–southern oscillation (ENSO) cycle. During strong El Niño years the equatorial Pacific CO2 source can drop to zero. During La Niña the CO2 source to the atmosphere is enhanced.”
“Time series measurements of atmospheric CO2, 13C and O2/N2 sources have suggested that ocean flux variations must be in the order of 1–2 Pg C/year…” (Although smaller amounts have also been suggested.)
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/sabi2854/modern.shtml
What’s interesting is that past La Ninas (back thousands of years) during cooler times seems to be the oceans trying to dredge up CO2 for the atmosphere. A reasonable response.
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Jim D
Lomborg differs from a lot of the skeptics here in agreeing with the IPCC WG1 science and ranges. He also favors putting lots of R&D money into green energy solutions like solar and wind energy and storage methods to make them practical, but says nothing about by when he wants to replace fossil fuels, which is where he differs from the timelines proposed in effective mitigation scenarios. He is also in favor of R&D for geoengineering like injecting sulfates in the stratosphere to increase the reflectance of the earth or finding ways to remove CO2. He used to be in favor of a carbon tax, but lately is against it, as far as I can see.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Ragnaar
I think it’s evidence of the thermohaline circulation upwelling.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by willard (@nevaudit)
> [N]obody has found anything substantive wrong with Lomborg’s work.
“Substantive” signals special pleading and moves from the undefensible “without once providing an example of an error” to “substantively wrong” (paraphrasing).
That Lomborg misrepresented Nordhaus’ work suffices to show that this claim is misleading at best. Lomborg also misinformed the Congress. Both misdeeds seem substantial enough.
***
A water well in Africa costs 7,000 USD and serves 2,000 persons:
http://waterwellsforafrica.org/whats-the-cost/
$4 million AUD is around $3,2 million USD.
Should we dig more than 450 water wells in Africa and provide fresh water to 900 000 Africans, or should we invest in the Lomborg Collective Consensus Claptraps?
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Ragnaar
Willard:
A third choice would be to build nine 100-kW wind turbines.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy, water and food edition by Peter Lang
<strong>JC SNIP
Peter and Roger, your discussion is over here, too many insults, no new development of the discussion.</strong>
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by climategrog
Ferdi:
With the above knowledge, we can calculate the exact sink rate for each year, based on the CO2 level in the atmosphere of that year and the equivalent CO2 level for the temperature of that year.
If you look at your graph you will see that biggest inter-annual change in the CO2 record which happened at the same time as the biggest temp swing in the corresponding period matches a net decline and a clear reversal in your “exact ” calculated equivalent CO2 level .
Clearly some of your assumptions are fundamentally wrong and the result is in no way “exact” as you claim.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
The world needs scientific rationalism.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rolf-dieter-heuer/the-world-needs-scientific-rationalism_b_7241410.html
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by climategrog
“As CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280-400ppm, have the oceans been a net sink or a net source?”
If the oceans were capable of sinking all human emissions rapidly and the rise in atm CO2 was totally due to out-gassing, the oceans would still be acting as a net sink. That question does not get you anywhere.
I don’t think that scenario is any more realistic than proposing that out-gassing is irrelevant. But both explanations see the oceans as a net sink.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Jim D
In your own version of the science, that you are clearly making up as you go along, what would be the difference if emissions were zero instead of 200 ppm? Would you predict that the ocean still outgasses the same 120 ppm or did it need that 200 ppm to be able to do that?
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Steven Mosher
AK.
as willard points out “substantive” is special pleading.
Looking a the web site her refered to, you can see another example
“A few claims have been modified slightly in response to comments, but none has been modified in any essential way.”
folks do this all the time.
↧
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by climategrog
Thanks Ragnaar, some interesting links there.
The CO2 flux map is particularly useful. It is interesting to note that the major sink areas are not the coldest polar regions but lower latitude , temperate zones.
This is where the ocean pCO2 vs atm CO2 is more finely balanced and the effects of temperature change have the most effect. This is one of main flaws in Ferdinand’s globally averaged Henry’s law calculations.
The effects of SST changes in very warm tropical waters and very cold polar regions are less important.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Don Monfort
Sorry freddie, the known quantities are the increase in atmospheric CO2 and the amount of ACO2 emissions. We know that the ACO2 emissions are twice big enough to account for the increase in CO2. What you got is confused conjecture.
Where is your balance sheet, freddie? Give us an accounting. Real numbers. How much has natural CO2 increased? Must be a lot. What caused it? How do you get from 280 to 400 ppm, if ACO2 only accounts for 22% of the increase? Do you believe as does your friend bartie that the sinks eat up the ACO2 first? Think , freddie.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Don Monfort
“I don’t think that scenario is any more realistic than proposing that out-gassing is irrelevant. But both explanations see the oceans as a net sink.”
Who proposed that out-gassing is irrelevant? It is relevant, but what is more relevant is the net. If the oceans have been a net sink, then how do we get from 280 to 400 ppm with any contribution from natural CO2, given that the amount of ACO2 is twice what is needed to explain the increase? Is bartie right, that the sinks eat up the more delicious ACO2 first?
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy, water and food edition by beththeserf
Jest anuther dumb machine, Faustino, even keeps kim out. (
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy, water and food edition by beththeserf
Green Party, ivy-walled, back ter the golden-age –
advocate, inner-city dwellers. Let them eat gruel,
let them not fly to exotic far-away, environment
conferences.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Ferdinand Engelbeen
Fred, you don’t understand what I have done. Besides a small contribution from temperature (~5 ppmv over the past 55 years), according to Henry’s law of the solubility of CO2 in seawater ALL CO2 increase in the atmosphere is caused by the human contribution. That would be the case even if it was 1% or 99% of the human contribution: the 50% is just coincidence because of the slightly quadratic increase of human emissions.
What I have done is calculating the theoretical increase in the atmosphere for a simple linear reaction of the oceans to the increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere: a doubling gives a doubling in sink rate. That shows that my calculation is middle of the observed increase in the atmosphere, with only 4% increase due to warmer oceans.
Your figures are based on the 13C/12C decline which is only 1/3rd of the theoretical decline if all human CO2 would have been retained in the atmosphere, but what you see is “dilution” by swapping a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, including human emissions, by deep ocean CO2: that doesn’t add any CO2 to the total in the atmosphere (the oceans are a net sink of ~3.5 GtC/year), only increases the 13C/12C ratio somewhat and is not part of the increase.
The huge variability is caused by the fast response of vegetation on temperature changes, but vegetation is a net, increasing sink for CO2 too, thus also not the cause of the increasing trend…
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by verytallguy
The original post isn’t worth commenting on, other than perhaps asking why Judith chose to promote it, but Judith’s take on it is mind boggling.
…I am not convinced by simple mass balance attribution arguments based on current observations. I think it unlikely that 100% of the increase in atm CO2 is caused by humans. It is not unreasonable to start from a point of 50-50 (Fred’s conclusion) and see if you can falsify natural variability as large as 50%. It may not be 50%, but I don’t think it is 0%
Strange times we live in.
We have a rise in CO2 unprecedented for at least the million or so years over which we can measure CO2 in antarctic ice bubbles.
The rise started to be clear against the baseline c. 1750; James Watt was granted the first patent on his improvements to steam engine design in 1769, kickstarting the industrial revolution.
The atmospheric rise totals about half the cumulative emissions known from fossil fuel burning and land use changes, the rest being absorbed by natural sinks. This “mass balance argument” is simple and irrefutable without showing that our assessment of anthropogenic emissions has been out by a factor of more than two, or a similar error in measurements of CO2. I note that no-one has attempted to show this.
No amount of arm waving, calls to non-linearity or dynamics makes any difference to this:
The rise in atmospheric CO2 is only half what we have emitted. Ergo the natural world must be absorbing, not emitting CO2
That well known and very easily understood facts like these are denied or obscured by well educated people more than capable of understanding them is informative: Facts alone are insufficient to convince people, however powerful a case they make.
It may well be that some, many even, cannot ever be convinced by factual arguments.
[PS kudos to Don Montford, here and in the much earlier Charlie Hebdo thread]
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
