There’s nothing wrong with funding a “red team.”
Comment on Is federal funding biasing climate research? by rogerknights
↧
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by dikranmarsupial
Incidentally, this discussion is an excellent illustration of why I raised this topic on a previous thread here on “Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus”
http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/18/distinguishing-the-academic-from-the-interface-consensus/
This is an issue where the academic consensus is almost complete in its unanimity, and yet there have been countless discussions on blogs as to whether the rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic or natural (ruled out by the observations as Ferdinand has explained again and again, extremely patiently). Sadly the volume of discussion on blogs is not necessarily a good indicator of where the scientific consensus actually stands.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by dikranmarsupial
curryja wrote “nothing wrong with mass balance; in and of itself, it isn’t an attribution argument”
Mass balance shows that the natural environment is a net carbon sink and is therefore opposing the rise, not causing it. It is hard to think of a better basis for attribution than to demonstrate that the natural environment is taking more CO2 out of the atmosphere each year than it puts in!
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by dikranmarsupial
curryja wrote “… I think everyone understands the concept of the mass balance. The issue is how/whether this relates to attribution, given that we have a dynamical system with feedbacks (including regional variations and temperature dependent feedbacks).”
The mass balance argument shows the natural environment is a net carbon sink; please explain in what sense the natural environment can be considered a cause of the increase while taking more CO2 out of the atmosphere than it puts in.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by dikranmarsupial
I wrote: “Now can you give an example of any other situation where something can be said to cause the amount of some substance in a container (or reservoir) to increase whilst at the same time taking more of that substance out of the container (or reservoir) than it puts in?”
Batrtemis wrote: “I gave you one. See “lavatory sink” in the last response. I gave a specific mathematical example above”
that example turned out to be:
“A partially blocked drain will still drain water from a lavatory sink, and oppose any additional trickle you put in, while still causing the water level to rise due to a torrent of water from the faucet.”
That clearly is not an example of that form as the amount of water leaving through the drain is less than the amount coming in from the tap. You need to find an example where somthing causes a level to rise while taking more out than it puts in. Of course you won’t be able to do that because you are using a novel definition of “cause” that appears to be unique to the carbon cycle.
↧
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by ...and Then There's Physics
Okay, I haven’t finished my first coffee, so this may not be right, but I think you need to consider what happens if you continue the process. What you’re suggesting is something like this. Without our emissions, we have
in – 0.2Ntot = 1, where Ntot is the total amount in the atmosphere.
Now we add our 5Gt, to get
in – 0.2Ntot + 5 – 0.2(5) = 1 + 4 = 5
Okay?
Now do the next year
in – 0.2(Ntot + 5) + 5 – 0.2(5) = in – 0.2Ntot – 1 + 5 – 1 = 4
So, the above assumes that “in” doesn’t change, and it might. However, I think if you were to continue, you would find that you’d end up in a state where the rise is slower than our emissions and the natural sinks are taking in more than they’re giving out.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by edimbukvarevic
Dikran, in the same sense that nature has been a net sink and still has caused some of the rise, however small. It simply means that without human emissions, nature would be net source, not net zero (in the period of observations).
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by dikranmarsupial
Bartemis wrote “The “mass balance” argument is essentially useless for determining attribution. You’ve got to know the sink activity. You’ve got to know how fast things are being taken out, as well as how fast they are being put in.”
Yet again Bartemis shows he doesn’t understand the mass balance argument. To show that the natural environment is a net sink you don’t need to know the magnitude of the natural sources of the natural sinks, you just need to show that the natural sinks exceed the natural sources. This is not rocket science.
If I have an equation a – b = c – d and I know that a – b is negative, then I know for a fact that c – d is negative as well, even if I don’t know either of their actual values. This is just basic algebra.
The rise in atmospheric CO2 only depends on the difference between total uptake and total emissions (as Prof. Salby states – he is entirely correct on that point). It doesn’t matter if emissions are 2GtC per year and uptake 1GtC per year or if emissions are 1,000,002 GtC per year and uptake 1,000,001 GtC per year, atmospheric CO2 will rise by 1GtC either way.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by verytallguy
Yes. I think we have clearly demonstrated that the rise is anthropogenic, and those like apparently now yourself, simply ignore the facts.
I note you now summon up temperature feedback.
To do this whilst ignoring the potential magnitude of such a feedback beggars belief from an academic.
It’s quite astonishing.
↧
↧
Comment on Contradiction on emotional bias in the climate domain by David Ramsay Steele
You have the same access to the LA blog as me or anyone else. You just login giving a username and password. (This may change in a few months but is the situation right now. There is no moderator or anything.)
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by dikranmarsupial
edimbukvarevic wrote “in the same sense that nature has been a net sink and still has caused some of the rise, however small.”
That isn’t answering the question, it is just repeating the initial statement
“It simply means that without human emissions, nature would be net source, not net zero (in the period of observations).”
So what is your evidence that in the absence of anthropogenic emissions that the natural environment would have been a net source over the last fifty years. Note that in the absence of anthropogenic forcing, we would expect GMSTs to have declined over that period as the natural forcings have been in the opposite direction and would be expected to produce mild cooling instead (c.f. https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-4-1-2.html).
The warming we have seen over the last fifty years has reduced the ability of the natural environment to oppose the rise in CO2, but “opposing the rise less” is not the same thing as “causing the rise”. What matters is not what the natural environment may have done in some unspecified hypothetical situation, but what we observe it actually did do in reality.
↧
Comment on ENSO and the anchovy by mosomoso
The Australian pilchard/sardine, a base fish of the Australian industry, took a hug and sudden hit in 1995 (El Nino) and 1998 (El Nino). The main reason given is disease.
For years after the mid-90s there were theories among our fishermen that the “pillies” were gone for good, affecting other more desired species. (I would rather eat the oily little pillies than the deluxe reef fish for which they are used as bait, but that’s just me.)
It’s interesting that the sardine shocks coincided with El Ninos (strongly neg SOI) in a decade of four declared El Ninos. It’s also interesting that the pillies are now back in swarms.
Maybe it was just herpes that go ’em, but Phil’s article raises interesting possibilities.
↧
Comment on ENSO and the anchovy by beththeserf
Say Peter,
Man supposes, naychur disposes ;) H/T bts.
↧
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Don Monfort
the pouched one says:
“Mass balance shows that the natural environment is a net carbon sink…”
I wonder how many of them get that. If they get that, they should be able to get this:
“and is therefore opposing the rise, not causing it. It is hard to think of a better basis for attribution than to demonstrate that the natural environment is taking more CO2 out of the atmosphere each year than it puts in!”
Weird.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Don Monfort
“in the same sense that nature has been a net sink and still has caused some of the rise”
It would interesting to see you explain how nature do that trick.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Don Monfort
Nature emissions 100 gazillion tons, nature sinks 105 gazillion tons. How is any natural CO2 left over to cause increase in the atmosphere? No problem. Give nature 10 gazillion tons of ACO2, which nature will naturally eat first.
↧
Comment on ENSO and the anchovy by genghiscunn
OT: “Massive shake in Kathmandu!” – posted on FB three minutes ago by a friend.
↧
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by verytallguy
Don
Somebody please stop this thread.
Thing is Don, that’s essentially down to Judith. No-one cares that there are cranks on the internet who believe all sorts of complete nonsense, including magical CO2 production. It’s Judith’s support for them that drives the traffic.
Rather than demand an end, it might be more productive to ask why Judith has chosen to support this absurdity.
↧
Comment on ENSO and the anchovy by beththeserf
Anchovies and hard boiled eggs …
mmm, go together like, well,
anchovies and LA Nina weather.
↧
Comment on ENSO and the anchovy by mosomoso
If you can get fresh anchovy or sardine, patiently fillet and stack in shallow layers between much parsley, garlic, breadcrumb and hard cheese. Bake. (The natural fishy oils will suffice for the cooking.)
On tasting you will entreat the gods to make you all mouth.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
