Wrhoward
Thanks for your detailed comments and references. However, your evidence is still suggestive, NOT causative or determinative.
Re 1: You presume natural steady state prior to modern anthroprogenic CO2 - without evidence:
<blockquote>It’s not clear to what extent these gross fluxes were in “steady-state” before the anthropogenic input of carbon, but the relative stability of atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the centuries prior to the industrial revolution suggest something close to steady state.</blockquote>
Your argument depends on natural CO2 from microbial action being temperature independent - despite widespread evidence to the contrary.
See <a href="http://www.city-journal.org/2014/24_3_global-warming.html" rel="nofollow">Rupert Darwell's summary of Salby's arguments,</a> (and Monckton's summary of <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/22/excerpts-from-salbys-slide-show/" / rel="nofollow">Salby</a> as well as links to Salby's presentations above.)
<blockquote>the IPCC reasons that, since plants tend to absorb more light carbon than heavy carbon, CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels reduce the share of heavy carbon in the atmosphere. But Salby points to much larger natural processes, such as emissions from decaying vegetation, that also reduce the proportion of heavy carbon. <b>Temperature heavily influences the rate of microbial activity inherent in these natural processes</b>, and Salby notes that the <b>share of heavy carbon emissions falls whenever temperatures are warm.</b> Once again, temperature appears more likely to be the cause, rather than the effect, of observed atmospheric changes. </blockquote>
Re 2: Insufficient. Salby shows the ice core CO2 estimates were off by an order of magnitude from ignoring diffusion through the ice.
Re 3) You state: “The continued and dominant Northern Hemisphere emissions source continues to drive a hemispheric gradient in CO2 concentrations”
That is unconvincing in light of Salby's more recent contrary evidence. e.g., the highest CO2 emission rates are over the Amazon, subsaharan Africa and southeast Asia, NOT the USA and Europe:
<blockquote> Salby presents satellite observations showing that the <b>highest levels of CO2 are present not over industrialized regions but over relatively uninhabited and nonindustrialized areas</b>, such as the Amazon. And if human emissions were behind rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, he argues, then the change in CO2 each year should track the carbon dioxide released that year from burning fossil fuels—with natural emissions of CO2 being canceled out by reabsorption from land sinks and oceans. But the change of CO2 each year doesn’t track the annual emission of CO2 from burning fossil fuels, as shown in Figure 1, which charts annual emissions of CO2, where an annual increase of one part per million is approximately equivalent to an annual growth rate of 0.25 percent.</blockquote>
As you bear the burden of proof - keep searching for Truth - to the <a href="http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.pdf" rel="nofollow">standard scientific integrity set by Richard Feynman.</a>
Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by David L. Hagen
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
JimD, ” long-term coincidence rather than just a scientific success.”
Pretty much. The trend in energy balance models tends to agree. In a few years, 2C will probably be the higher end estimate and 1C the central estimate.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Jim D
captd, it has been tracking 2 C per doubling along with the models for the last 60 years, and that is just the transient rate, but these are matching up well with the kinds of rates the IPCC has been stating all along.
↧
Comment on Open thread by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
Quite a coincidence that peak miles driven per capita coincided with the predicted global oil production peak of 2005. Markets always react to scarcity independent of what the cornucopian pundits say.
Hamilton reported:
”
All but one of the 11 postwar recessions were associated with an increase in
the price of oil, the single exception being the recession of 1960. Likewise, all but one of
the 12 oil price episodes listed in Table 1 were accompanied by U.S. recessions, the
single exception being the 2003 oil price increase associated with the Venezuelan unrest
and second Persian Gulf War.
“
http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~jhamilto/oil_history.pdf
This is always fun because deniers remain deniers whatever the topic being discussed.
Abnegation is a psychological defense mechanism.
↧
Comment on Open thread by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
Of course Cappy has to try to wiggle out of his ineptitude by trying to change the subject.
” My estimate is part of my handle doncha know.”
Dealing with people holding VoTech degrees gets tiresome, doncha know.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by Wagathon
It’s sort of funny to read the Brad Plumer article in the link, about migration of peoples– all poor–displaced by global warming (and the burden that developed countries would face as a consequence), and see no mention of the greening of the Sahara, nor any mention of the fact that the same things could be said about what we might expect if we are a decade into the next 300 years of global cooling.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Wagathon
The only way to beat the disastrous consequences of Leftist-inspired AGW alarmism is to be so poor that when the economy crashes, the depression will come and go and you’ll never notice.
↧
Comment on Open thread by brent
@Tonyb
It’s about harnessing the “Cult of Celebrity” in support of the cause.
NHL has already signed up to the CAGW propaganda scam it appears
NHL warns hockey’s future threatened by climate change
Hockey is taking steps to reduce its carbon footprint, for good reason: more than other pro sports, it depends on cold weather and clean water
http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/2014/07/23/nhl_warns_hockeys_future_threatened_by_climate_change.html
I love your comment about soccer “athletic supporters” travelling overseas by train :: )) I guess you were referring to the Chunnel : )
cheers
brent
P.S. Maybe they could start feeding some deniers to the lions at intermission : (
Sport is the modern equivalent of the circus of “bread and circus” fame
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison
No it hasn’t. It ‘tracked’ 0.08 degrees C/decade in 20 odd years between 1979 and 1997. The extreme were periods of ENSO extremes. The same in a complete warm/cool multidecadal regime form 1946 to 1998.
Most of the increase in 1979 to 1997 – the data quite unequivocally shows – was cloud radiative forcing caused by cloud changes associated with changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation.
So what do you get with a hundred years of 0.08 degrees C increase per decade? An utterly unlikely assumption that all other things will remain the same.
↧
↧
Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by Faustino
Sounds a fair assessment to me. What is so strange is how few people seem to grasp this and accept that dangerous warming is occurring and must be addressed by GHG emissions reductions.
↧
Comment on Open thread by climatereason
Brent
I started of saying plane but it ended up as train! Yes, feed deniers to the lions, that would make a great spectacle for the half time entertainment!
tonyb
↧
Comment on Open thread by climatereason
mosomoso
According to my robustly adjusted and smoothed modelled data I can say with 97.5% certainty that Australia hasn’t won a cricket match for 27 years.
tonyb
↧
Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by Rob Ellison
Climate is not predictable. Climate is wild as Wally Broecker said – but that comes with inherent instability in the system.
The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) defined abrupt climate change as a new climate paradigm as long ago as 2002. A paradigm in the scientific sense is a theory that explains observations. A new science paradigm is one that better explains data – in this case climate data – than the old theory. The new theory says that climate change occurs as discrete jumps in the system. Climate is more like a kaleidoscope – shake it up and a new pattern emerges – than a control knob with a linear gain.
The theory of abrupt climate change is the most modern – and powerful – in climate science and has profound implications for the evolution of climate this century and beyond. Climate is pushed past thresholds by changes in greenhouse gases, solar intensity or orbital eccentricity. The climate response is internally generated – with changes in cloud, ice, dust and biology – and proceeds at a pace determined by the system itself. The old theory of climate suggests that warming is inevitable. The new theory suggests that global warming is not guaranteed and that climate surprises are inevitable.
Chaotic instability in the system suggests that the discussion should move to practical and pragmatic policy responses on emissions, landscape changes, agricultural soils, population, development… .
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by Bart Verheggen
We conducted a very detailed survey among a broad group of scientists studying various aspects of global warming. The article segregates some of the main results in different subgroups, including e.g. by self-reported expertise fields. There is only a marginal difference in responses between those with self-reported expertise in impacts or mitigation as opposed to WG1 expertise fields (see e.g. the Supporting Information, Fig S5).
See also the accompanying blog post about this survey: http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/survey-confirms-scientific-consensus-on-human-caused-global-warming/
↧
Comment on Open thread by climatereason
Bart said;
‘The answers to the survey showed a wide variety of opinions, but it was clear that a large majority of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the dominant cause of global warming’
Regional warming would be more accurate than ‘global’ warming, but leaving that aside, do a large majority of climate scientists yet agree what caused major episodes of warming (and cooling) in the past?
tonyb
↧
Comment on Open thread by Tom Fuller
Hiya Bart! Glad to see you finally got that survey done. Is the data available to the public? In SPSS, maybe?
↧
Comment on Open thread by mosomoso
So this warmish patch of the holocene is okay, considering cooler alternatives…but the science is worse than we thought.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by kim
Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?
===================
↧
Comment on Open thread by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Well then Webster, why don’t you point out the subtle differences between a boundary value problem and a boundary value problem forced by longer than anticipated pseudo-periodic processes that vary the initial conditions on which the boundary value problem is dependent. Keeping in mind of course that “forcing” has to be external relative to the modelers choice of system boundaries.
↧
Comment on Open thread by kim
Heh, aerosols got in their eyes.
==========
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
