Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on The 50-50 argument by curryja


Comment on The 50-50 argument by Rob Ellison

0
0

Better watch it webbly or you will be disappeared yet again. I don’t suppose it matters to you much. Each comment is much like another. Tired and clumsy jibes in place of rational discourse, seething resentment in place of actual knowledge, fantastic rants in place of cogent thought. Each to their strengths I suppose.

The two studies I link to show an increase in CO2 respiration form soils and tropical vegetation that total 70% of anthropogenic emissions. These alternatives sources are biological. and not chemical and due to solubility. This seems quite a difficult point for some – as we keep returning to this idea of lower solubility in a warmer ocean as the source of CO2. It occurs but is relatively minor. But it is in fact simple – the carbon cycle is biologically mediated and to a lessor extent chemical reactions. Write that down. Have a look at the pathways I started with.

‘Ecosystem warming experiments, modelling analyses, and fundamental biokinetics all suggest’ that CO2 increases in a warmer environment. Surely this is obvious to any but the recalcitrantly oblivious few.

As I think I said quite clearly – the increase is in ‘significant part’ temperature dependent. How significant and what the natural warming was are reasonable questions for a scientific realist. Although it seems to send alarmists into paroxysms of seething resentment and misrepresentation.

It seems a simple argument – backed by mainstream science. From personal circumstances –

– I have less patience than ever for stubborn obtuseness. Less so for clumsy and repetitive jibes. Read the damn links before making id_ot comment.

Comment on The 50-50 argument by cwon14

0
0

That’s an optimistic thought; “facts are stubborn things”. The history of post WW2 science, it’s link to ever growing political and ideological subjugation didn’t start or end with global warming agendas. This is all just a snap shot of the deterioration into post normal science.

We’re generations away from the broad political establishment and it’s media operatives acknowledging the warming agenda was political fraud and excess supported by like minded academics and the many tools that believe in ever larger state size and authority.

Dr. Curry’s post is positive but it remains quibbling since the core political acknowledgement is clearly missing. Most thinking people understand what the IPCC agenda is, it’s only intense political correctness that prevents even the conversation among the technocrats like Dr. Curry. The core warming movement was and is politically corrupt, science to rationalize central planning agendas. It’s been this way Dr. Curry';s entire career so this seems to me the longest Road to Damascus in history of logical conversions. The endless nuance with the greenshirt fringe is in fact counter productive.

Comment on The 50-50 argument by Bob Ludwick

0
0

50-50?

Actually, there is growing evidence that the true anthropogenic contribution to Global Warming is asymptotically approaching 100%.

Nothing to do with ACO2 of course, but the predictable result of giving progressives access to computers, pencils, and billions of dollars and charging them to ‘come back with your fossil fuel catastrophe shields or on them’.

Comment on The 50-50 argument by Rob Ellison

0
0

The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere related to temperature is from biological sources – and not primarily from lower solubility in warmer oceans. This seems fairly obvious and uncontroversial. At least to other than the oblivious few. Nor is anyone suggesting that anthropogenic emissions are not happening.

Discussion of Salby seems to inevitably take on a surreal aspect that should be fascinating in a dedicated post.

Comment on The 50-50 argument by Matthew R Marler

0
0
Rob Ellison: <i>Discussion of Salby seems to inevitably take on a surreal aspect that should be fascinating in a dedicated post. </i> That was why I referred to his textbook. He cites the outgassing of Co2 from oceans on p. 68, and in a talk of his that has circulated. Also on p. 68 he cites the decomposition of biological matter. He further down says that the dependence of CO2 on temperature is poorly understood. Taken all together, the dependence of measured CO2 in the atmosphere on temperature does not rule out a mostly fossil fuel source of the increasing CO2.

Comment on The 50-50 argument by Rob Ellison

0
0

The two studies I link below together suggest an increase from soils and tropical vegetation of 70% of anthropogenic emissions.

Comment on The 50-50 argument by Brandon Shollenberger

0
0

I’m not sure about that. I’ve seen lots of people make comments attributing 100+% of the observed warming to humans, and they’ve pretty much all done so while claiming the “pause” is artificial – that the true amount of warming is being concealed by various factors (such as natural cycles or surface temperatures being a poor proxy for global warming).


Comment on The 50-50 argument by David Springer

0
0

I think I’m still in time out. Spending time on a different blog.

Comment on The 50-50 argument by David Springer

0
0

Yup, still in moderation.

Comment on The 50-50 argument by aaron

Comment on The 50-50 argument by aaron

0
0

Though, deforestation may reduce gat, and increase land temp.

Comment on The 50-50 argument by aaron

0
0

Yes, but this is like ice core and other proxies. They likely show some relative changes, but there are probable processess that filter data and resolution that declines over time and is wished away by spurious stats.

5

Comment on The 50-50 argument by Brian H

0
0

Your questions are all resolved when you admit that CO2 has no influence on warming, but is subsumed and subordinated in far more potent and long-lived processes. Mankind’s influence is less than negligible.

Comment on The 50-50 argument by Steven Mosher

0
0

“I’m prepared to accept a lot of responsibility (>51%) for changes (good and bad) to the climate, but I’m a lot less willing to accept the one-knob hypothesis that CO2 dunnitall.”

there is no one knob hypothesis for modern changes.


Comment on The 50-50 argument by Rob Starkey

0
0

“there is no one knob hypothesis for modern changes”

LOL– seems to believe he knows what everyone else believes. There are lots of nutty beliefs- keep reading the comments here and you will come to understand what you wrote is incorrect.

Comment on The 50-50 argument by Matthew R Marler

0
0

Rob Ellison: e.g. http://environmentportal.in/files/Temperature%20associated%20increases%20in%20the%20global%20soil.pdfhttp://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Tropical-ecosystems-regulate-variations-in-Earths-carbon-dioxide-levels.aspx

Thank you for the links.

From the second: a temperature anomaly of just 1ºC (in near surface air temperatures in the tropics) leads to a 3.5-Petagram (billion tonnes of carbon) anomaly in the annual CO2 growth rate, on average. This is the equivalent of 1/3 of the annual global emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation together.

OK, but there has not been a 1C increase since WWII, so that is not a large contribution compared to fossil fuel burning.

From the first: The S1 data imply that RS is responding to climate anomalies on the local scale. Climate is only one of many factors controlling
decomposition and RS (ref. 10), but this raises the question of the
integrated global effect of these changes. We calculated RS over the
time period covered by these data by using the basic model (model B)
to predict grid-cell RS across the entire terrestrial land surface. We
estimate that the annual global RS in 2008 was 98 6 12 PgC, or 85 PgC if agricultural areas are excluded, and is increasing at 0.1PgC yr 21
(0.1% yr 21 ; Fig. 2). The 0.1Pg Cyr21 increase from 1989 to 2008 was significant ( t 18 5 5.2,P,0.001), and a grid-cell-matched,two-sided
t -test confirmed (t 60,843 52 129.0, P 0.001)that the computed 2008 global flux was significantly higher than that for 989. This annual global
RS value is 20–30% higher than previous 3,8,15 estimates. It is, however, consistent with a previous global calculation f the heterotrophic soil flux
23, given the general heterotrophic contri-bution to RS (ref. 24). The interannual variability of annual global RS was 1.5PgC, similar to that found in an earlier modelling study 8

Some translation/typesetting errors, but those together suggest that anthropogenic CO2 is the dominant source of CO2 increase.

Is there more?

Comment on The 50-50 argument by Matthew R Marler

0
0
Brandon Shollenberger: <i>I’ve never paid attention to the Salby discussions, but I have to assume there are better sources to use. </i> check out his textbook.

Comment on The 50-50 argument by Setting the record straight on “climate change” arguments | The Drinking Water Advisor

0
0

[…] Response: Judith Curry has addressed this claim here. […]

Comment on The 50-50 argument by Brandon Shollenberger

0
0

Matthew R Marler, textbooks are generally too much of a pain to track down for a topic I have little interest in. That’s especially true since many of them can’t be accessed without paying money.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images