Slashdot Mirror

IPCC:

https://www.ipcc.ch/publicatio...

So, yes, there are in fact natural fluxes orders of magnitude greater than human activity. And as for evidence that we have an actively adaptive system:

http://theresilientearth.com/?...

Our observations have shown a matching increase natural sinks as we've input more CO2 from human activity. The absorption isn't marginal, it is literally proportionate to the increases in emissions.

What does this mean? It means that it is quite possible that CO2 levels on the larger scale are driven by other factors, and in fact the biosphere and geosphere react dynamically to keep CO2 at a given set point which may change over time unrelated to any given source or sink.

That means add CO2, and some sink may reactively absorb it. Remove CO2, and some source may reactively release it. Just like a buffered solution, perturbations in either direction are neutralized.

Imagine for a moment, that rather than CO2 driving temperature, that temperature drives CO2 - and that it is the temperature level that drives the appropriate sources and sinks to behave in a way that brings CO2 levels in the atmosphere to a specific point. It's almost trivial to think of this in terms of partial pressures (where the temperature of the oceans drive outgassing and absorption).

Oh, as for ocean pH neutralization, even if you burnt every molecule of petroleum on this planet, and shoved the CO2 directly into the oceans, you wouldn't change the pH appreciably - the oceans are *literally* a world wide reservoir that outweighs any amount of CO2 we could conceivably throw at it.

Good! A fellow atheist! Then perhaps you can be more skeptical of the Church of Global Warming!

The fact of the matter is that the CO2 *does* come from elsewhere - lots of elsewheres. The natural fluxes of CO2 between our atmosphere, our non-human biosphere, the oceans, are orders of magnitude *greater* than any human contribution.

More important though, is this - it's quite possible CO2 in the atmosphere is regulated by natural processes, much like a buffer solution. If you've ever done any chemistry, you'll remember a buffer solution as a liquid that will both neutralize additions of acid (low pH), and bases (high pH). If the CO2 in the atmosphere acts anything like this, it means that even if humanity *withdrew* as much CO2 from the atmosphere as they do currently *inject*, nature would make up the difference.

And when you look at the data, lo and behold, that's how it looks like:

http://theresilientearth.com/?...

As we emit more and more CO2, natural processes magically decide to *absorb* more CO2 - these atmospheric CO2 levels are actually influenced by dependent variables, not independent and unconnected sources and sinks.

Except if you look at the data, it absorbed about half of human CO2 emissions *throughout* history, including recent history:

http://theresilientearth.com/?...

So the question still stands - why did CO2 sinks in our environment increase their absorption at the same time we increased our emissions?

It's like you're pouring 10 gallons per second into a tub that has a drain that removes 5 gallons per second, and then when you move to 20 gallons per second, the drain magically increases in size to remove 10 gallons per second.

Something is moderating the size of that drain, and it's not the water coming in...

Historically, about half of the pollution from human sources has been absorbed by the oceans and by terrestrial plants

Interesting. That means that as human emissions have increased, so have the CO2 sinks....so back when we were emitting 2x, the environment magically knew to absorb 1x, and now that we're emitting 20x, it absorbs 10x.

Here's the question - if the CO2 capacity of our sinks is upwards of 10x today, why did it only absorb 1x when we emitted less?

http://theresilientearth.com/?...

Here's an alternative - CO2 levels are driven by something else besides our emissions, and regardless if we emit more, or emit less, the "set point" will be adapted to, either by more absorption, or less absorption.

Actually, it *is* compensating for the amount we're releasing...and more.

http://theresilientearth.com/?...

Your point is self-defeating :)

If indeed, non-linear buffered systems can mask perturbations at a weekly basis, there's no argument that they cannot do that as well on monthly, yearly, decadal, or multi-decadal bases too :)

So, by attacking my proposed hypothesis for finding a work-week anthropogenic signature in global CO2 levels as impossible, you also attack those who would assert *any* other anthropogenic signature in global CO2 levels :)

Frankly, if you wanted to make the strong case for falsifiability of AGW, you'd have to start with the first step -> emissions vs. global CO2 levels. Now we know already that there are complex buffer systems there (http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/where-did-all-co2-go), which makes our job harder, but you cannot simply assert that because we're wiggling that pendulum somehow that the pendulum, and its existing motion of its own, really cares.

So what clearly anthropogenic signals would we look for? I think the work week signal is particularly good, but you could also use GDP as a proxy for CO2 emissions...in either case, I believe that there *is* some effect, but in both cases, the effect, in comparison to natural drivers and buffering effects, is vanishingly small. Rather than being highly sensitive to CO2 sources, our planet seems to be quite adaptive (again, see http://theresilientearth.com/?...).

Will you at least admit that through the signals analysis of the work week and GDP we should be able to constrain the responsibility humans can take for ultimate global CO2 levels? Or is your belief system so rock solid that you cannot imagine any sort of constraints put on it?

So you agree, we can exclude absurd criteria for falsification

On the contrary, I believe we can fulfill it by looking at weekend vs. weekday variation.

just have to show that clinging to natural variation requires assuming something absurd.

You don't even do that. Natural variation isn't excluded by either logic or observation at this point.

After you remove natural variation in the global temperature signal

You have no idea how to quantify natural variation.

subtract off fits for solar variation, cosmic ray intensity, the pacific oscillation, the full shebang.

Are you asserting you know of every important natural variation and relationship between interconnected drivers? :)

Really? :)

A weekly variation in climate? I'm not sure you know what climate is

A weekly variation in global CO2 levels - we can work the next step from CO2 levels to climate later. The first thing you need to do is quantify the impact human CO2 emissions have on actual global CO2 levels. As you know, they don't simply add to the levels (see missing co2: http://theresilientearth.com/?...).

We *know* that local CO2 varies on an anthropogenic basis (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGUWj5Mtv3k (34:56))

We should be able to calculate from the magnitude of that difference, and the proportion of human emissions that might be subject to that (primarily transportation), and the total human CO2 emissions level, what expected weekend/weekday variations we should see. At the very least, we should be able to put boundary conditions on how much of the global CO2 level increase can be blamed on humanity.

Will you entertain that idea before we tie global CO2 levels to actual climate?

Look at the data - CO2 emissions pre-1950 were minuscule in comparison to post-1950:

http://theresilientearth.com/?...

Do you really think that the beginning of the industrial revolution was as CO2 intense as the post WWII boom?

Insignificant, especially compared to the 8.5Gt of CO2/year we had in the 90s.

Look at the graph:

http://theresilientearth.com/?...

If you truly believe that CO2 emissions drive temperature, you have to believe that it is impossible for pre-1950 temperature increases to be as dramatic as post-1950 changes.

The data say otherwise :)

5) The amount of CO2 in the air exceeds what can be absorbed.Falsifiable and tested.

Odd...how is it that as time has gone on, the amount of CO2 absorbed *increases*?

http://theresilientearth.com/?...

It's almost like the planet actually dynamically adapts to changes :)

6) The Amount of CO2 in the air is rising due to human output.Falsifiable and tested.

Given the apparently dynamic nature of CO2 sinks, which have been responding to increased CO2 sources much like a chemical buffer neutralizes acids and bases, can you agree that it's possible that CO2 levels are in fact, driven by other factors, and that they adapt to perturbations such as human CO2 emissions?

So, now that you've had your falsification criteria observed, are you now willing to give up your central conceit? :)

You sir, have cleverly argued yourself into a failed hypothesis :)

For a summary of the "debate" linking Sandy to global warming see: http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/scientifically-ignorant-tabloid-climatologists-blame-sandy-climate-change In a mad rush to prove who can put out the most inane press release, various warm-mongers, news hacks and climate alarmists have gone on a predictable spree, trying to blame Hurricane Sandy and the resulting disaster in the US Northeast on CO2 levels. Who are these clowns? Even the IPCC issued a statement saying that global warming was not to blame. Have none of these empty headed blatherskites noticed that it has been more than seven years since a major hurricane struck the US, the longest such period since the Civil War? Evidently not, since they continue to spew unscientific twaddle and the news media continues to lap it up like a dog eating its own vomit.

The MWP was a global phenomena. Read the following references:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/291/5508/1497.short

http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/medieval-warm-period-rediscovered

Assuming that my refutation of your position is reflexive, rather than thoughtful, is a mistake on your part. I have read the references. I have researched the material. And your video is simply incorrect.

Now, I understand how a global MWP undermines the faith of AGW and CAGW, so I understand how threatening idea this can be to your world view, but perhaps, just perhaps, if you're willing to admit that the existence of a global MWP refutes AGW (or CAGW), we've made some progress.

Some light reading. http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/crude-facts-about-offshore-drilling

If you have a real look at those geological records you're so fond of, you'd see that we should be well on our way back into another ice age by now. All of the previous periods between ice ages have been short and sweet, but thousands of years of human agriculture followed by the industrial revolution have stretched this one out far longer than the previous several. Not that I want to live through an ice age - a certain amount of global warming is a good thing, but there is a good chance we've gone too far in the other direction now.

If you want to find out the real story on wind reliability and peak power read this: http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/energy-answer-not-blowin-wind

Obligatory xkcd ref.

Well, if you want to disregard what the Wegman Report says, that's up to you.

The cheaper ones tend to report *cooler* temperatures than the more expensive, standalone sensors. So the "urban" stations actually show *less* global warming if averaged in a naive approach.

This is only true if there are no adjustments made to the temperature reading AND the "cooler" temperature is greater than the heating effect. If these aren't true, then obviously it would depend on the amount of the adjustment and amount of error in the reading.

2) There's a *lot* more than 4 stations in most regions which have correlated temperature anomalies. In the US, generally dozens.

You know very well that the # wasn't significant in the argument. It's fine to eliminate grossly incorrect readings this way. It's another thing entirely to adjust a good reading because the surrounding stations have more error.

3) The heat island effect *is* cancelled algorithmically, and this is verified by, among other things, comparing calm and windy days.

You have a remarkable confidence that this algorithm is very accurate. You can read the conclusion of here and see there are reasons to believe there are deficiencies in the algorithm. Even comparing calm/windy days will be influenced by the location of the unit (walls close by) and topological influences.

For something that is supposedly "validated", we are seeing an awful lot of instances of incorrect usage.

Yes, by people like Watts.

Proof by Innuendo. There's science for you. Are you actually trying to argue that algorithms are better than calibration?

1) This, this, and this.

er, ok. These graphs tell me the world is warmer than it was than the Little Ice Age. If you assume all this is due to CO2 (ie there is no solar forcing), one would expect and .2-.5degC if the CO2 level reached 2x pre-industrial levels (560ppm) assuming this guy did his math right.

2) Since when do you trust Phil Jones?

I don't trust EITHER side in this debate. I note that it is more significant if a proponent of AGW says there's no warming just as if a detractor of AGW says that there is warming.

3) Phil Jones is one climate scientist among several thousand. He is not the god of climate science.

Please. Saying he's just one climate scientist is like saying Joe Biden is just another government employee. It's being disingenuous. It would be much more difficult to make the AGW case if you took his work out of the picture.

4) Wrong. Jones says that there is a +0.12C warming trend for that time, but it's not long enough to be statistically significant. And he's right.

Sorry. I stand corrected. It was for the period Jan 2002-present with the -.12C.

It's idiotic how so many people keep trying to read trends into a couple years of extremely noisy data.

I have NO idea what YOU consider a trend when I wrote the question which is why I asked. Forgive me for not being psychic. Jones uses the word "trend" to talk about Jan 2002- (see question C)

If you have actually read both sides, I don't think you have read the other side very well. All the serious ones (if you can filter out the noise) say not that there is no global warming - they say that it is not significant. Given that the Little Ice Age ended ~1850, it should surprise no one that 160 years later, the planet is warmer than what it was back then. A very good read about the matter can be seen here.. It (as all other things) is incomplete, for sure, but is the best even-handed summary that I've come across.

There are good, species preserving reasons to continue developing our launch capabilities. As I said in my blog: One of the things that has been obscured by all the hand wringing and arm waiving about global warming is the existence of a threat to our planet that is very real and could arise suddenly. That threat is from non-planetary bodies within the solar system: asteroids, comets and other celestial wanderers. While the world's politicians and tree-hugging blowhards rail about the damage climate change might cause, a symposium was held in San Francisco to address a problem that actually could end life on Earth. For the full story see http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/forget-global-warming-sky-really-could-fall

Cow farts may be off the table in the US but the ant-animal flatulence movement is going strong in Australia. See Cow Farts & Kangaroos for the story. At the bottom there is an update post that says the state of Queensland is sponsoring three studies to look into the matter.

Historical records for the western Antarctic Peninsula (WAP) show that it is particularly prone to rapid climate change--change that occurs in cycles of ~200 years and ~2500 years. By studying major transitions in plankton productivity in the western Antarctic, scientists have shown that "spectacular" ice-cover losses have happened many times in the past. In other words, the "unprecedented rapid loss of ice" from parts of Antarctica that global warming alarmists make so much of are a normal part of nature's cycles. What else would you expect during the peak of an interglacial warming period? This is from a paper titled "Recent Changes in Phytoplankton Communities Associated with Rapid Regional Climate Change Along the Western Antarctic Peninsula," by Martin Montes-Hugo, et al, in Science. For more see http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/melting-antarctic-ice-part-natural-cycle

For the world to truly end, as in no more planet Earth, scenario 4 is most probable in the near term and scenario 1 inescapable in the long run. If you are defining âoeend of the worldâ as in a major extinction event, with Homo sapiens in a staring roll, then there are a bunch of options. The ones suspected of causing or contributing to major extinction events in the past are outlined in chapter six of my book, The Resilient Earth (shameless plug). Here are the main ones from the book.

• Extraterrestrial Impacts — asteroids or comets striking Earth.
• Massive Volcanoes — in particular the effect on climate.
• Moving Continents — destruction of habitat due to continental drift.
• Ice Ages — glaciation, global cooling, lowered sea levels.
• Disappearing Oxygen — deep water overturn or methane ice.
• Cosmic Peril — impact of cosmic rays and supernovas.
• Coincident Causes — the âoemurder on the orient expressâ model. (all of the above).

Our planet's past is filled with extinctions,some large, some small, some solitary. All the ages in the fossil record chronicle the departure of species from this Earth. The sweep of geologic time, comprising more than 90 recognized time periods, is partitioned by changes in the fossil record. What is most amazing is how gigantic an event has to be to be recorded in the strata. Visit theresilientearth.com for more information including pdfs of the book chapters and a link to Amazon for purchase of the paperback version.