I said not just getting more plants; CO2 levels are increasing so clearly the plants aren't absorbing it all.
*shrugs* - we have no idea what the possible lag times on this are. I've never seen plants sprout _instantly_:)
The oceans are already more acidic. This is not opinion, it's fact. It's been measured. It's in the article you yourself linked to.
Chemistry lesson. pH less than 7 = acidic. pH 7 = neutral. pH > 7 basic.
The oceans are pH>7 and the slight change measured (and some of the early measurements we know have enormous error bars) is nowhere near making the oceans neutral or acid. They're basic and will stay basic.
Again, we know this since CO2-levels have been much, much, much, much higher before.
Oh please believe the NAS - since they correctly debunked the first Mann hockeystick:) That's why he created the second, which is falsified due to only using those proxies that already agree with his conclusion, instead of all or at least a valid subset without confirmation bias.
Briffa's hockeystick was found statistically wanting since the only proxy that actually showed a hockeystick in the end was a single tree in Siberia. With a larger (statistically valid) set of proxies the hockeystick-shape disappears.
Clearly there's too much for plants to absorb anyway, since we know CO2 levels are increasing; we're not just getting more plants.
Yes we are, the Earth's biosphere is booming and has been for the last decades. Up more than 6% in total. Plants are currently CO2 starved, most become increasingly happy up to 1000ppm.
And, of course, the acidification of the oceans is also a huge problem.
No, it's not. CO2 in the atmosphere has been more than a magnitude higher before in history without the oceans having gone acidic. They're at PH>7 and will stay so. Any slight changes are easily coped with by creatures who've lived through much largers changes before - they've evolved to handle them. Some even grow better with increased levels of CO2.
But Russia is only a part of the world and even if the IEA were right it doesn't affect anything else enough to change the fundamental conclusions about global warming.
Russia is regularly the "most warm" part when the monthly global numbers are released, and extrapolations made from stations in Siberia are often used to get numbers for the Arctic.
So, on the contrary, this does effect the global numbers released a lot.
or how Polar Bears are in real danger of extinction because of the loss of their frozen habitat
You're right - you shouldn't point that out since it's completely false.
the polar bear seems like an unlikely target for ESA listing. Its global numbers have increased substantially, from an estimated 8,000–10,000 in 1965–1970 to 20,000–25,000 today.[3] Clearly, any warming that has occurred has not had an adverse impact on polar bear numbers. This is true of the polar bear populations in Alaska, Canada, Russia, and other nations
Mann hockey stick #1 has been falsified (statistical errors) Mann hockey stick #2 has been falsified (statistical errors) Briffa hockey stick has been falsified (statistical errors)
There are no others. Melting ice caps (really? plural?) and retreat of glaciers (some, since the LIA) do _not_ in any way support the hockey stick, which was an attempt to reduce the "blip" of warming in the 1940s, the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period thus "indicating" that today's temperatures are the warmest in a thousand years.
They're not, not even with carefully selected Russian (and it's not just Russia) temperature readings.
Without a hockey stick, AGW as a hypothesis has no real basis as at all. Any hypothesis that says it's normal natural climate change wins hands down thanks to Occam.
Climategate is about a whistleblower releasing email, data and code having been gathered for a long time (likely due to FOI requests). The only other possible explanation is that it was done by mistake (yes, seriously)
There's absolutely no indications whatsoever that this was done by "hackers" - it would be near impossible actually.
The big difference between AGW and "being nice to the environment" is with CO2. With AGW CO2 is a dangerous pollutant, without AGW it is plant food and the earth is better off with MORE of it in the atmosphere (as has been the case through of most of earth's history!) since it would increase crop yields and thus support more animals and humans.
Yes, really. It's that important to not do the wrong thing "just because".
No, it doesn't. The ice core shows one thing - and if you want to show that the current levels are higher you need to graft a completely different dataset (CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa) onto it.
So, a real scientist would now investigate if there's a reason to think the ice core might not show short term fluctuations - and lo and behold - there is:) It's called gas diffusion, and would cause peaks and troughs to become smoothed over time as the ice compresses.
Thus, the headline of the post you link to is not scientifically accurate. The ice cores show no such thing - but a proxy with direct measurements tacked onto it does.
(Yes, that is exactly the same technique that was used to create the now-falsified temperature hockeysticks)
Yes, and that's great. What you don't know about is whether, and how many times, Phil Jones managed to keep other papers out.
The fact that he, as IPCC editor, had (and likely has) the opinion that papers trying to falsify his agenda should not be part of the IPCC work is in itself alone to cast doubt on all IPCC reports where he's had any control whatsoever on the selection process.
Unfortunately, scientific rigor and AGW are seldom in agreement.
You do realize that the AGW crowd were getting funding from Shell, Exxon, BP etc - and that they got their wishes into the so-called scientific process?
Yes. Facts, those pesky things standing in the way of your agenda!:)
(I saw you linked to the same, factually incorrect, post several times in this Slashdot article alone)
Anyway. Watt's lost a lot of money on his surfacestation-work - but since the end result is a better quality network I think it's important no matter what the actual conclusion might be. It can't be bad to know the actual siting locations and quality - can it? Thus, I'm one of many people who've donated money to surfacestations.org.
Regarding the NOAA study on the 70 stations, they didn't do what they claimed - they instead studied the homogenized datasets which, of course, will show the same thing as the full dataset since they're... homogenized with all those stations.
Now, will you change your opinion based on facts - or do you go by dogma?;)
I don't know if he's sure, but I am. That we're heading into another ice age was the accepted state of science and taught in schools (I'm from Sweden - a new ice age means we need to move.. ).
Actually, looking at ice core data I'd say it's pretty much inevitable:
There more CO2 you have the stronger is the greenhouse effect.
... logarithmically. 0-20 ppm, here we go. 20-80 ppm, yep - huge difference.
280 to 380ppm. Not so much.
AGW isn't about CO2 itself, but mythical positive feedbacks that are pure speculation. Some of those models have now been tested by observation and turned out to be completely false - the feedback was negative instead.
It is a greenhouse gas. No blah blah bullshit, it really is. Physics says so, observation says so. Observation also tells us that levels of CO2 are skyrocketing.
Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. However, its effects decrease logarithmically - the change from 0 to 20ppm make a huge difference. From 20 to 80ppm a lot happens as well. From 280 to 380... not so much.
Regarding "sky rocketing" levels of CO2, quite the opposite. We're in a very CO2-starved environment compared to the majority of the time plants and animals have existed on the earth. We've had more than a magnitued higher CO2-levels in our atmosphere without oceans going acidic, the planet becomign like Venus etc.
You seem to be well versed in how peer-review _should_ work. That is, unfortunately, not the same thing as how it actually works in reality.
You might want to study "Climategate", especially Phil Jones (paper-selecting expert for the IPCC, at CRU) opinions on how to deal with peer-review when it doesn't suit his agenda.
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Slashdot Mirror
I said not just getting more plants; CO2 levels are increasing so clearly the plants aren't absorbing it all.
*shrugs* - we have no idea what the possible lag times on this are. I've never seen plants sprout _instantly_ :)
The oceans are already more acidic. This is not opinion, it's fact. It's been measured. It's in the article you yourself linked to.
Chemistry lesson. pH less than 7 = acidic. pH 7 = neutral. pH > 7 basic.
The oceans are pH>7 and the slight change measured (and some of the early measurements we know have enormous error bars) is nowhere near making the oceans neutral or acid. They're basic and will stay basic.
Again, we know this since CO2-levels have been much, much, much, much higher before.
Oh please believe the NAS - since they correctly debunked the first Mann hockeystick :) That's why he created the second, which is falsified due to only using those proxies that already agree with his conclusion, instead of all or at least a valid subset without confirmation bias.
Briffa's hockeystick was found statistically wanting since the only proxy that actually showed a hockeystick in the end was a single tree in Siberia. With a larger (statistically valid) set of proxies the hockeystick-shape disappears.
Still wrong.
Clearly there's too much for plants to absorb anyway, since we know CO2 levels are increasing; we're not just getting more plants.
Yes we are, the Earth's biosphere is booming and has been for the last decades. Up more than 6% in total. Plants are currently CO2 starved, most become increasingly happy up to 1000ppm.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/
And, of course, the acidification of the oceans is also a huge problem.
No, it's not. CO2 in the atmosphere has been more than a magnitude higher before in history without the oceans having gone acidic. They're at PH>7 and will stay so. Any slight changes are easily coped with by creatures who've lived through much largers changes before - they've evolved to handle them. Some even grow better with increased levels of CO2.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=63809&ct=162
Why don't you like science?
But Russia is only a part of the world and even if the IEA were right it doesn't affect anything else enough to change the fundamental conclusions about global warming.
Russia is regularly the "most warm" part when the monthly global numbers are released, and extrapolations made from stations in Siberia are often used to get numbers for the Arctic.
So, on the contrary, this does effect the global numbers released a lot.
or how Polar Bears are in real danger of extinction because of the loss of their frozen habitat
You're right - you shouldn't point that out since it's completely false.
the polar bear seems like an unlikely target for ESA listing. Its global numbers have increased substantially, from an estimated 8,000–10,000 in 1965–1970 to 20,000–25,000 today.[3] Clearly, any warming that has occurred has not had an adverse impact on polar bear numbers. This is true of the polar bear populations in Alaska, Canada, Russia, and other nations
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1781.cfm
Without AGW, CO2 is not a pollutant.
(It's plant food. More CO2 in the atmosphere = a greener earth)
Mann hockey stick #1 has been falsified (statistical errors)
Mann hockey stick #2 has been falsified (statistical errors)
Briffa hockey stick has been falsified (statistical errors)
There are no others. Melting ice caps (really? plural?) and retreat of glaciers (some, since the LIA) do _not_ in any way support the hockey stick, which was an attempt to reduce the "blip" of warming in the 1940s, the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period thus "indicating" that today's temperatures are the warmest in a thousand years.
They're not, not even with carefully selected Russian (and it's not just Russia) temperature readings.
Without a hockey stick, AGW as a hypothesis has no real basis as at all. Any hypothesis that says it's normal natural climate change wins hands down thanks to Occam.
40% as compared to when?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMcxri_f1rw
If AGW is true, CO2 is bad.
If AGW isn't true, CO2 is great - plants grow better, more rainfall, deserts getting greener (already happening in Sahel/Sahara).
Important difference.
Wtf
Climategate is about a whistleblower releasing email, data and code having been gathered for a long time (likely due to FOI requests). The only other possible explanation is that it was done by mistake (yes, seriously)
There's absolutely no indications whatsoever that this was done by "hackers" - it would be near impossible actually.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/07/comprhensive-network-analysis-shows-climategate-likely-to-be-a-leak/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/23/the-crutape-letters%C2%AE-an-alternate-explanation/
Maybe.
There's correlation between deep solar minima and volcanic activity/earthquakes:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2003ESASP.535..393S
We're currently in the deepest solar minima for a century or two, maybe longer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/12/could-the-sun-cast-a-shadow-on.shtml
Luckily, I live very very far away from Yellowstone myself. You? ;)
I see you once again had no support whatsoever for your original statement ;)
No - why on earth would you post something so completely false?
Ah yes the Medival Warm Period affecting northern Europe
http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/hockey-stick/mwp-global-studies-map-i-1500.jpg
The big difference between AGW and "being nice to the environment" is with CO2. With AGW CO2 is a dangerous pollutant, without AGW it is plant food and the earth is better off with MORE of it in the atmosphere (as has been the case through of most of earth's history!) since it would increase crop yields and thus support more animals and humans.
Yes, really. It's that important to not do the wrong thing "just because".
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/08/000811062434.htm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/
No, it doesn't. The ice core shows one thing - and if you want to show that the current levels are higher you need to graft a completely different dataset (CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa) onto it.
So, a real scientist would now investigate if there's a reason to think the ice core might not show short term fluctuations - and lo and behold - there is :) It's called gas diffusion, and would cause peaks and troughs to become smoothed over time as the ice compresses.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V61-4F1GYYN-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1133886259&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=76ca7039c45b0a7d173716e8b8c8e8a2
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V78-48XV20J-TR&_user=10&_origUdi=B6TJ6-4BT7H1X-2&_fmt=high&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1992&_rdoc=1&_orig=article&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f9e5b003426d2b42cad752f7fc6961d3
Thus, the headline of the post you link to is not scientifically accurate. The ice cores show no such thing - but a proxy with direct measurements tacked onto it does.
(Yes, that is exactly the same technique that was used to create the now-falsified temperature hockeysticks)
I assert nothing - I quote Phil Jones :)
Yes, and that's great. What you don't know about is whether, and how many times, Phil Jones managed to keep other papers out.
The fact that he, as IPCC editor, had (and likely has) the opinion that papers trying to falsify his agenda should not be part of the IPCC work is in itself alone to cast doubt on all IPCC reports where he's had any control whatsoever on the selection process.
Unfortunately, scientific rigor and AGW are seldom in agreement.
You do realize that the AGW crowd were getting funding from Shell, Exxon, BP etc - and that they got their wishes into the so-called scientific process?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/
Yes. Facts, those pesky things standing in the way of your agenda! :)
(I saw you linked to the same, factually incorrect, post several times in this Slashdot article alone)
Anyway. Watt's lost a lot of money on his surfacestation-work - but since the end result is a better quality network I think it's important no matter what the actual conclusion might be. It can't be bad to know the actual siting locations and quality - can it? Thus, I'm one of many people who've donated money to surfacestations.org.
Regarding the NOAA study on the 70 stations, they didn't do what they claimed - they instead studied the homogenized datasets which, of course, will show the same thing as the full dataset since they're ... homogenized with all those stations.
Now, will you change your opinion based on facts - or do you go by dogma? ;)
I don't know if he's sure, but I am. That we're heading into another ice age was the accepted state of science and taught in schools (I'm from Sweden - a new ice age means we need to move .. ).
Actually, looking at ice core data I'd say it's pretty much inevitable:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI
There more CO2 you have the stronger is the greenhouse effect.
280 to 380ppm. Not so much.
AGW isn't about CO2 itself, but mythical positive feedbacks that are pure speculation. Some of those models have now been tested by observation and turned out to be completely false - the feedback was negative instead.
http://ohjelmat.yle.fi/files/ohjelmat/u3219/kaavio7.jpg (Lindzen, water vapor)
Shall we debate again? ;) A quick read through of your linked post tells me it contains at least two factual errors.
(Watt's income and whether NOAA really did evaluate the raw or adjusted data of those stations)
It is a greenhouse gas. No blah blah bullshit, it really is. Physics says so, observation says so. Observation also tells us that levels of CO2 are skyrocketing.
Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. However, its effects decrease logarithmically - the change from 0 to 20ppm make a huge difference. From 20 to 80ppm a lot happens as well. From 280 to 380 ... not so much.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/co2greenhouse-X2.png
Regarding "sky rocketing" levels of CO2, quite the opposite. We're in a very CO2-starved environment compared to the majority of the time plants and animals have existed on the earth. We've had more than a magnitued higher CO2-levels in our atmosphere without oceans going acidic, the planet becomign like Venus etc.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
This is undisputed (really) science. The big question is, why's everyone pretending as if it wasn't?
You seem to be well versed in how peer-review _should_ work. That is, unfortunately, not the same thing as how it actually works in reality.
You might want to study "Climategate", especially Phil Jones (paper-selecting expert for the IPCC, at CRU) opinions on how to deal with peer-review when it doesn't suit his agenda.
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20091203151910.aspx
Mind-opening.