"In nature, CO2 is exchanged continually between the atmosphere, plants and animals through photosynthesis, respiration, and decomposition, and between the atmosphere and ocean through gas exchange. A very small amount of CO2 (roughly 1% of the emission rate from fossil fuel combustion) is also emitted in volcanic eruptions. This is balanced by an equivalent amount that is removed by chemical weathering of rocks."
So natural CO2 emissions are balanced, and our fossil fuel emissions are roughly 100x faster than volcanic emissions. That's why "actual science" shows that our current CO2 emissions rate is unprecedented over the last 300 million years.
And if you read the rest of that NAS document, you'd discover that "actual science" shows that our unprecedentedly rapid CO2 emissions are a cause for concern.
... Karl et al. conclusion is an outlier. And you don't have to be a scientist to know it... if it weren't, there wouldn't have been news media all over the place reporting "No 'Hiatus' After All". Outliers are outliers. They can be recognized from their conclusions, as I did, but by lay people they can also often be recognized by the media uproar they stir. Simple logic says that if it hadn't been NEWS, it wouldn't have made a stir in the news. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-23]
Jane's method of spotting outliers via media uproar is cute, but it would be more rigorous to actually look at Fig 1 (a) and (b). The new global trend's central estimate is within the error bars of the old estimate.... [Dumb Scientist]
... All it takes is simple logic to clearly show that Karl et al. results are an outlier. I didn't exactly make this up, either. Lots of others have been saying it. In fact, even many of the big news sources haven't dared to touch Karl with a 10-foot pole. It's just that -- ahem -- "credible".... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-28]
Again, spotting outliers via media uproar isn't as rigorous as actually looking at the data. So let's reproduce Fig 1(b) in Karl et al. 2015, which shows trends from 1998 to 2012. Let's calculate those trends for all the land/ocean, global, and satellite datasets listed here:
All these trend estimates are consistent with my previous statement: there hasn't been a statistically significant change in the warming rate, and there isn't a statistically significant difference between the projected and observed trends.
Do these results support Jane's claim that Karl et al. 2015 is somehow an "outlier"?
You're "misunderstanding" fundamental concepts and basic facts about the figures in Karl et al. 2015. That's not misdirection, it's relevant. If you can't even get the basics right, what makes you think you'll be able to understand anything else?
... the "raw vs adjusted" argument has no bearing on the fact that the Karl paper reaches different conclusions, based on the available data, than just about everyone else, AND used highly questionable methods to reach those conclusions.... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-18]
If Jane/Lonny's opinion that Karl et al. used "highly questionable" methods were widely shared by scientists, Jane/Lonny wouldn't have had to say things like this to Dr. Gavin Schmidt (director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies) after Dr. Schmidt disagreed with Jane/Lonny's uninformed opinion.
... Karl et al. conclusion is an outlier. And you don't have to be a scientist to know it... if it weren't, there wouldn't have been news media all over the place reporting "No 'Hiatus' After All". Outliers are outliers. They can be recognized from their conclusions, as I did, but by lay people they can also often be recognized by the media uproar they stir. Simple logic says that if it hadn't been NEWS, it wouldn't have made a stir in the news. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-23]
Jane's method of spotting outliers via media uproar is cute, but it would be more rigorous to actually look at Fig 1 (a) and (b). The new global trend's central estimate is within the error bars of the old estimate. Ironically, Jane/Lonny made the same mistake two years ago regarding Cowtan and Way 2013, which yielded a trend similar to Karl et al. 2015. Perhaps Jane/Lonny forgot about that while ranting about "outliers"?
If Jane/Lonny would actually calculate a trend estimate with autocorrelated uncertainties (either using the code I've repeatedlygiven him, or by writing his own) then he'd realize that Karl et al. 2015 really wasn't news. For instance, years before Karl et al. 2015, I'd already told Jane/Lonny that "There hasn't been a statistically significant change in the warming rate, and there isn't a statistically significant difference between the projected and observed trends."
Again, I said this to Jane/Lonny long before Karl et al. 2015. Even without Karl et al. 2015, it's still clear that there hasn't been a statistically significant change in the warming rate, and there isn't a statistically significant difference between the projected and observed trends.
That's not news to anyone who's calculated a trend estimate with autocorrelated uncertainties. Have you done that yet? Will you ever do that, Jane/Lonny?
Apparently NOAA and NASA think nobody in 1937 knew how to read a thermometer. I find that idea... unlikely. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]
... the "raw vs adjusted" argument has no bearing on the fact that the Karl paper reaches different conclusions, based on the available data, than just about everyone else, AND used highly questionable methods to reach those conclusions.... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-18]
That's an opinion, not a fact. Informed opinions require understanding simple facts about the adjustments that were already used before Karl et al. 2015 proposed an incremental improvement. A prerequisite to understanding Karl et al. 2015 is acknowledging the fact that NOAA's adjustments (before and after Karl et al.) show less global surface warming over the last century than the raw data do.
... we've had no significant warming since around 1900. Surprise! The government's own unmanipulated data shows that quite clearly. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-05-13]
Nonsense. The government's own "unmanipulated" data show even more global surface warming since around 1900 than their "manipulated" data do. Calling necessary adjustments "manipulations" is bad enough, but hopefully we can agree that it would be stupid to call those adjustments fraud?
There are issues with how temperatures get adjusted, but calling it fraud is just lazy and stupid. [Brandon S]
It's only stupid to those who don't understand how and to what extent it has been done. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-03]
Wow. Will Jane/Lonny ever understand the extent to which adjustments reduce global surface warming over the last century compared to raw data? If so, will he retract his accusation?
Actually NASA (or was it NOAA?) changed their tune again and are saying it [the hottest year in our very short records] was 1937. Gotta keep up with this stuff, man. The raw, unadjusted temperature records always have said 1937. It's the adjustments that are questionable, not the historical record. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]
It was warmer in 1937, when there was no significant CO2 release! That's natural causes! [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-07]
... 1937 was probably the warmest year in "modern times". 1937 data has been gathered from all over. It's widely recognized to be a globally very hot year. NOAA's own historic temperature data show it clearly. From sources all over the world, not just USA. Of course, they've since "adjusted" temperatures of that period downward. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]
Nonsense. Karl et al. 2015 Fig 2(b) (backup) shows that NOAA has been adjusting the 1937 global surface temperature upward before and after Karl et al. 2015. Not downward, Jane/Lonny. Upward.
NOAA's adjustments to data are many times higher than the amount of "record" temp. they claimed last year. Think about that. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-09]
Okay. I thought about how NOAA's adjustments reduce the global surface warming rate over the last c
Oops: NOAA's adjustments show less global surface warming over the last century than the raw data do. (Go ahead, check! See which claim is correct for yourself! Or just keep throwing around baseless accusations of fraud. Whatevs.)
If you really believe that then just ignore the adjusted data, and only consider the raw data... which show even more global surface warming over the last century than the adjusted data do.
It's called the Maunder Minimum for a reason. There is definitely a correlation with sun activity... and my guess is that it's better than the correlation with volcanism. I don't know that for sure, but that's my best recollection. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-15]
It is easier to believe the documented condition of the sun going quiet for a few hundred years was the major factor behind the cooling than it is to believe one or more volcanoes were going off constantly for a few hundred years creating an ash blanket over the Earth for the whole period and caused it. [dunkindave, 2015-07-15]
Miller et al. 2012 says the Little Ice Age "can be linked to an unusual 50-year-long episode with four large sulfur-rich explosive eruptions".
Of course, the Maunder Minimum also contributed to the Little Ice Age. Regarding other contributors, Ruddiman 2003 (PDF) says "plague-driven CO2 changes were also a significant causal factor in temperature changes during the Little Ice Age (1300–1900 AD)."
There's been some debate about Ruddiman's "early anthropogenic" hypothesis. He discusses the LIA in his 2013 AGU lecture at 38m29s. Briefly, plagues killed many people in Europe and the Americas during the LIA, and their farms were overgrown by forests. That sequestered atmospheric CO2, causing even more cooling.
Now Naomi Oreskes is a "scientist"??? You might want to tell other people that, because nobody else seems to know.
Good grief, Jane! Yeah, that's yet another good example of your baseless, unprovoked accusations. Harvardseems to know (emphasis added) that "Naomi Oreskes is Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences. She recently arrived at Harvard after spending 15 years as Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor of Geosciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography."
So Harvard seems to know that Prof. Oreskes isn't "just" a science historian; she's also an Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences after being an Adjunct Professor of Geosciences.
For some reason, Harvard doesn't seem to agree with Jane/Lonny Eachus. A brief glance at Prof. Oreskes' CV shows why: she has a background in geology (like Richard Alley and many other scientists) and actually wrote her PhD thesis on the "false consensus" of American earth scientists in the early twentieth century, who were united in their opposition to continental drift.
So not only is Prof. Oreskes a scientist, her other field of expertise is critically evaluating consensus in science. That would seem to suggest yet another reason why Jane should think twice before lecturing a scientist who's also a science historian about how scientists think.
It's not clear why Jane/Lonny keeps lecturing scientists who are also science historians about what scientists think. Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.
In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.
At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional programmers who organized the poll of being charlatan laughing stocks with no credibility who are either incompetent or liars.
Seriously, wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous?
"@NaomiOreskes How do you live with yourself? Do you sleep well, knowing the pseudo-science you have tried to pull off? Just curious."[Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-20]
It's not clear why Jane/Lonny keeps lecturing scientists like Dr. Oreskes about what scientists think. Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.
In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.
At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fa
It's not clear why Jane/Lonny keeps lecturing scientists like Dr. Oreskes about what scientists think. Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.
In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.
At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional program
I have explained to you clearly at least several times that you MISUNDERSTOOD my meaning, and exactly where and how you misunderstood. Therefore, I can only conclude that to continue presenting this to the public in the distorted way you have, and pretend that it was my actual meaning, is deliberate misrepresentation. Further, the circumstances surrounding it suggest that your purpose was malicious. There is nothing more to be said.
Hmm. Either Jane's "explanations" are just hopelessly confused rants about a dimwit moron, or Jane's actual meaning is being maliciously distorted by that dimwit moron. Let's find out:
... Even a very basic knowledge of statistics (as I explained to you a long time ago) argues against you. And you didn't show I was wrong about that, you just refuted a couple of hypothetical examples I pulled out of thin air. You've hardly rigorously addressed the issue....
... It may not be very good evidence, and it may be shown to be false later, but evidence nevertheless. And simple statistics suggests this is also true of the young-earthers, as it is of just about anything else. This guy has flatly disputed this nearly-invariate fact of life....
Now it's clear why Jane sees no need to provide a single valid example of this "evidence" to back up his claim that simple statistics suggest young-earthers have some evidence. Jane has convinced himself that his refuted examples support his claim even after shown to be false.
In Janeland, it doesn't matter that even Jane/Lonny Eachus had to admit that both of his examples were refuted. Both still count as Janeland evidence nevertheless, even after shown to be false.
So that's why Jane doesn't see any need to provide a single valid example of his claimed "evidence". In Janeland, even Jane's failures support Jane's claim.
In that spirit, here's more "incontrovertible evidence" for creationism: BANANAS!
Not convinced? Doesn't matter. Even if the banana argument is shown to be false, it still counts as evidence in Janeland.
... Even a very basic knowledge of statistics (as I explained to you a long time ago) argues against you. And you didn't show I was wrong about that, you just refuted a couple of hypothetical examples I pulled out of thin air. You've hardly rigorously addressed the issue....
Again, I've already explained why your accusation of arguing against "very basic knowledge of statistics" is wrong: treating creationism as a scientific hypothesis would destroy science. Anyone who vaguely appeals to "basic statistics" to justify treating creationism as a scientific hypothesis which can have some evidence obviously hasn't rigorously addressed the issue of how to falsify a supernatural hypothesis.
This is such a gross misrepresentation of anything I actually said I'll count it as a lie in its entirety. First, I didn't at any time say I was talking about statistics actually involving "young earthers" per se. I was simply speaking of statistics, as a field, in a completely general sense. The science of statistics. Which has NOTHING to do specifically with young-earthers....
How incredibly bizarre. After Jane claimed that "a very basic knowledge of statistics (as I explained to you a long time ago) argues against you," I explained that Jane's "completely general" argument doesn't apply to creationism, because creationism is a supernatural "hypothesis" and therefore can't be supported by some evidence. Ironically, Jane simply accused me of lying and then just blissfully keeps repeating the same nonsense as though he hadn't read a single word I wrote:
... They just happened to be topic under discussion, but my comment was about the nature of evidence, not about young-earthers.It's a fact of life that if you hunt long and hard enough, you can find evidence for just about anything. It may not be very good evidence, and it may be shown to be false later, but evidence nevertheless. And simple statistics suggests this is also true of the young-earthers, as it is of just about anything else. This guy has flatly disputed this nearly-invariate fact of life. They may not have any good evidence. But the notion that they have found some kind of evidence -- not proof mind you, but evidence, no matter how thin or tiny -- is strongly supported by a smidgen of statistical thinking. He flatly denies the idea that they could have any evidence at all, even though I've explained to him repeatedly that he appears to be conflating evidence with proof. Or even possibly just degrees of evidence....
Again, that can be true for actual competing scientific hypotheses. They could be described as each having some evidence, but creationism doesn't even qualify as a scientific hypothesis. It's simply not possible for creationists to have any evidence, because creationism isn't testable science.
... So for him to imply, as he does above, that I my comment in any way "treats creationism as a scientific hypothesis", is just crazy. Plain and simple. There is zero truth to it....
Saying that "young-earth creationists have some evidence" is treating creationism as a scientific hypothesis which can have some evidence. In fact, Jane just repeated that claim ad nauseum above.
Again, I've explained that considering the possibility that creationism can have
"When we look at the last 6,000 years, the impact of human activity on our climate is unmistakable. There are no major large natural cycles over the last 6,000 years..." That's consistent with Marcott et al. 2013 (PDF) which shows that the world has been cooling for most of the last 6,000 years.
I have little doubt that it is. So what? It is also INconsistent with even the IPCC's early temperature reconstructions. It also "conveniently" leaves out the MWP and the Little Ice Age...
Good grief. After Jane objected to my statement that "Dr. Hayhoe is presenting mainstream science," I showed that Dr. Hayhoe's statements are consistent with those from the NAS and several peer-reviewed papers. I also showed that Dr. Hayhoe's statements were more accurate than Jane/Lonny's repeated claims about the last 6,000 years.
As usual, in response Jane simply ignores all that and jumps to the next regurgitated contrarian talking point. Jane seems to have abandoned his objection to my statement that Dr. Hayhoe is presenting mainstream science. Now, Jane is claiming mainstream science itself is inconsistent.
Once again, Jane is fractally wrong. Long ago, I shared an IPCC graph of temperature reconstructions. Note that the axes of these temperature reconstructions are labeled with actual numbers. Despite Jane's claims, Marcott et al. 2013 isn't inconsistent with IPCC reconstructions, and both Marcott et al. and the IPCC show the MWP and the Little Ice Age.
Why does Jane dispute this? Asking Jane for a link is unpleasant and unproductive, but Jane seems to be confusing the IPCC 1990 Fig 7.1(c) hand-drawn cartoon with an actual temperature reconstruction. Note that this cartoon cites two papers, both of which are mainly about the climate in Europe, and notes "... it is still not clear whether all the fluctuations indicated were truly global...".
Why is Jane surprised that an actual global temperature reconstruction from 2013 isn't identical to a hand-drawn cartoon from 1990 which appears to be mainly based on temperatures in Europe rather than the globe? Maybe Jane's surprised because he used to cite the "Wegman Report" before he realized they had blatantly misrepresented this cartoon by (accidentally?) adding numbers to the scale and redrawing the curve to make it look less like a cartoon.
But Wegman's (accidental?) "mistakes" don't change the fact that it was a hand-drawn cartoon mainly based on temperatures in Europe rather than the globe, and that its axis wasn't labeled with actual numbers.
It's strange that Jane confused this unlabeled cartoon with an actual temperature reconstruction, because Jane often criticizes graphs with no numbers and no labels on th
You're talking to yourself. That is correct: I don't need a lecture about it from you. I know you were talking about rapid changes. I wrote it myself above. I repeat: you seem to have serious reading comprehension issues. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-10]
And I know you've been repeatedly talking about absolute changes without referring to timescales, which means you're (inadvertently?) ignoring the real problem: the unprecedented rate of our CO2 emissions. Can we agree that adaptation via migration and evolution is rate limited? Or, once again, would you like to dispute that proposition for either migration or evolution, or both?
Also, again as I stated before, the Hydro dams in the inland NW neither emitted a large "pulse" of CO2 when they were built, because there wasn't much vegetation to begin with. But more to the point, I will repeat what I wrote above: by your statements we must criticize ALL large bodies of water because of the CO2 they emit. I am really surprised that you aren't advocating draining all the lakes. And I repeat, too: beavers probably back up more water than hydroelectric dams do. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-10]
Good grief, Jane. Once again, my argument has always been that bodies of water aren't emitting significant amounts of CO2. In fact, that's the position Jane/Lonny keeps citing, and I keep debunking!
Once again, I don't have anything against hydro dams or bodies of water, nor do I think we should eliminate lakes. Once again, that's just silly, Jane. Speaking of "talking to yourself" did you notice that you're the only one talking about CO2 emitted by bodies of water, or anything related to vegetation to begin with? I just explained that I was only referring to the limited extent that any concrete structure like a dam rapidly emits CO2, compared to the huge extent that a coal plant does for the same energy.
Of the two forms of pollution, the carbon dioxide increase is probably the more influential at the present time in changing temperatures near the earth's surface (Mitchell, 1973a).
While completely ignoring the very next sentence:
"If both the CO2 and particulate inputs to the atmosphere grow at equal rates in the future, the widely differing atmospheric residence times of the two pollutants means that the particulate effect will grow in importance relative to that of CO2."
If, Jane. If both the CO2 and particulate inputs to the atmosphere grow at equal rates in the future. But that didn't happen after ~1975 in the U.S.A. or in Europe.
... In the context of the recent GLOBAL COOLING, it states:
While the natural variations of climate have been larger than those that may have been induced by human activities during the past century, the rapidity with which human impacts threaten to grow in the future, and increasingly to disturb the natural course of events, is a matter of concern....
Now, I know you are completely inept when it comes to context, but that statement is the overarching context of their later comments (given above) about CO2 and aerosols.... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]
Even if I'm completely inept when it comes to context, it seems to me like those statements apply to both carbon dioxide and aerosols. And they were right about both. Globally, we just stopped emitting so much SO2 after ~1975 but kept emitting CO2 even faster.
... They clearly express concern that man's influence is increasing, and suggest that aerosols could very well overwhelm CO2 if the current trends continued. So don't try to give me crap about what I understand and what I don't. I'm not cherry-picking, YOU did. I just gave the LARGER context of the statement that you cherry-picked out of it. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]
If the current emissions trends in 1975 had continued, the global dimming caused by aerosols could have overwhelmed warming by CO2. That's a perfectly reasonable if statement. But since global aerosol emissions declined after ~1975 (see fig 1), that if statement doesn't apply to our universe.
As I have stated so many times in the past, this is exactly the kind of behavior I have come to expect from you, and why I do not engage you in debate. I may make mistakes, but at least I am honest. I have pointed out many times where you were clearly were not. And that was one of them. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]
Good grief, Jane. It's bizarre to be accused of not being honest because I didn't quote an if statement from a report that doesn't apply to our universe where aerosol emissions declined after ~1975.
I quoted the 1975 NAS statement that CO2 warming could be "about 0.5C between now and the end of the century" because it applies to our universe. The 2007 IPCC estimate of radiative forcing up to 2005 shows that aerosol emissions roughly cancelled al
"Limited extent" is overridden by the statement that they "rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere." Weasel words. They increase CO2 in a "pulse" during their initial loading (which varies according to the ecology behind the dam), which in any event is comparable to a "pulse" from a forest fire of similar extent. Which is why I mentioned that. You do NOT get to weasel your way out of that. As far as hydro dams contribute to "ocean acidification", there is zero evidence that they contribute any at all, COMPARED TO natural lakes of the same size. Another point I made which you are trying to weasel out of. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-06]
Good grief, Jane. I'm not trying to weasel out of anything. "Limited extent" isn't overridden by "rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere" and these aren't weasel words. Once again, my point is that anything which rapidly increases CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to ocean acidification. Coal plants do this to a huge extent. I've explained that conventional nuclear plants do this to a limited extent because of mining/enrichment/recycling/disposal of fuel, and because of curing the concrete containment domes. Hydro dams typically require pouring lots of concrete, so they're similar to nuclear power in that respect.
I strongly support nuclear power for many reasons, but one is that a lot of electricity in the USA and the world is generated by coal plants, which are responsible to a huge extent for the rapid increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. The fact that I acknowledge that nuclear power plants (and solar/wind, etc.) are responsible to a limited extent for the rapid increase of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't constitute trying to "weasel" out of anything. So it's not clear why Jane accuses me of doing that with respect to hydro dams, and it's not clear why Jane is ranting at me about them. Again, I don't have anything against hydro dams or bodies of water, nor do I think we should eliminate lakes. That's just silly, Jane.
I specifically stated that I wasn't "comparing" any sort of rate of change to the Cambrian period. Did you not see that? I made that statement in so many words. Is there something wrong with you? In fact, I see you quoted my comment about that. Reading comprehension much? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-06]
Good grief, Jane. The fact that you weren't "comparing" any sort of rate of change to the Cambrian period is exactly my point. I've been telling you that for months, because for months you've been saying things like ""Warmists" like to scare over things like death of coral due to ocean acidification from CO2. Coral evolved at a time of 70x today's CO2."
You've been repeating nonsense like this for months, irrelevantly tweaking the factor to "well over 10" in your most recent regurgitation. For months, you've been comparing absolute CO2 values, which is wrong. Only rapid increases in CO2 concentration cause ocean acidification. After I quoted Honisch et al. making this point, Jane said he knows "what the chemistry of ocean acidification is" and doesn't "need a lecture from you about it."
If Jane really doesn't need a lecture, then Jane already sees why his repetitive comparisons of absolute CO2 values are misleading. Jane should be examining the rate of change of CO2 concentration, like
Hydro dams (which don't and can't contribute most of the power in the USA or in the world) cause ocean acidification only to the limited extent that they rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere.
Another straw-man. Actually two. Hydro dams have been accused of emitting a "pulse" of CO2 when the plant-covered area behind them is flooded. Perhaps, but no more than if the same area burned in a forest fire. Hardly significant. THEN, the other accusation is that they emit CO2 because organic material falls on them and decomposes at the bottom. Also probably true. BUT... that is no more true of the dam than it is of any other large body of water. Apparently you have something against bodies of water. Do you think we should eliminate lakes because of the CO2 they emit? Because that's basically your argument. And beavers probably flood more total area than hydro dams do. I find that argument truly laughable. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]
Good grief, Jane. I said limited extent, which is also basically what I say about solar, wind, and nuclear power, while supporting them. I'm not accusing hydro dams of anything. And I certainly don't have something against bodies of water, or think we should eliminate lakes "because of the CO2 they emit"(?!). In fact, my argument has always been that bodies of water aren't emitting significant amounts of CO2.
Once again, you're mistakenly calculating the absolute value of atmospheric CO2 ("400 to 5000 ppm") rather than calculating its rate of change
It wasn't mistaken, it was quite deliberate. Nor was it misleading. I was comparing values from the Cambrian period. It's rather pointless to talk about "rate of change" between Cambrian and now (see chart again), when the time period was > 500 million years ago, and concentrations have had many rises and falls since then. Another straw man. I know your point is partly about rate of change, but it's ALSO about total change. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]
Despite Jane's hand-drawn schematic, higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations still don't cause ocean acidification unless the concentration increases rapidly. So it was misleading for Jane to compare values from the Cambrian period to learn about ocean acidification.
As Jane says, CO2 concentrations have had many rises and falls over the last 500 million years. That's why I've repeatedly showed Jane Kiessling and Simpson 2010, which concluded that "four of five global metazoan reef crises in the last 500 Myr were probably at least partially governed by OA [ocean acidification] and rapid global warming."
Kiessling and Simpson 2010 isn't misleading because, unlike Jane, they examined CO2's rate of change over the last 500 Myr.
... we are still left with the old quandary (and likelihood) of whether CO2 concentrations lagged temperature rise.... There are many variables to the PETM situation, not all of which are known. Among them, as I have stated, was whether CO2 concentrations lagged temperatures or the other way around. What caused the pulse of methane, or whatever it was (still unknown)? There are several theories, none of them strong enough to dominate....
If we're going to include damages caused by solar thermal plants, shouldn't we also include the damages we learned about from studying the effects of rapid CO2 emissions during the end-Permian, PETM, etc.?
Since the authors themselves don't come to any real conclusions, and only suggest, again there is no way to estimate. Do hydro dams cause ocean acidification? Does an increase of 50PPM CO2 in the atmosphere cause significant ocean acidification?... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]
Jane completely ignores the PETM paper, which has nothing to do with ocean acidification. Hydro dams (which don't and can't contribute most of the power in the USA or in the world) cause ocean acidification only to the limited extent that they rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere. So once again it's meaningless to ask if an increase of 50PPM CO2 in the atmosphere causes significant ocean acidification. If that 50 ppm increase occurs over centuries or millenia, it's less likely to cause significant ocean acidification than if it occurs over decades because of the higher rate of increase.
... You have pretty much implied what your answer would be, but the truth is that these are unknowns.... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]
No, I've already told you that your second question is meaningless because paleoclimate evidence shows that ocean acidification depends on the rate of CO2 emissions, not the amount in the atmosphere.
There's a difference between "unknown" and "unknown to Jane".
... Be afraid if you like, but I won't join you. While the paper rather vaguely and timidly suggests that there may be danger in rapid changes of pH, the fact remains that corals, many shellfish, and giant ammonoidsevolved in the Cambrian Period when CO2 concentration was many times -- in some cases over a hundred times -- what it is today. Correction: CO2 levels in the Cambrian are estimated to be well over 10 times what they are now. Not a hundred or hundreds. Still, we've had only a rise in recent times of roughly 14%... nowhere near 1250% (from 400 to 5000 ppm). [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]
Once again, you're mistakenly calculating the absolute value of atmospheric CO2 ("400 to 5000 ppm") rather than calculating its rate of change. Once again, if atmospheric CO2 increases slowly, ocean pH doesn't change significantly because it's buffered by carbonates and land weathering on long time scales. See Fig. 2 in Honisch et al. 2012 (PDF):
"When CO2 dissolves in seawater, it reacts with water to form carbonic acid, which then dissociates to bicarbonate, carbonate, and hydrogen ions. The higher concentration of hydrogen ions makes seawater acidic, but this process is buffered on long time scales by the interplay of seawater, seafloor carbonate sediments, and weathering on land."
It's incredibly ironic that Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus both p
I've already told you that the NAS calls it a "settled fact"
So? They also claimed in the 70's that global cooling was an established fact. If you want to try to refute that, fine, I'll take up the time to dig up my copy of their statement. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-03]
I'm sorry for still being alive. Think carefully about context, and you'll realize your accusations of dishonesty are baseless. Once again.
As I stated to you before, my position on the physics from long past may not necessarily be related to my current position... but your insistence on persistently dragging up bullshit from 5 years ago only serves to muddy the waters, and makes me not want to discuss it with you.
Jane, you repeated your incorrect position on the physics just last month. Again, were you lying when you insisted you DO have a reply to that physics problem?
I concede that nucleation via cosmic rays is at this time theoretical, but heck... so is warming via CO2.
I've already told you that the NAS calls it a "settled fact" but you still seem unable to retract your claims about warming via CO2. Were you lying when you insisted you DO have a reply to that physics problem?
Of course, the link between clouds and temperature is even less straightforward. As I recall the research suggests there is only a very small effect on average temperatures, though there is a dramatic effect on the diurnal variation - cloud cover tends to stabilize temperatures, causing slower heating during the day, but also slower cooling at night.
Yes. Another complication is that high, thin clouds warm the surface while "low, thick clouds primarily reflect solar radiation and cool the surface of the Earth."
Hold on there mister, the Laschamp event only lasted less than 500 years, and occurred in the middle of an ice age, over 41,000 years ago. I don't know about you, but I see a whole lot of unknowns that make it very difficult to conclude that "the climate didn't change".... I would prefer to not draw any conclusions from what little data we have of this event.
So your preferences are different than Richard Alley's. He concluded at 43:01 that "We had a big cosmic ray signal, and the climate ignores it. And it's just about that simple. These cosmic rays didn't do enough that you can see it."
Maybe this is because Richard Alley's estimate that the Laschamp anomaly lasted "for a millenium or so" matches other estimates that are longer than 500 years.
We have the technology to measure GCR's, and we have the technology to measure cloud cover. Let's verify the theory of GCR's and cloud formation, let's quantify it, and then let's see if we can accurately predict cloud cover and irradiance fluctuations based on this data.
I've explained that the maximum impact of this mechanism has been estimated to be responsible for no more than 23% of the 11-year cyclical variation of cloud cover. Furthermore, there’s no long term trend in Svensmark’s data, which would be necessary to explain the long term warming trend that’s been observed. For more information, see chapter 7.10 of this textbook.
Update: Other relevant papers include Kristjansson 2002 and Laut 2003, followed by Svensmark’s response and Laut’s rebuttal. More recently, Erlykin et al. suggest that the apparent correlation is due to direct solar activity, while Pierce and Adams state: “In our simulations, changes in CCN [cloud condensation nuclei concentrations] from changes in cosmic rays during a solar cycle are two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties; consequently, we conclude that the hypothesized effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change.”
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it is. As the NAS explains on page 6 here:
"In nature, CO2 is exchanged continually between the atmosphere, plants and animals through photosynthesis, respiration, and decomposition, and between the atmosphere and ocean through gas exchange. A very small amount of CO2 (roughly 1% of the emission rate from fossil fuel combustion) is also emitted in volcanic eruptions. This is balanced by an equivalent amount that is removed by chemical weathering of rocks."
So natural CO2 emissions are balanced, and our fossil fuel emissions are roughly 100x faster than volcanic emissions. That's why "actual science" shows that our current CO2 emissions rate is unprecedented over the last 300 million years.
And if you read the rest of that NAS document, you'd discover that "actual science" shows that our unprecedentedly rapid CO2 emissions are a cause for concern.
Again, spotting outliers via media uproar isn't as rigorous as actually looking at the data. So let's reproduce Fig 1(b) in Karl et al. 2015, which shows trends from 1998 to 2012. Let's calculate those trends for all the land/ocean, global, and satellite datasets listed here:
HadCRUT4 trend: +0.050 ± 0.139 C/decade (2 sigma)
NOAA trend: +0.079 ± 0.131 C/decade (2 sigma)
Karl(2015) trend: +0.086 ± 0.148 C/decade (2 sigma)
GISTEMP trend: +0.100 ± 0.141 C/decade (2 sigma)
Berkeley trend: +0.096 ± 0.137 C/decade (2 sigma)
HadCRUT4 krig v2 trend: +0.111 ± 0.152 C/decade (2 sigma)
Karl(2015) krig trend: +0.111 ± 0.157 C/decade (2 sigma)
RSS trend: -0.055 ± 0.246 C/decade (2 sigma)
UAH trend: +0.054 ± 0.251 C/decade (2 sigma)
All these trend estimates are consistent with my previous statement: there hasn't been a statistically significant change in the warming rate, and there isn't a statistically significant difference between the projected and observed trends.
Do these results support Jane's claim that Karl et al. 2015 is somehow an "outlier"?
You're "misunderstanding" fundamental concepts and basic facts about the figures in Karl et al. 2015. That's not misdirection, it's relevant. If you can't even get the basics right, what makes you think you'll be able to understand anything else?
If Jane/Lonny's opinion that Karl et al. used "highly questionable" methods were widely shared by scientists, Jane/Lonny wouldn't have had to say things like this to Dr. Gavin Schmidt (director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies) after Dr. Schmidt disagreed with Jane/Lonny's uninformed opinion.
Jane's method of spotting outliers via media uproar is cute, but it would be more rigorous to actually look at Fig 1 (a) and (b). The new global trend's central estimate is within the error bars of the old estimate. Ironically, Jane/Lonny made the same mistake two years ago regarding Cowtan and Way 2013, which yielded a trend similar to Karl et al. 2015. Perhaps Jane/Lonny forgot about that while ranting about "outliers"?
If Jane/Lonny would actually calculate a trend estimate with autocorrelated uncertainties (either using the code I've repeatedly given him, or by writing his own) then he'd realize that Karl et al. 2015 really wasn't news. For instance, years before Karl et al. 2015, I'd already told Jane/Lonny that "There hasn't been a statistically significant change in the warming rate, and there isn't a statistically significant difference between the projected and observed trends."
Again, I said this to Jane/Lonny long before Karl et al. 2015. Even without Karl et al. 2015, it's still clear that there hasn't been a statistically significant change in the warming rate, and there isn't a statistically significant difference between the projected and observed trends.
That's not news to anyone who's calculated a trend estimate with autocorrelated uncertainties. Have you done that yet? Will you ever do that, Jane/Lonny?
That's an opinion, not a fact. Informed opinions require understanding simple facts about the adjustments that were already used before Karl et al. 2015 proposed an incremental improvement. A prerequisite to understanding Karl et al. 2015 is acknowledging the fact that NOAA's adjustments (before and after Karl et al.) show less global surface warming over the last century than the raw data do.
Nonsense. The government's own "unmanipulated" data show even more global surface warming since around 1900 than their "manipulated" data do. Calling necessary adjustments "manipulations" is bad enough, but hopefully we can agree that it would be stupid to call those adjustments fraud?
Wow. Will Jane/Lonny ever understand the extent to which adjustments reduce global surface warming over the last century compared to raw data? If so, will he retract his accusation?
Nonsense. Karl et al. 2015 Fig 2(b) (backup) shows that NOAA has been adjusting the 1937 global surface temperature upward before and after Karl et al. 2015. Not downward, Jane/Lonny. Upward.
Okay. I thought about how NOAA's adjustments reduce the global surface warming rate over the last c
Oops: NOAA's adjustments show less global surface warming over the last century than the raw data do. (Go ahead, check! See which claim is correct for yourself! Or just keep throwing around baseless accusations of fraud. Whatevs.)
Obviously I'm talking about NOAA's global surface dataset, because you accused NOAA of having "an axe to grind."
NOAA's adjustments show even more global surface warming over the last century than the raw data do.
Coincidence? I think not.
If you really believe that then just ignore the adjusted data, and only consider the raw data... which show even more global surface warming over the last century than the adjusted data do.
Miller et al. 2012 says the Little Ice Age "can be linked to an unusual 50-year-long episode with four large sulfur-rich explosive eruptions".
Of course, the Maunder Minimum also contributed to the Little Ice Age. Regarding other contributors, Ruddiman 2003 (PDF) says "plague-driven CO2 changes were also a significant causal factor in temperature changes during the Little Ice Age (1300–1900 AD)."
There's been some debate about Ruddiman's "early anthropogenic" hypothesis. He discusses the LIA in his 2013 AGU lecture at 38m29s. Briefly, plagues killed many people in Europe and the Americas during the LIA, and their farms were overgrown by forests. That sequestered atmospheric CO2, causing even more cooling.
Good grief, Jane! Yeah, that's yet another good example of your baseless, unprovoked accusations. Harvard seems to know (emphasis added) that "Naomi Oreskes is Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences . She recently arrived at Harvard after spending 15 years as Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor of Geosciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography."
So Harvard seems to know that Prof. Oreskes isn't "just" a science historian; she's also an Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences after being an Adjunct Professor of Geosciences.
But let me guess. Jane has "incontrovertible evidence" (like bananas) that Prof. Oreskes is a "false consensus lady" charlatan and famous purveyor of scientific bullshit with a bad reputation in regard to scientific integrity who's either incompetent or a liar and spreads statistical nonsense and a parody of good statistics and blatant & obvious falsehoods.
Naturally, Jane decrees that Prof. Oreskes is a laughing stock with no credibility.
For some reason, Harvard doesn't seem to agree with Jane/Lonny Eachus. A brief glance at Prof. Oreskes' CV shows why: she has a background in geology (like Richard Alley and many other scientists) and actually wrote her PhD thesis on the "false consensus" of American earth scientists in the early twentieth century, who were united in their opposition to continental drift.
So not only is Prof. Oreskes a scientist, her other field of expertise is critically evaluating consensus in science. That would seem to suggest yet another reason why Jane should think twice before lecturing a scientist who's also a science historian about how scientists think.
It's not clear why Jane/Lonny keeps lecturing scientists who are also science historians about what scientists think. Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.
In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.
At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional programmers who organized the poll of being charlatan laughing stocks with no credibility who are either incompetent or liars.
Seriously, wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous?
"@NaomiOreskes How do you live with yourself? Do you sleep well, knowing the pseudo-science you have tried to pull off? Just curious." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-20]
Hmm. That makes no sense. Did Jane mistype the link?
But it does confirm that Jane/Lonny Eachus won't admit he baselessly attacked Dr. Naomi Oreskes without provocation:
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
https://archive.is/z2Eg0 https://archive.is/IovCA
https://archive.is/1hQtE https://archive.is/ftB10
https://archive.is/5ZDTm https://archive.is/OyD0x
https://archive.is/q0DCz https://archive.is/08wup
https://archive.is/zpR3F https://archive.is/rOvUs
https://archive.is/5jaxb https://archive.is/vY9Xe
https://archive.is/vhCp4 https://archive.is/bUf4S
https://archive.is/4bmhT https://archive.is/QWyYt
https://archive.is/hew6k https://archive.is/YTPLP
https://archive.is/m3j0q https://archive.is/nV3l1
https://archive.is/2iqkS https://archive.is/kkoA1
https://archive.is/SX8RW https://archive.is/t7WkF
https://archive.is/2Xc6r https://archive.is/m4vnY
https://archive.is/oyngE https://archive.is/Sggkk
https://archive.is/l2tjm https://archive.is/IvXHW
https://archive.is/wxUKb https://archive.is/plaiL
It's not clear why Jane/Lonny keeps lecturing scientists like Dr. Oreskes about what scientists think. Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.
In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.
At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fa
Jane/Lonny Eachus also won't admit he baselessly attacked Dr. Naomi Oreskes without provocation:
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
https://archive.is/z2Eg0 https://archive.is/IovCA
https://archive.is/1hQtE https://archive.is/ftB10
https://archive.is/5ZDTm https://archive.is/OyD0x
https://archive.is/q0DCz https://archive.is/08wup
https://archive.is/zpR3F https://archive.is/rOvUs
https://archive.is/5jaxb https://archive.is/vY9Xe
https://archive.is/vhCp4 https://archive.is/bUf4S
https://archive.is/4bmhT https://archive.is/QWyYt
https://archive.is/hew6k https://archive.is/YTPLP
https://archive.is/m3j0q https://archive.is/nV3l1
https://archive.is/2iqkS https://archive.is/kkoA1
https://archive.is/SX8RW https://archive.is/t7WkF
https://archive.is/2Xc6r https://archive.is/m4vnY
https://archive.is/oyngE https://archive.is/Sggkk
https://archive.is/l2tjm https://archive.is/IvXHW
https://archive.is/wxUKb https://archive.is/plaiL
It's not clear why Jane/Lonny keeps lecturing scientists like Dr. Oreskes about what scientists think. Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.
In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.
At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional program
Hmm. Either Jane's "explanations" are just hopelessly confused rants about a dimwit moron, or Jane's actual meaning is being maliciously distorted by that dimwit moron. Let's find out:
Now it's clear why Jane sees no need to provide a single valid example of this "evidence" to back up his claim that simple statistics suggest young-earthers have some evidence. Jane has convinced himself that his refuted examples support his claim even after shown to be false.
In Janeland, it doesn't matter that even Jane/Lonny Eachus had to admit that both of his examples were refuted. Both still count as Janeland evidence nevertheless, even after shown to be false.
So that's why Jane doesn't see any need to provide a single valid example of his claimed "evidence". In Janeland, even Jane's failures support Jane's claim.
In that spirit, here's more "incontrovertible evidence" for creationism: BANANAS!
Not convinced? Doesn't matter. Even if the banana argument is shown to be false, it still counts as evidence in Janeland.
How incredibly bizarre. After Jane claimed that "a very basic knowledge of statistics (as I explained to you a long time ago) argues against you," I explained that Jane's "completely general" argument doesn't apply to creationism, because creationism is a supernatural "hypothesis" and therefore can't be supported by some evidence. Ironically, Jane simply accused me of lying and then just blissfully keeps repeating the same nonsense as though he hadn't read a single word I wrote:
Again, that can be true for actual competing scientific hypotheses. They could be described as each having some evidence, but creationism doesn't even qualify as a scientific hypothesis. It's simply not possible for creationists to have any evidence, because creationism isn't testable science.
Saying that "young-earth creationists have some evidence" is treating creationism as a scientific hypothesis which can have some evidence. In fact, Jane just repeated that claim ad nauseum above.
Again, I've explained that considering the possibility that creationism can have
Good grief. After Jane objected to my statement that "Dr. Hayhoe is presenting mainstream science," I showed that Dr. Hayhoe's statements are consistent with those from the NAS and several peer-reviewed papers. I also showed that Dr. Hayhoe's statements were more accurate than Jane/Lonny's repeated claims about the last 6,000 years.
As usual, in response Jane simply ignores all that and jumps to the next regurgitated contrarian talking point. Jane seems to have abandoned his objection to my statement that Dr. Hayhoe is presenting mainstream science. Now, Jane is claiming mainstream science itself is inconsistent.
Once again, Jane is fractally wrong. Long ago, I shared an IPCC graph of temperature reconstructions. Note that the axes of these temperature reconstructions are labeled with actual numbers. Despite Jane's claims, Marcott et al. 2013 isn't inconsistent with IPCC reconstructions, and both Marcott et al. and the IPCC show the MWP and the Little Ice Age.
Why does Jane dispute this? Asking Jane for a link is unpleasant and unproductive, but Jane seems to be confusing the IPCC 1990 Fig 7.1(c) hand-drawn cartoon with an actual temperature reconstruction. Note that this cartoon cites two papers, both of which are mainly about the climate in Europe, and notes "... it is still not clear whether all the fluctuations indicated were truly global...".
Why is Jane surprised that an actual global temperature reconstruction from 2013 isn't identical to a hand-drawn cartoon from 1990 which appears to be mainly based on temperatures in Europe rather than the globe? Maybe Jane's surprised because he used to cite the "Wegman Report" before he realized they had blatantly misrepresented this cartoon by (accidentally?) adding numbers to the scale and redrawing the curve to make it look less like a cartoon.
But Wegman's (accidental?) "mistakes" don't change the fact that it was a hand-drawn cartoon mainly based on temperatures in Europe rather than the globe, and that its axis wasn't labeled with actual numbers.
It's strange that Jane confused this unlabeled cartoon with an actual temperature reconstruction, because Jane often criticizes graphs with no numbers and no labels on th
And I know you've been repeatedly talking about absolute changes without referring to timescales, which means you're (inadvertently?) ignoring the real problem: the unprecedented rate of our CO2 emissions. Can we agree that adaptation via migration and evolution is rate limited? Or, once again, would you like to dispute that proposition for either migration or evolution, or both?
Good grief, Jane. Once again, my argument has always been that bodies of water aren't emitting significant amounts of CO2. In fact, that's the position Jane/Lonny keeps citing, and I keep debunking!
Once again, I don't have anything against hydro dams or bodies of water, nor do I think we should eliminate lakes. Once again, that's just silly, Jane. Speaking of "talking to yourself" did you notice that you're the only one talking about CO2 emitted by bodies of water, or anything related to vegetation to begin with? I just explained that I was only referring to the limited extent that any concrete structure like a dam rapidly emits CO2, compared to the huge extent that a coal plant does for the same energy.
If, Jane. If both the CO2 and particulate inputs to the atmosphere grow at equal rates in the future. But that didn't happen after ~1975 in the U.S.A. or in Europe.
Even if I'm completely inept when it comes to context, it seems to me like those statements apply to both carbon dioxide and aerosols. And they were right about both. Globally, we just stopped emitting so much SO2 after ~1975 but kept emitting CO2 even faster.
If the current emissions trends in 1975 had continued, the global dimming caused by aerosols could have overwhelmed warming by CO2. That's a perfectly reasonable if statement. But since global aerosol emissions declined after ~1975 (see fig 1), that if statement doesn't apply to our universe.
Good grief, Jane. It's bizarre to be accused of not being honest because I didn't quote an if statement from a report that doesn't apply to our universe where aerosol emissions declined after ~1975.
I quoted the 1975 NAS statement that CO2 warming could be "about 0.5C between now and the end of the century" because it applies to our universe. The 2007 IPCC estimate of radiative forcing up to 2005 shows that aerosol emissions roughly cancelled al
Good grief, Jane. I'm not trying to weasel out of anything. "Limited extent" isn't overridden by "rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere" and these aren't weasel words. Once again, my point is that anything which rapidly increases CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to ocean acidification. Coal plants do this to a huge extent. I've explained that conventional nuclear plants do this to a limited extent because of mining/enrichment/recycling/disposal of fuel, and because of curing the concrete containment domes. Hydro dams typically require pouring lots of concrete, so they're similar to nuclear power in that respect.
I strongly support nuclear power for many reasons, but one is that a lot of electricity in the USA and the world is generated by coal plants, which are responsible to a huge extent for the rapid increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. The fact that I acknowledge that nuclear power plants (and solar/wind, etc.) are responsible to a limited extent for the rapid increase of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't constitute trying to "weasel" out of anything. So it's not clear why Jane accuses me of doing that with respect to hydro dams, and it's not clear why Jane is ranting at me about them. Again, I don't have anything against hydro dams or bodies of water, nor do I think we should eliminate lakes. That's just silly, Jane.
Good grief, Jane. The fact that you weren't "comparing" any sort of rate of change to the Cambrian period is exactly my point. I've been telling you that for months, because for months you've been saying things like ""Warmists" like to scare over things like death of coral due to ocean acidification from CO2. Coral evolved at a time of 70x today's CO2."
You've been repeating nonsense like this for months, irrelevantly tweaking the factor to "well over 10" in your most recent regurgitation. For months, you've been comparing absolute CO2 values, which is wrong. Only rapid increases in CO2 concentration cause ocean acidification. After I quoted Honisch et al. making this point, Jane said he knows "what the chemistry of ocean acidification is" and doesn't "need a lecture from you about it."
If Jane really doesn't need a lecture, then Jane already sees why his repetitive comparisons of absolute CO2 values are misleading. Jane should be examining the rate of change of CO2 concentration, like
Good grief, Jane. I said limited extent, which is also basically what I say about solar, wind, and nuclear power, while supporting them. I'm not accusing hydro dams of anything. And I certainly don't have something against bodies of water, or think we should eliminate lakes "because of the CO2 they emit"(?!). In fact, my argument has always been that bodies of water aren't emitting significant amounts of CO2.
Despite Jane's hand-drawn schematic, higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations still don't cause ocean acidification unless the concentration increases rapidly. So it was misleading for Jane to compare values from the Cambrian period to learn about ocean acidification.
As Jane says, CO2 concentrations have had many rises and falls over the last 500 million years. That's why I've repeatedly showed Jane Kiessling and Simpson 2010, which concluded that "four of five global metazoan reef crises in the last 500 Myr were probably at least partially governed by OA [ocean acidification] and rapid global warming."
Kiessling and Simpson 2010 isn't misleading because, unlike Jane, they examined CO2's rate of change over the last 500 Myr.
Jane completely ignores the PETM paper, which has nothing to do with ocean acidification. Hydro dams (which don't and can't contribute most of the power in the USA or in the world) cause ocean acidification only to the limited extent that they rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere. So once again it's meaningless to ask if an increase of 50PPM CO2 in the atmosphere causes significant ocean acidification. If that 50 ppm increase occurs over centuries or millenia, it's less likely to cause significant ocean acidification than if it occurs over decades because of the higher rate of increase.
No, I've already told you that your second question is meaningless because paleoclimate evidence shows that ocean acidification depends on the rate of CO2 emissions, not the amount in the atmosphere.
There's a difference between "unknown" and "unknown to Jane".
Once again, you're mistakenly calculating the absolute value of atmospheric CO2 ("400 to 5000 ppm") rather than calculating its rate of change. Once again, if atmospheric CO2 increases slowly, ocean pH doesn't change significantly because it's buffered by carbonates and land weathering on long time scales. See Fig. 2 in Honisch et al. 2012 (PDF):
"When CO2 dissolves in seawater, it reacts with water to form carbonic acid, which then dissociates to bicarbonate, carbonate, and hydrogen ions. The higher concentration of hydrogen ions makes seawater acidic, but this process is buffered on long time scales by the interplay of seawater, seafloor carbonate sediments, and weathering on land."
It's incredibly ironic that Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus both p
Go ahead.
I'm sorry for still being alive. Think carefully about context, and you'll realize your accusations of dishonesty are baseless. Once again.
Jane, you repeated your incorrect position on the physics just last month. Again, were you lying when you insisted you DO have a reply to that physics problem?
I've already told you that the NAS calls it a "settled fact" but you still seem unable to retract your claims about warming via CO2. Were you lying when you insisted you DO have a reply to that physics problem?
Yes, what you're saying matches my conclusions.
Yes. Another complication is that high, thin clouds warm the surface while "low, thick clouds primarily reflect solar radiation and cool the surface of the Earth."
So your preferences are different than Richard Alley's. He concluded at 43:01 that "We had a big cosmic ray signal, and the climate ignores it. And it's just about that simple. These cosmic rays didn't do enough that you can see it."
Maybe this is because Richard Alley's estimate that the Laschamp anomaly lasted "for a millenium or so" matches other estimates that are longer than 500 years.
I've explained that the maximum impact of this mechanism has been estimated to be responsible for no more than 23% of the 11-year cyclical variation of cloud cover. Furthermore, there’s no long term trend in Svensmark’s data, which would be necessary to explain the long term warming trend that’s been observed. For more information, see chapter 7.10 of this textbook.
Update: Other relevant papers include Kristjansson 2002 and Laut 2003, followed by Svensmark’s response and Laut’s rebuttal. More recently, Erlykin et al. suggest that the apparent correlation is due to direct solar activity, while Pierce and Adams state: “In our simulations, changes in CCN [cloud condensation nuclei concentrations] from changes in cosmic rays during a solar cycle are two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties; consequently, we conclude that the hypothesized effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change.”
Another update: Snow-Kropla et al. 2011 makes similar points.