Tuesday, August 5, 2014

SO2 Resubmission



Dr. Keating:
This is a re-submission of my June 28 $30,000 Challenge submission in a more simplified format, where my claims are more easily examined for possible refutation. This is being done since the analysis of my original submission contained, I believe, a number of errors. Some additional supporting references are also included.
The claims are as follows:
1. SO2 injected into the atmosphere via a large volcanic eruption causes global cooling.
2. When the SO2 settles out of the atmosphere, global temperatures recover to pre-eruption levels, due to increased insolation. Natural warming after the removal of aerosols from the air can be considered to be a "Law of Nature", proven multiple times.
3. The Mount Pinatubo eruption injected 17 - 20 Megatons of SO2 into the stratosphere, causing approx. 0.4 deg. C. of global cooling. (Self, et al (1)
4. When the pollution settled out, there was an equivalent temperature rise of approx. 0.4 deg. C.
5. Thus, it can be concluded that the removal of 17 - 20 Megatons of SO2 from the atmosphere should cause a temperature rise of approx. 0.4 deg. C. (approx. 0.02 deg. C per Megaton. of SO2 removal, based upon the Mount Pinatubo results).
6. Due to the Clean Air Acts and similar efforts abroad, 1980 - 2000, at least 43 Megatons of SO2 were removed from the atmosphere (2), (3). This guarantees a temperature rise of AT LEAST 0.4 deg. C.--due to increased insolation--because of aerosol removal. This amount represents 83 % of the approx. 0.48 deg. C. of warming, 1970 - 2000.
7. Additional SO2 removal in the USA and Europe, 1970 - 1980, and in Europe, 1998 - 2000, resulted in enough additional aerosol-removal warming to account for 100 % of the global warming,1970 - 2000 (NASA's table of "Global Temperature Anomalies" indicates that the temperature rose 0.25 deg. C., 1970 - 1980) (4)
8. Since all of the warming 1970 - 2000 is accounted for by aerosol removal, there can have been NO measureable warming due to greenhouse gasses.
9. The IPCC graph of "Radiative Forcing Components" fails to inlude any aerosol-removal warming component, and thus is seriously misleading and should be discarded.
If you cannot refute any of the above claims, then I have proven that climate change due to greenhouse gas accumulation is kot a viable hypothesis.
Burl Henry
Regarding Claim No. 6, it should be noted that stratospheric SO2 has a finite lifetime, of perhaps 1 to 2 years.
Emissions into the troposphere from constant sources such as power plants, factories, vehicle exhausts, home heating units, and the like, have essentially "infinite" lifetimes, since they are constantly being renewed, and thus have an identical, but longer lasting, cooling effect.
(1) The Atmospheric Impact of the Mouint Pinatubo Eruption, Stephen Self, et al.
(2) EPA.gov "Air Quality Trends", Table 3.
(3) GEO-3. Global Environmental Outlook (United Nations Environmental Programme). See Table for years 1980 - 1998.
(4) NASA.gov. "Global Temperature Anomalies in 0.01 degrees C., base period 1951- 1980".
Other relevant graphs:
1. "Global Anthropogenic Suilfur Dioxide Emissions 1850 - 2005, by Smith et al, Page 10, Fig. 5.
This graph shows that the strong declines in SO2 emissions in North America and Europe are being offset by emissions from East Asia. When the two are averaged together, the result is the "pause"..
2. "Observed Tendencies in Surface Solar Radiation" Google "Images of Surface Solar Radiation". Note the pictograph with the same title, the one with red and blue arrows.
This image clearly shows the effect of cleaner air around the world (the only way that surface solar radiation could increase, since solar irradiance has been decreasing since around 1980) The cleaner air will increase solar insolation and, therefore, increased surface wqarming.
3. See the Wikipedia article on Global Dimming, Page 5..
The graph nicely shows the continuing decrease in atmospherc SO2 loading, which increases warming. However, they reached the erroneous conclusion that "in 1975 the masked effect of trapped greenhouse gasses finally started to emerge and have dominated ever since (37), when in actuality, the warming was simply due to the cleaner atmosphere.


Response:

One of the things I said about the challenge was that you could make a submission, hear my response and, in the event it was found to fail in its proof, make changes and resubmit it. This submission is the only resubmission I received. The original submission was about the Clean Air act and can be read here. This submitter felt so strongly that he was correct that I agreed to consider his submission a second time.

So, let's look at each point he makes above.

1. Yes, volcanoes emit SO2 gases, some more than others. And, these emissions can have a significant impact on the climate.

2. This is not a true statement the way he wrote it. Once the SO2 is cleaned out of the atmosphere the temperature will return to the temperature that is governed by the conditions that exist without the SO2. The SO2 can stay in the atmosphere for years and it is not a true statement to say temperatures will return to pre-eruption levels. If the climate conditions have changed, the temperature will revert to the temperature caused by those conditions. Also, I reject his claim of a 'law of nature'. If a climate scientist somewhere made this claim without proof, contrarians would be screaming bloody murder. I am not aware of any such 'law of nature' as Mr. Henry claims and he offers no proof, even though he claims it has been proven many times.

3. I'm fine with this statement. Wikipedia says the amount is 22 megatons, so that is a reasonably close figure. However, Mr. Henry neglected to include the 10 billion tons of particulate matter that was also ejected.

4. I am not sure this a true statement. I would have to see the data to say it is true. Let's just say that there was a temperature rise once the excess dust and SO2 was washed out of the atmosphere.

5. This is a 100% false statement. There is simply no truth to this statement and is why Mr. Henry is having problems. First, he attributed this change in temperature to removal of SO2 and made no mention of the dust particles. Where is that 'law of nature' he spoke of previously? But, it is wrong in another way. When humans emit SO2 it stays in the lower atmosphere - the troposphere. When Mt Pinatubo erupted it injected the dust and SO2 into the upper atmosphere - the stratosphere. This will have dramatically different results. For instance, dust and SO2 in the troposphere will be washed out in days. Dust and SO2 in the stratosphere will last for years. The conclusion that removing an amount of SO2 from the troposphere will have the same result as removing an equal amount of SO2 from the stratosphere, along with a very large amount of dust, is simply a false statement.

6. Again, this is a false statement. First, it was based on the conclusion of point number 5, which was a false one. Second, the removal of that much SO2 over a period of years does not say anything about the amount of change in the atmospheric SO2 level. Further, there is nothing said about the amount of SO2 production upramping that occurred in other countries. In fact, SO2 reductions in the U.S. and Europe were offset by increases in the rest of the world. I covered this in his original submission.

7. We have already seen that the points Mr. Henry based this on are false, so this one is also false. But, he managed to make yet another error. He used the logic that doubling the amount of SO2 removed would result in a doubling of the resulting temperature rise. This is a patently false statement. It is more of a inverse-logarithmic relationship. As an example, if you increased the amount removed by a factor of ten, the amount of temperature increase might only be about double the increase resulting from removing the original amount. I don't know the exact figures, but this is the same reason why when we increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over pre-industrial revolution amounts by 43%, the greenhouse efficiency of the atmosphere went up only 1% (thank goodness!).

8. So, we have seen that all of Mr. Henry's conclusions are based on previous erroneous conclusions.

9. The IPCC chart didn't have a component for this removal because it has been evaluated and found to not be significant. There are lots of other things that are not involved and they aren't on the charts, either.

I find it interesting that he came up with a reverse logic on the lifespan of SO2 in the atmosphere. He stated SO2 in the stratosphere has a finite lifespan, perhaps 1 - 2 years. OK. But, then he says SO2 in the troposphere has an infinite lifespan because it is constantly being resupplied. This is a false argument of the highest order. Let's put it this way, suppose SO2 had a lifespan of zero seconds, that it broke down into harmless components the very instant it entered the atmosphere. What would we care about the level of emissions if this were the case? Hey! Because its still being resupplied! This is an extreme example to make a point. The lifespan of SO2 in the troposphere is measured as a few days. This means SO2 is removed very quickly after it is emitted (actually a bad thing because acid rain is one of the big removal mechanisms). This means the atmospheric level increases only slowly with increased emissions. So, stopping the emissions will not have the same effect as removing an equal amount of SO2 in the stratosphere.

Mr. Henry's submission is full of false arguments and erroneous conclusions. This submission did not prove man made global warming is not real.

49 comments:

  1. Your submission is not scientifically valid. As an example, you state your calculations have 1.7 teratons of CO2 moving from the northern
    hemisphere to the southern hemisphere. Well, the entire mass of the atmosphere is about 5 x 10^18 tons and CO2 is about .004% of that. This
    gives a mass of all of the CO2 in the atmosphere to be about 2 teratons. Your calculated CO2 mass that migrates between the hemispheres is
    almost equal to the ENTIRE mass of atmospheric CO2. By your calculation, one hemisphere of the planet is going without CO2 for half of the year.
    Take a look at the Keeling curve and tell me when this occurs:

    https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/


    This plot shows the CO2 concentration as measured on Mauna Loa. As you can see, there is no indication AT ALL that there is any such migration between the hemispheres.


    Your calculations and your hypothesis are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is the easiest one so far. The Heartland Institute is well-known
    for being funded by the fossil fuel industry to undermine climate
    science.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You write:
    “the main greenhouse gas is water vapor and that vapor wouldn't be there if CO2 wasn't raising the temperature in the first place”

    So, you start out assuming that CO2 is the fundamental driver and thus, your conclusion will always be just that.

    Your opinion above, that on a planet with 70% water surface, there would hardly be any water in the atmosphere if it was not for CO2 is unproven and obviously not likely.

    In addition, remember that just a little water in the atmosphere creates a relatively very large fraction of the entire water forcing.

    The article I refered to on WUWT use Modtran model data from Chicago university.

    Now, CO2 sensitivity.
    CO2 sensitivity means, that each doubling have roughly the same forcing effect – unless otherwise documented or at least justified.

    Feedbacks:
    As a starting point, the feedbacks from all CO2 doublings are likely to be rather similar – unless justified otherwise for a specific doubling. So feedbacks related to one doubling equals feedbacks from any other doubling – roughly.

    Chicago University Modtran model (and others) show that “one more CO2 doubling” (400->800 ppm) has the forcing effect incl feedbacks of around 10-12% of total CO2 forcing incl. feedbacks. And half a doubling 400-600 ppm (by year 2100) equals around 5% of total CO2 forcing incl feedbacks.

    What does this mean then?
    Well, lets imagine that HALF the entire greenhouse effect (30 K incl. feedbacks) on this water planet is due to incredible CO2, no less - that’s 15 K.

    Chicago University model Modtran (not me!) say that around 5% of the CO2 effect can be expected from half a doubling 400->600 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere incl. feedbacks corresponding to 15K x 5% = 0,75 K roughly.

    My question to you:
    Can you justify that the next CO2-doubling incl. feedbacks should have a much larger forcing effect than other CO2-doublings incl feedbacks?

    ?

    If not, then the next CO2 doubling incl. feedbacks cannot have more forcing effect than all the other CO2 doublings incl feedbacks. And that’s not much according to Chicago universitys Modtran model.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There would be no water vapor in the air at all if something else didn't warm it in the first place. That is pretty simple to see. And, yes,this has been proven.


    If you are using anything from WUWT then you are almost certainly wrong. This is a guy that takes money for the directed purpose of undermining climate science. If you are want to be taken seriously by anyone except the deniers and contrarians, then don't cite Watts.

    ReplyDelete
  5. On this planet – as the Easrth looks RIGHT NOW - the surface temperature is around 30 K higher than it would have been without greenhouse gasses.

    THESE 30 K extra heat we have - right now - are not due to CO2 alone. The 30 K are the combined forcing of the water that is in the atmosphere - right now - The CO2 in the atmosphere - right now - CH4, O3 etc.

    This way we actually DO know, that total CO2 forcing – as the Earth looks right now – can only account for some fraction of the 30 K we have right now. MAX MAX half, 15 K obviously.

    We also DO know that ONE doubling of CO2 – according to models – is around a tenth of the total CO2 forcing. So a full doubling 400->800 ppm (that will hardly ever take place!) as a starting point can hardly ever yield more forcong than 1,5 K.

    BUT
    Your input is partly based on the fact that the surface of the Earth can change and thus change albedo.
    For example if we had ice age right now, then a smaller addition of forcing might push the Earth into an interglacial period and thus accelerate things.
    But now we have interglacial, and thus most of the ice is gone and the Earth can not obviously change albedo massively that easy from now on. (!)

    And yes, you are correct, if there had been no CO2, then maybe the Earth would be more than 30K colder than it is today due to changed albedo, and more.
    But this does not at all change the fact, that the Earth – as it looks today – have 30 K extra heat due to greenhouse gases, and that these 30 K right now are the forcing from all H2O, CO2, CH4 etc. combined.

    Which again in turn tell us that one single CO2 doubling can only have a forcing around a tenth of the total CO2 forcing – which makes CO2 forcing rather modest.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I dispute the particular numbers, but more importantly, what is your point?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The CO2 forcing from one doubling is small, not drmatic.
    F.example, J.Hansen believes one CO2-doubling shold yield 6 K of warming.
    But we know from models that the total CO2 forcing should be around ten times as much.
    But a CO2 forcing of 60K from the total CO2 column is twice the forcing we have RIGHT NOW in the entire atmosphere, 30K.
    So some scientist seems to forget basic limitation when estimating their numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  8. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/

    ReplyDelete
  9. Look I can link to articles too.
    Please explain exactly what it is (in your link) that makes you think you have a fine argument (!)

    ReplyDelete
  10. If we use the conversion ~7.8 Gt (10^9 t) = 1 ppmv (reference page 16) to convert 1,700Gt we get 218ppm. This is around 218/400 = 54% of the full atmospheric CO2 load.
    The Keeling curves tells us the situation 4,000 m up Mauna Loa - a site specifically chosen to measure clear air. That is quite different to the conditions at sea level with wide temperature fluctuations, where the CO2 transfer is taking place. However the Keeling curve does point to an unusually powerful driver within the system. There is a steep fall in the curve of around 5 ppm in the middle of the year (refer page 4). This is right when the Southern Ocean is at its coldest and the wind at its most violent, presenting large volumes of the stratosphere to the cold sea surface.
    Your conclusion "By your calculation, one hemisphere of the planet is going without CO2 for half of the year." is wrong because the hemispheres gradually cool and heat simultaneously resulting in a steady migration of CO2 - without substantially changing the concentration readings at Mauna Loa. The Keeling curve tells us nothing about the migrating flow of CO2. I think this is a scientifically valid interpretation of the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The link is my way of telling you that I am done with you. You can do the homework, if you want. But, you have demonstrated that you have fully rejected science, so there is absolutely nothing I can do or say to change your mind. I will spend my time and energy somewhere more productive.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yes here you are not productive, true. Again - like in the mountain valleys - a lot of attitude, less arguments.
    :-) and also this time you did the trick of telling me not to read my own articles if they are at WUWT, impressing.
    Im considdering making a post on your level of argumentations in general on a site you dont like. Lets call thar a fair warning for you to pull yourself together and and show the world some actual interesting and qualified reflections and arguentation in stead of this waste of peoples time you have presented so far.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mr Batter, did you ever write an interesting comment in your life?

    ReplyDelete
  14. This is truly amazing!
    In 3 out of 3 topics you are advising me not to read my own articles when they are brought on WUWT! Fantastic :-)
    The article
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/

    is yet again my own, its from 2009.
    And its FREAKING BRILLIANT ;-) - you could learn something...
    I will return to your arguments later, its late night in Denmark

    ReplyDelete
  15. The central fallacy in your argument is the implicit assumption that all temperature change is due to CO2. This is obviously not true. CO2 doesn't make it warmer at noon than at night. Nor does it make it warmer in summer than in winter.

    The initial temperature increase at the LGM is due to gravitational perturbation of Earth's orbit around the sun. This temperature increase causes outgassing of CO2 from the oceans and release of CO2 and CH4 from thawing permafrost. It also leads to reduced albedo.

    The temperature effects of albedo and orbit perturbations are however too small by about an order of magnitude to explain the temperature increase from the LGM to the present. The released CO2 provides positive feedback, amplifying the temperature increase and leading to more released CO2 and so on. The positive feedback is damped by massive expansion of biological systems which eventually consumes CO2 at a sufficient rate to bring the system into equilibrium. That mechanism cannot hope to operate fast enough to meet current CO2 emissions which are hundreds of times faster than the natural ones.

    The equilibrium is normally broken by another orbital perturbation and entrapment of carbon in permafrost, reduced evaporation rates and hence more efficient absorption by ocean surface layers. The reduction in CO2 amplifies the initial temperature decrease returning the system to glaciated conditions.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Please, be my guest. You are a perfect example of the ignorance I am trying to fight. You are beyond hope and no amount of science will ever save you. But, there are lot's of people out there that deserve the opportunity to make up their minds free of the nonsense you are selling. I would be honored if you wrote a trash article on me for WUWT. That really would be a worthwhile accomplishment and would mean I am making progress. When deniers start hating me and bad mouthing me, I know I am winning.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The other problem I can see with the graph is it is a cherry-pick, it only is for the tropics and for the

    ReplyDelete
  18. Realclimate and WUWT both have articles on pretty much every topic related to climate.

    Realclimate has their set of approach, viewpoints, results, choice of data and info and conclusions while WUWT has quite another set.
    So who is right??? Realcimate or WUWT viewpoints?

    Your “argument” is now simply that what i write is not what realclimate write and therefore you define its wrong.
    And you do so completely without showing the ability to argue WHY and WHAT real climate is correct about.

    You should have written in the definition of your project here that you just define difference with real climate as an error. That would have been honest from you, and nobody would have wasted any time on this project had you been honest about this from the start.

    If you take the role as over-judge yourself, you simply have to do ALL you can to be balanced. Just throwing a link to one side in the debate and define this as final truth is not the behaviour of a balanced judge, you just cannot perform that role yourself, you are too biased obviously.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Mr Keating, you simply just repeat the well known claims on what role CO2 is supposed to have had.
    Repeating the well known claims yet again is not a way of proving them nor showing that my objections are faulty.

    For example, you repeat the mantra about what happens when we go from warm period to glacial period:

    “The atmosphere can no longer hold the extra water vapor (hot air can hold more water vapor than cold air) and it precipitates out, taking the CO2 with it and leading to a further temperature decline.”

    Did you spare just 2 seconds to check out the illustration I showed you?? Check the graph to the right:

    http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/alley3.gif

    We DO go from interglacial to glacial with hardly ANY change in CO2 over those many thousand years!!!
    So your whole argument you repeat for all, that CO2 is needed to make such big temperature changes in nature is completely falsified. Its that simple.

    Open your eyes mr Keating (unless you want people to think GW is a religion to you).

    ReplyDelete
  20. The difference between RealClimate and WUWT is that RealClimate is done by practicing climate scientists and WUWT is done by a guy paid to undermine climate science.


    No, my argument is, and has been, that your claim is not scientifically valid.


    I'm sorry you don't care for valid science.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Mr Keating, you simply just repeat the well known claims on what role CO2 is supposed to have had.
    Repeating the well known claims yet again is not a way of proving them nor showing that my objections are faulty.
    For example, you repeat the mantra about what happens when we go from warm period to glacial period:
    “The atmosphere can no longer hold the extra water vapor (hot air can hold more water vapor than cold air) and it precipitates out, taking the CO2 with it and leading to a further temperature decline.”

    Did you spare just 2 seconds to check out the illustration I showed you?? Check the graph to the right:
    http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/alley3.gif

    We DO go from interglacial to glacial with hardly ANY change in CO2 over those many thousand years!!!

    So your whole argument you repeat for all, that CO2 is needed to make such big temperature changes in nature is completely falsified. Its that simple.
    Open your eyes mr Keating (unless you want people to think GW is a religion to you).

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment og mine "dissapeared" around 17.00 Danish time, now its retored.

    ReplyDelete
  23. It didn't disappear. It was deleted. So will any other comments of yours. You have become a irrational troll with nothing but illogical arguments based on the principle of rejecting any science or evidence that doesn't conform to your desired conclusion. You belong on WUWT.

    ReplyDelete
  24. You still forgot to explain how you came to the conclusion that "my claim is not scientifically valid".
    If you care for science, let the readers know this science you seem to hide.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The CO2 concentration is about 400 parts per million (400 ppm). The total mass of the atmosphere is about 5 x 10^18 tons. That means CO2 is (400/10^6) x (5 x 10^18) = 2 x 10^15 tons, or 2 terratons. This level of 400 ppm is matched very closely at other sites around the world. The troposphere is very well mixed due to weather and currents, so this is a good estimate of the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere. The shape of the Keeling curve is due to plants becoming dormant in wither and active in summer. This curve is more pronounced at Mauna Loa due to the semi-tropical location. Other sites do not produce such a strong variation in density over the year. Which would be one more piece of evidence against your claim.

    https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2014/07/28/what-does-this-number-mean/#more-38

    An important detail of your claim is that it would require the northern hemisphere to have its maximum CO2 concentration when the air temperature is the highest - the end of July/Start of August. But, the maximum CO2 concentration always occurrs in May, well before maximum air temperature.

    There is nothing scientifically valid in your interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
  26. All my comments are interesting, you worthless sack of dung.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "In my view" -- Your view, being based on ignorance and intellectual dishonesty, is irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "The problem is a lack of precision."

    No, the problem is lack of knowledge, intelligence, and honesty on the part of deniers and faux skeptics.

    "it is not presently warming, and hasn't warmed for 15+ years."

    Simply false. If you knew ANYTHING about climate science, you would know the right number of years to use in that bogus denier talking point, and why, but you don't.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Jim, I have asked you to tone it down. I deleted this comment and will delete any in the future that are insulting like this. You are not helping by being a troll. You're comments are welcome, but the insults are not.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Jim Balter: No, you're comments are not interesting. I have asked you to tone it down. I deleted this comment and will
    delete any in the future that are insulting like this. You are not
    helping by being a troll. You're comments are welcome, but the insults
    are not.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Jim Balter: I have asked you to tone it down. I deleted this comment and will
    delete any in the future that are insulting like this. You are not
    helping by being a troll. You're comments are welcome, but the insults
    are not.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Interesting calculations. Using your logic and more accurate? figures, I find 5.3Tt for the whole atmosphere and 397ppm when I did the calculation in December 2007. Using my flux number 1.706Tt we get 81.1%. If we then go to calculate the conversion of Gt to ppm we get 1ppm = 5.3Gt which is low compared to other quoted figures such as the Oxford University Press advice at http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/convert.html#2. We find 1 ppm by volume of atmosphere CO2 = 2.13 Gt C, or 7.80Gt CO2 - some 47% higher. Seems like a somewhat inexact science.
    On your second point, the Northern Hemisphere accounts for 32.9% of the sea area. The southern hemisphere contains the remaining 67.1% which is why the CO2 transpiring rates at the sea surface are slightly asymmetric between the two hemispheres. Henry's Gas Law is all about the interface between CO2 and the sea surface.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Well, now I don't know what I said, but I'm sure it was true and accurate,

    ReplyDelete
  34. Why don't you delete the insult above from your denier troll? I don't know what I said here, but I'm sure it WAS interesting .

    ReplyDelete
  35. Frank, my comment above is interesting. Instead of misspelling my name and making such silly comments, I suggest that you do as I suggested and ask Richard Alley what he thinks of your argument before you present it as proof that there's no global warming. That way you would undermine my assertions about you and other deniers rather than lending them credence.

    ReplyDelete
  36. That you were published at WUWT is about the worst possible mark against you ... like an article about evolution being published at Answers In Genesis.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Hmmm ... I don't know what I said, but I'm sure it was true and accurate, quite unlike the troll comment I responded to from Robert Beatty.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I have deleted quite a few comments from others. I have even blacklisted a few people. I try to let people talk without interfering, but there are still limits. And, those limits apply to everyone equally. Hurling insults, by anyone to anyone, does not help the conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I'm specifically inquiring about "Mr Batter, did you ever write an interesting comment in your life?" -- That's what my deleted comment was in response to. I'm pretty sure that my deleted comment was more interesting and substantive than that deserved. Still, I have added a second relatively polite response.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Sure, that would be correct if we were experiencing long term warming, which we are not. Check the met office to confirm

    ReplyDelete
  41. I'll try common sense; the giant heat lamp in the sky is also a magnetic powerhouse twisting and warping out planet causing friction and heat. No credible being can predict climate without first being an expert on solar forces. Anyone who claims to know which direction our climate will swing without being able to predict the the causes and influences of solar radiation and magnetics is a snake oil salesman. We are in our scientific infancy. I cannot accept the hubris of a "consensus" which is forced annually to account for its failed predictions. This "consensus" is a speculative body supported be political will and tax payer dollars. Its actually despicable. We just learned within the last 10 years that stars typically support planets. How can anyone claim high ground when we're just now scratching at the surface of science?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Quite a statement, but it doesn't live up to the billing.


    We track solar activity very closely and it is most certainly factored into calculations. One of the things that is factored in is the fact that solar activity has been decreasing slightly since the 1950s. We are actually in a naturally cooling cycle, not a natural warming one.


    As for the 'failed predictions,' you need to stop reading the denier blogs and read some scientific works. The predictions have actually been quite good and are consistently getting better and better.


    Yes, we are still learning a lot, does that somehow justify rejecting any science you don't like?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Sorry, global warming and climate change are going full force. Stop ignoring science you don't like. 2014 is on track to be the hottest year ever recorded. Every one of the top ten hottest years have occurred since 1997.

    ReplyDelete
  44. The link that Syd provided contains a graph, "Variation of global surface air temperature (HadCRUT4) and observed sunspot number (Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (SIDC) since 1960."
    http://www.climate4you.com/images/SunspotsMonthlySIDC%20and%20HadCRUT4%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1960%20WithSunspotPeriodNumber.gif

    Fun fact, HadCRUT4 is data from the Met Office!

    For a nice mental workout, try explaining to yourself why the temperature plot and the sunspot plot are closer together on the _left_ side of the graph, but further apart on the _right_ side of the graph. Get those brain wrinkles going! Bonus points for figuring out how this impacts your position!

    "Check the met office to confirm", indeed. Hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
  45. While you're at it, take a look at the overall trend in each plot.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Sure, I see the problem now. You're experiencing a credibility drain. This is what happens when you yoke yourself to a political movement in its infancy. The movement makes white hat claims, hucks in a hockey stick graph, pumps a couple hundred thousand data points into a model and blammo, you all save the world. But because you don't understand the politics behind the science, you don't get why those of us who have done our homework look at you sideways. To us you look like a schill; all over the talking points, ready to pivot when the predictions fail. You have likely never read the "Limits to Growth" its where we first see the hockey stick graph (PS...its used to describe a pending ice age). You likely go cross-eyed when someone asks you about the Hegelian Dialectic. You think up is down, if I'm not with you I'm against you, you love Rachel Maddow. Does that sum it up? You're a parrot. And you don't want to consider positive feedback or that a year of heat cannot be used to determine climate, or that your hero Am Gore groomed you personally to help him makes billions on cap and trade. You're just a good guy feeling very superior, but you're not a scientist and you never intended to yeild a cash prize. Which if you had would clearly go to Dan Pangburn. You want the moral high ground but you haven't earned it; you are derisive and dismissive when you aught to be listening. Here's what you're not understanding, we all believe that climate changes, we all believe carbon dioxide levels are rising starkly, and we all like green things. We know that humanity is driving atmospheric carbon levels to "scary levels". My worst fear is waking up to a lush garden and juicier fruit trees. Your worst fear is that the ocean levels will rise 20 feet and that we're all doomed because nothing will survive the changes we've inflicted on the planet. And if you weren't talking so stupidly about carbon dioxide, and if you didn't insist on the warming...you would have me. But you don't have me, because you're a schill. The oceans are not going to boil and we have real pollution issues to deal with. Plus as a guy who's planted two million trees, I'm certainly not going to imagine that you somehow care more than I do about the science of sustainability or conservation. You cherry pick your data, which you like to believe we do. You are actually intollerent to the diametrical and like I said, your challenge is a fraud. Its click bait. Bravo

    ReplyDelete
  47. This comment was so bad that I decided to make a posting out of it. You can read it here:

    http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/11/commenter-highlights-error-in-thought.html

    ReplyDelete
  48. I'll concede these points; you don't know Rachel Maddow, or work for All Gore (what I meant was that your arguments forward his position). I was being poetic. Also, I said you were being stupid about carbon, which you are...but I don't believe you're actually stupid.
    Also you are a PHD. So I'll give you that back. And maybe you're not a full blown alarmist, whereas I'm a prototypical "science
    Deniar". Only, I don't deny science, I do however draw the distinction between actual science and a political movement which abuses science to meet its bottom line. To be clear I mistrust the AGW movement because it focuses its energy on 1) alarmist predictions; claiming global warming has caused fatalities in the ball park of the second world war...really? Is that actually quantifiable? 2) Carbon dioxide drives warming? Really? Carbon Dioxide levels rise, warming should occur at the same rate. Right? 3) AGW is a polical movement; follow the money and influence. I'm not going to do the heavy lifting for you, unless you upset me. Then I will be forced to embarass you in detail. Actually, go ahead, upset me.

    As for being well intentioned, I don't think you are. You write like a man with a chip on his shoulder, an Axe to grind...? A little axe that needs a little grinding? Maybe a little? And you're also left leaning politically. Deny it. I am not politically inclined in either direction because all directions lead to lobby

    ReplyDelete
  49. If there is a political movement that is abusing science to meet its bottom line, its the denier industry. By 'denier-industry' I mean the people that are financially involved with denying climate change, such as the Koch Brothers, the coal industry, Heartland Institute, etc. Climate change scientists, to my knowledge, have not made any claims that global warming or climate change will cause fatalities in the ball part of WWII. Studies have shown there are currently thousands of people currently dieing as a result of climate change, but even the biggest estimate I have seen (400,000 per year) has been far less than WWII type casualties (an average in excess of 9 million per year). If you wish to reject the science that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that is your right, but please understand the only way you can reach that conclusion is by denying science. AGW is most certainly not a political movement any more than the findings about DDT, clean air, etc. were political movements. However, the effort to deny AGW is absolutely a political movement. There is no credible scientist or scientific organization that refutes AGW. You mentioned follow the money. I suggest you do exactly that. See who is funding the denier-industry. That should be all you need to know. And, I'll even do the heavy lifting for you:

    http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/05/denier-funding.html


    No, I don't have an axe to grind, but I do find it pretty despicable that people will willingly contribute to climate change for personal profit or stand-by and watch while its done. Also, I respond in kind to the way people address me. When people are polite, I am polite back. You were not, so I was not polite back. A strategy in the denier world is to attack and intimidate scientists so they will leave the public forum and allow the deniers to have it all to themselves. Unfortunately, this tactic has been very successful and many climate scientists will not engage in any public discussion. I will not be intimidated. I would rather have a civil discussion, but if you attack me I'll stand up to you.

    ReplyDelete