tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post383545814344512185..comments2024-03-18T03:27:18.777-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Eli can retire Part XIII - Tom Segalstad is an old buddyEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-14816388712428747532010-06-01T17:53:34.520-04:002010-06-01T17:53:34.520-04:00Hopefully it'll come back better worded and mo...Hopefully it'll come back better worded and more informative etc. We've all heard of otherwise intelligent people getting a bee in their bonnet about something outside their expertise.<br /><br />It would be helpful to know what their critiscisms were as well.guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17992984293423290387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-16442692764999544372010-05-30T02:47:24.444-04:002010-05-30T02:47:24.444-04:00Well, as a student of such efforts, I'd observ...Well, as a student of such efforts, I'd observe that sometimes when they drive such efforts, the result is a statement that moves further away than what they wish...<br /><br />The RS folks I know or have at least met are not dummies.John Masheyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17786354229618237133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42104953696174654022010-05-28T15:43:52.160-04:002010-05-28T15:43:52.160-04:00Unfortunately it seems the confused, stupid and ju...Unfortunately it seems the confused, stupid and just plain ignorant have decided that the Royal Society needs to re-write its stance on global warming. That is, the critiscisms that i've seen so far in the press, credited to anonymous Royal Society members, sound like the same emeritus ranting that we see all the time. Nevertheless they have managed to force the comments to be re-written.<br />http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10178124.stm<br /><br />Its the usual creationist trick of claiming something which was never designed to be the last word on a topic does not properly distinguish between what is agreed and what is not fully understood.guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17992984293423290387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-91284136395894303302010-05-28T14:47:02.554-04:002010-05-28T14:47:02.554-04:00OT but interesting:
UVA is in the process of tell...OT but interesting:<br /><br />UVA is in the process of tell Coochie to <a href="http://www2.wsls.com/sls/news/state_regional/article/uva_fights_ken_cuccinellis_demand_for_researchers_records/102814/" rel="nofollow">take a hike</a>.<br /><br />This is so obviously the correct thing to do that it should go w/o comment, but I couldn't resist.Rattus Norvegicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449457204330125792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-37394756131211395492010-05-28T10:22:11.223-04:002010-05-28T10:22:11.223-04:00I thought this was an interesting article
When sc...I thought this was an interesting article<br /><br />When science clashes with beliefs? Make science impotent<br /><br />http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/05/when-science-clashes-with-belief-make-science-impotent.arsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-70236384838340646472010-05-27T22:19:11.869-04:002010-05-27T22:19:11.869-04:00Ratio of carbon, atmosphere:ocean is about 730:380...Ratio of carbon, atmosphere:ocean is about 730:38000.<br /><br />MOC turns over the upper layers fairly rapidly, but I don't recall the rate except I was astounded at the large fraction. Someone ought to check that.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-61761062939812686702010-05-26T12:18:04.271-04:002010-05-26T12:18:04.271-04:00Marco,
Spencer's own diagram shows the error...Marco,<br /><br />Spencer's own <a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/simple-co2-model-fig01.jpg" rel="nofollow">diagram</a> shows the error in his argument, if the environment were a net source of CO2 then the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 would be greater than the level of anthropogenic emissions as you would have both man and nature making contributions. The fact that atmospheric growth is always smaller (if you include land-use changes as well), shows that the natural environment is a net sink, and hence is not the cause of the observed increases. <br /> <br />Having a model is all very well, but you do need to make sure that the results are sensible. In this case, the problem is that SST have a rising trend that acts as a proxy for (is correlated with) anthropogenic emissions. The regression gives greater weight to SST as it also explains the wiggle due to ENSO, and you then need less of the Anthropogenic CO2 signal to get the required trend. The use of regression type models is fraught with this kind of problem.Dikran Marsupialnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-48693023001148918932010-05-26T10:50:50.783-04:002010-05-26T10:50:50.783-04:00Thanks, Magnus. It doesn't explain my first li...Thanks, Magnus. It doesn't explain my first link, where Spencer makes this naive (and provingly idiotic) claim that the oceans are the cause by "modeling".<br /><br />I also note now that I made a considerable underestimation of the amount Spencer (in essence) claims is emitted from the oceans.<br /><br />Take a 2 GtC/y increase, 90% from the oceans (according to Spencer). Then of the 5.5 GtC/y of human emissions, 5.3 GtC/y is taken up (0.2 GtC/y goes into the atmosphere). That is equal to 4%, not the 10% I took earlier. In other words, the 1.8 GtC/y that comes out of the ocean and contributes to the atmospheric increase is only 4% of the net flux from the ocean. That would mean the oceans emit 45 GtC/y more than they take up. With an estimated upper ocean content of 1000 GtC, it would take a mere 20 years to deplete the upper ocean of carbon.Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-34076223993361300972010-05-26T04:57:49.107-04:002010-05-26T04:57:49.107-04:00Marco,
This I think is relevant to that:
http:/...Marco, <br /><br />This I think is relevant to that:<br /><br />http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/a-bag-of-hammers/Magnushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01617272924116099306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-34483975555597889742010-05-26T04:46:34.030-04:002010-05-26T04:46:34.030-04:00Make that "within a few decades", not &q...Make that "within a few decades", not "within a few years".Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-11734163588583786792010-05-26T04:44:11.840-04:002010-05-26T04:44:11.840-04:00Spencer also tried to link CO2 increase to the oce...Spencer also tried to link CO2 increase to the oceans, here:<br /><br />http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/05/global-warming-causing-carbon-dioxide-increases-a-simple-model/<br /><br />and some additional stuff on the isotope signal here:<br /><br />http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/<br /><br />I don't think Spencer's model works at all. If only 10% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is from anthropogenic sources, about 5 GtC/y is taken up by the biosphere (since Spencer claims the oceans are a source). More importantly, however, since the increase in atmospheric CO2 is about 2 GtC/y, 1.5 GtC/y would be coming from the oceans. Since there is no reason for the biosphere to not also take up 90% of the oceanic CO2 (apart from the small C12/C13 issue), this means the oceans are throwing out 13 GtC/y MORE than they take up. That's an enormous number, equalling about 15% of the estimate C-flux of the ocean (which is about 90 GtC/y).<br /><br />Within a few years, the oceans would be depleted of carbon if Spencer is right. Doesn't quite fit the measurements (and I'm not just talking about decreasing pH).Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-52802937851090690452010-05-25T15:26:19.419-04:002010-05-25T15:26:19.419-04:00The thesis is one reason that I do not think that ...The thesis is one reason that I do not think that Essenhigh is sincere:<br />http://etd.ohiolink.edu/etd/send-pdf.cgi/Kolan%20Sreekanth.pdf?acc_num=osu1259613805<br /><br />two other reasons piked up from this site:<br />Hartland expert<br />http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/11/no-honor-among-bloggers-while-wm-was.html<br /><br />and freaky list signer:<br />http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/12/makin-list-checkin-it-twice-here-is.html<br /><br />Other then that the citation above and I just cant believe that e chemist honestly can believe that the CO2 is coming from the ocean while the pH is decreasing... also seams like he clearly are avoiding all other Isotope studies and so on...<br /><br />The local (Swedish) deniers are not reasonable ppl... have written a lot abut them but almost always in Swedish.<br /><br />However the right way to take it on might just bee treating it like a honest mistake any way. Just don't leave doors open for simple comebacks just stating that he know the difference between the RT and adjustment time and have proven the old theory wrong...Magnushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01617272924116099306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-67881375352440669432010-05-25T11:33:10.988-04:002010-05-25T11:33:10.988-04:00Wait - what was this thesis? Hasn't Essenhigh...Wait - what was this thesis? Hasn't Essenhigh been emeritus for a while?<br /><br />-MAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-58920243716758221692010-05-25T10:51:41.880-04:002010-05-25T10:51:41.880-04:00Magnus, I think Essenhigh's work is a sincere ...Magnus, I think Essenhigh's work is a sincere attempt to get to the truth as he sees it and where it is wrong it seems to me to be an honest misunderstanding of the carbon cycle. I wish he were right!<br /><br />The key point is that the residence time depends on the magnitude of the environmental uptake flux, whereas the adjustment time depends on the net difference between total uptake and total emissions, and hence can't be adequately modeled by variable input flux. As the difference between fluxes is small in comparison to their magnitude, it is hardly surprising that the adjustment time is much longer than the residence time.<br /><br />There are good solid arguments refuting the idea that the observed rise is anything other than anthropogenic at Ferdinand Engelbeens excellent <a href="http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html#The_mass_balance" rel="nofollow">website</a>. The mass balance argument ought to be proof enough for any reasonable person.<br /><br />Eli: Yes, indeed that is a pity, however we often learn most from our mistakes, so it may turn out to be a valuable experience in research in the long run.Dikran Marsupialnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-40093885836010886942010-05-24T18:56:49.125-04:002010-05-24T18:56:49.125-04:00GFW: Eli's day job is currently 27/8 so the o...GFW: Eli's day job is currently 27/8 so the opportunities, such as this are few.<br /><br />Magnus: The real tragedy of Essenhigh is that he got a grad student to write a thesis based on, well, you know.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-63085438584000051202010-05-24T16:45:00.748-04:002010-05-24T16:45:00.748-04:00Eli, are you still reading the Keith Kloor thread ...Eli, are you still reading the Keith Kloor thread http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/05/23/team-b/comment-page-1 where you have comment 13?<br /><br />Comments 17, 26, 29 & 32 are the continuation of that particular thread.GFWhttp://gfw@comcast.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-33747922558143173612010-05-24T16:22:49.973-04:002010-05-24T16:22:49.973-04:00Dinkran, Glad to hear that a respons is on the way...Dinkran, Glad to hear that a respons is on the way.<br /><br />My point about the RT is that Essenhigh is doing that on purpose e.g. <br /><br />"The results additionally support the outcomes of the<br />analytical extension that includes the effect of a rising input<br />flux rate (Fi) with time, with the further comparison that this<br />then accounts for the Watson et al.3 “adjustment time” data range<br />of 50-200 years (although in contradiction to their further<br />interpretation of that result as a RT)."<br /><br />He tries to mess it up so he can say that the increase comes from natural sources after some time... where he comes with the it is the oceans that is warming and releasing CO2 absurdity. Now I don't know exactly how the curve for C13/C12 look however ignoring that C14 is not in isotopic equilibrium will shift it by a factor 10 or so... ad a few other oversimplifications and who knows :)<br /><br />Some local deniers promoted the paper in absurdity so I have a few scores to settle when the response is published... do tell!Magnushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01617272924116099306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-78122574307390161642010-05-24T14:27:21.536-04:002010-05-24T14:27:21.536-04:00These EPA scientists should be nominated for saint...These EPA scientists should be nominated for sainthood. They show an incredible amount of patience and really go way beyond the call of duty. <br /><br />And, with them as examples, I'll try to address a couple of jgdes's questions:<br /><br /><i><br />b. Is the fact that CO2 dissolves in rainwater included? I mention this because big play is made of the short residence time of water and I can't reconcile the two.</i><br /><br />I imagine it is a fairly negligible effect. However, even if it weren't, the point is that this would just transfer the CO2 to another subsystem (mixing layer of ocean or soils or biosphere) with which the atmospheric CO2 already rapidly equilibrates. The problem is removing the carbon from the ocean mixed layer + biosphere + soils + atmosphere system (either by burial into the deep ocean or burial underground). It is that process that is the rate-limiting step.<br /><br /><i><br />d. How can you use a bathtub analogy when you don't know the size of the bath? eg Is the sea a full bath or a largely empty one?</i><br /><br />I don't even know what this means. The bathtub is an analogy. Any analogy can be carried too far. The ocean uptake of CO2 is determined by the chemistry in the ocean. It is not literally a bathtub.<br /><br /><i><br />e. I read that the IPCC models use that simple bathtub analogy. True?</i><br /><br />To do calculations? No...The IPCC uses carbon cycle models, of which I believe the very simplest is the sort of model described by the EPA scientists (i.e., different fractions of the CO2 having different exponential decay constants).<br /><br />It seems like you are really, really desperate to continue believing what you want to believe.Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06510687524626136184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-18835482320384203642010-05-24T11:07:04.486-04:002010-05-24T11:07:04.486-04:00Magnus, the main error in Essenhigh (2009) is inde...Magnus, the main error in Essenhigh (2009) is indeed in the distinction between residence and adjustment time. A response to that paper is in preparation.Dikran Marsupialnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-36664662367398049642010-05-24T09:31:44.563-04:002010-05-24T09:31:44.563-04:00Eli
I've a few questions:
a. How do you sensib...Eli<br />I've a few questions:<br />a. How do you sensibly contruct a model of sinks when you don't know what or where half of them are?<br />b. Is the fact that CO2 dissolves in rainwater included? I mention this because big play is made of the short residence time of water and I can't reconcile the two.<br />c. Any guesses on where the missing sink is?<br />d. How can you use a bathtub analogy when you don't know the size of the bath? eg Is the sea a full bath or a largely empty one?<br />e. I read that the IPCC models use that simple bathtub analogy. True?<br />f. Is this another "all other things being equal" model?, ie what we don't know is considered to be net neutral.jgdeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00113923164193106018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-58387004149295091702010-05-24T03:28:22.337-04:002010-05-24T03:28:22.337-04:00Had a look at Essenhigh before and just a thought....Had a look at Essenhigh before and just a thought... is he confusing "residence lifetime" and "adjustment lifetime" or is he "missing" that C14 is not in isotopic equilibrium? <br /><br />http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.com/2010/04/swedish-television-goes-oreskes-on.html<br /><br />Will have another look...Magnushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01617272924116099306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-81299331320128548212010-05-23T22:23:01.581-04:002010-05-23T22:23:01.581-04:00Did the folks with EPA who had to wade through all...Did the folks with EPA who had to wade through all this get some sort of special gift? I hope so; for the most part this work appears to have been akin to employing neurosurgeons to operate toilet plungers, not good for morale.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com