Remember EG Beck’s dodgy CO2 graph?

i-ee24549320f0431f76b817189dfd4164-beckco2.png

You really didn’t have to know anything at all about the history and practice of measuring CO2 to deduce that something was wrong with Beck’s theory that there were wild fluctuations in CO2 concentration that suddenly ended when the most accurate measurements started. But Energy and Environment published his paper.

Eli Rabett has links to comments from experts Harro Meijer and Ralph Keeling (the son of Charles Keeling), who explain where Beck went wrong. Meijer concludes:

It is shocking that this paper has been able to pass the journal’s referee system. “Energy and Environment” apparently has been unable to organise a proper peer review process for this paper, thereby discrediting the journal.

Well, I think E&E was already discredited, but it sure would be interesting to see who they got to review it. Jaworowski, perhaps?

While Keeling asks:

Is it really the intent of E&E to provide a forum for laundering pseudo-science?

Yes. Yes it is.

Comments

  1. #1 z
    March 25, 2008

    I must say, this topic has certainly lived up to its name; i haven’t seen so much psuedo science brought into the light of day since i last looked at the Lyndon Larouche website.

  2. #2 z
    March 25, 2008

    This is new (to me anyway)

    “No gasoline-powered car assembled in North America would meet China’s current fuel-efficiency standard.”
    http://www.thestar.com/News/Ideas/article/326294

    Particularly interesting in view of the now oft mentioned factoid that Cnina is “opening new coal-fired generating stations at the rate of about one a week.”

  3. #3 Barton Paul Levenson
    March 26, 2008

    Tim Curtin says:

    [[BBL said at #74: “H2O and CO2 don’t have bi-products released by fossil fuel burning; they ARE the bi-products of fossil fuel burning”.

    YES OF COURSE, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.]]

    No, Tim, what you said in post #69 that I was responding to was:

    [[Solar and wind power do not yield the release of free long stored H2O and CO2 bye-products. ]]

    Which is why I said:

    “And H2O and CO2 don’t have bi-products released by fossil fuel burning; they ARE the bi-products of fossil fuel burning.”

    Do you get it yet?

  4. #4 Barton Paul Levenson
    March 26, 2008

    Harold Pierce Jnr. writes:

    [[That number (26%) is just computational speculation and conjecture. Did you check out “Global Warming: A Closer Look at the Numbers”? ]]

    It’s not either speculation or a conjecture. Didn’t you read the article? It’s from a radiation budget derived using a radiative-convective model of the Earth’s atmosphere.

  5. #5 Barton Paul Levenson
    March 26, 2008

    More Piercingly stupid comments:

    [[See #87. To date the IPCC and its affiliated “scientists” have produced only computational speculation and conjecture,]]

    Right. Nobody spending months and years in Antarctica carefully measuring glaciers, no one in radiation labs painstakingly measuring parameters of greenhouse gases, no quantum physicists carefully working out emission/absorption lines. You really don’t know what you’re talking about, do you, Harold? You can’t even have read the IPCC reports you’re criticizing if you honestly think the scientists the IPCC quotes have only produced “computational speculation and conjecture.”

    [[ and the so-called “computer modeling experiments” are theoretical computational exercises and don’t mean squat.]]

    Not to an ignoramus, I suppose, but to scientists they mean a great deal.

    [[I should have said, “There is one and only one important greenhouse gas: water vapor aka steam” Real air has one very important property and that is this: Real air always has water vapor. And it doesn’t need any help from the molecular slug CO2 to produce and regulate the greenhouse effect. ]]

    Considering that water vapor only produces from 36-66% of Earth’s greenhouse effect, I’d say it does, actually.

    [[peer review does not mean anything these days. If it did, there would be none of this climate change claptrap and global warming gobblygook!]]

    Modern science depends on peer review and consensus. You clearly do not understand the first thing about how science is actually done nowadays. That makes your claim to be some kind of chemist very, very unlikely.

  6. #6 Tim Curtin
    March 26, 2008

    I have had other activities, hence the delayed responses to Guthrie. The others have been worthless as always.

    Re #81
    Relying to Guthrie who said: “Tim, you need to brush up on your reading comprehension.
    Tim said: “”… burning fossil fuels releases H2O and CO2 that have been buried for billennia”,”
    The CO2 and water have not been buried for millenia.
    Posted by: guthrie | March 25, 2008 9:15 AM

    Hi Guthrie, you clearly do not understand the photosynthetic process. Fossil fuels, if that is what they are, have been so to speak underground for billennia.

  7. #7 Bernard J.
    March 26, 2008

    Tim Curtin.

    No, you clearly do not understand the photosynthetic process.

    Whilst carboniferous and hydrocarboniferous fossil fuels have been buried underground for millenia, the CO2 and water that derive specifically from their burning have not.

    Photosynthesis reduces CO2, and uses water as an electron donor in the process, to produce (remember – photosynthesis) the precursors to fossil fuels, and thus neither the ‘feedstock’ CO2 nor the water remain to be present in the chemical constituency of said fuels.

    Burning fossil fuels releases the carbon that has been stored for millenia, producing CO2 in the case of carboniferous fuels, and producing CO2 and water in the case of hydrocarboniferous fossil fuels.

    The distinction, whilst appearing semantic, is extremely important, especially as you are using your twisted view of chemistry and physics to make claims that any competent scientist would dismiss.

    Tim, I know that you think oil percolated from the bowels of the crust (you still haven’t thought to address the point about isotope signatures), but is coal in your opinion plant-derived?

  8. #8 guthrie
    March 26, 2008

    Thanks to Bernard J for replying to Tim in my stead.
    Meanwhile, I wonder what the word “billenia” means? Any idea?

  9. #9 Bernard J.
    March 26, 2008

    Tim C said:

    I have had other activities, hence the delayed responses to Guthrie. The others have been worthless as always

    Read:

    I have no answers at all to the others ( ie, challenges to my non-science), so I choose to ignore them and bluff my way through in the hope that the observers in the wings of this thread, who might not know any better, might think that I am actually right.

    On the other hand Tim C might actually be right! Let’s see… Tim, have you written up your thoughts on Einstein’s famous equation, and it’s implications for atmospheric gasses, and submitted them to something like PNAS, the Royal Society’s Proceedings A, Science or Nature? If you’re correct there might even be a Nobel in it for you.

    Guthrie, I actually think that Tim C’s “billenia” is kinda cute, although it is somewhat reminiscent of a psychological condition!

  10. #10 Winnebago
    March 26, 2008

    Is there any other answer but, yes?
    “I’m following my political agenda – a bit anyway. But isn’t that the right of the editor?” Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, editor of E&E. As quoted in: Monastersky, R. (2003, September 5). Storm brews over global warming. Chronicle of Higher Education.

  11. #11 Ian Gould
    March 26, 2008

    I think Tim is too busy writing up his “non-compounding rate of GDP” theory. So presumably he’s going for the Economics Nobel first.

    Then there’s the Fields Medal he’s due for his work on the exponential function. But I’m sure he’ll get around to the physical sciences in due course.

  12. #12 Tim Curtin
    March 27, 2008

    HERE ARE SOME OVERDUE RESPONSES TO MY CRTICS.

    I said (at #69) “Those pesky molecules are included in Einstein’s equation.” BBL respnded: “Your words, verbatim, from post #69 above. You’re wrong. There’s no equation Einstein ever put down that includes anything about any particular molecule. I can parse just fine. You said something that was blatantly false. I’m not accusing you of lying, just of not understanding basic chemistry and physics. Go study some introductory texts on the subject”.

    OK, BBL, tell me why E=MC^2 is wrong

    TC: “Bernard, I trust your morbidity is not terminal. Yes I do stand by those figures, just as much as the IPCC projects wildly into the future ignoring logarithimic effect of CO2 on temperature and depending hugely therefore on a yet to be demonstrated positive feedback from clouds. My “overdue letter from Einstein” was penned before Freeman Dyson’s latest book came out (A many-colored Glass); unlike Bernard J, Dyson is a physicist of some renown and his book confirmed the point I was dramatising in my letter, which is that our problem with rising population and therefore food needs is that we shall soon have too little atmospheric CO2, not too much; Dyson states it is already scarce. Now whether reducing emissions will impact or not on the current oceanic and terrestrial uptakes of 5 GtC p.a. is an interesting question. If not, my Einstein letter’s figures stand and total atmospheric CO2 will fall back to the 1750 level and its little ice age. But if uptakes fall in line with emission reductions we will be worse off even sooner as shown in Figs. 3 & 4 of my second Garnaut submission (at my website, not his, as he dislikes contention). Current crop yields will decline ever faster the more extreme are the emission reductions pursued by Garnaut, as the resulting declining partial pressure of atmospheric CO2 reduces photosynthetic uptakes pari passu.

    One curiosity arising from his E=MC^2 is that on the one hand if we simply reduce energy in order to reduce emissions, and then plot the implied reduction in M, we get the very large reduction indicated by his equation, recalling that C^2 is the speed of light squared, while on the other hand if we only change the form of E by replacing fossil fuels etc with solar etc., what then happens to M, and what form does it take for equal amounts of joules in each case? Also possibly pertinent is that while conventional energy burning sends up both H2O and CO2 as part of M, while wind etc do not, what then?

    TC.

    sod’s response: | March 25, 2008 4:13 AM

    #74Tim Curtin, even more bizarrely than usual, posts:

    [[Solar and wind power do not yield the release of free long stored H2O and CO2 bye-products. Those pesky molecules are included in Einstein’s equation but are largely absent from the formulae for solar and wind power.]]

    #75 I said (at #69) “… burning fossil fuels releases H2O and CO2 that have been buried for billennia”,

    BBL said at #74: “H2O and CO2 don’t have bi-products released by fossil fuel burning; they ARE the bi-products of fossil fuel burning”…

    Posted by: Tim Curtin | March 25, 2008 7:44 AM

    #77 sod said (@ #65) “this one is simple i and i will refer you to Henry´s law:the concentration of a solute gas in a solution is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas above the solution http://tinyurl.com/23pgkd

    TC: sod’s tinyurl says this: “The value of the Henry’s law constant is found to be temperature dependent. The value generally increases with increasing temperature. As a consequence, the solubility of gases generally decreases with increasing temperature”.

    Thus Henry’s Law confirms both Fig 5 in my “Garnaut browns the World” paper (at http://www.timcurtin.com) and my “Einstein” figures. For evidently, if reducing emissions by 90% below 1990 a la Garnaut has the desired impact on atmospheric CO2 and temperature, then oceanic solubility INCREASES, and REDUCES what is available for terrestrial photosynthesis.

    Posted by: Tim Curtin | March 25, 2008 8:15 AM

    #107Tim Curtin.

    Bernard J said: No, you clearly do not understand the photosynthetic process.

    Whilst carboniferous and hydrocarboniferous fossil fuels have been buried underground for millenia, the CO2 and water that derive specifically from their burning have not.

    [WHY NOT? IT IS THE BURNING THAT RELEASES THE LONG BURIED CO2 AND H2O]

    Photosynthesis reduces [ATMOSPHERIC] CO2, and uses water as an electron donor in the process, to produce (remember – photosynthesis) the precursors to fossil fuels, and thus neither the ‘feedstock’ CO2 nor the water remain to be present in the chemical constituency of said fuels.

    Burning fossil fuels releases the carbon that has been stored for millenia, [AND WAS CREATED FROM ABSORPTION OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2] producing CO2 in the case of carboniferous fuels, and producing CO2 and water in the case of hydrocarboniferous fossil fuels.

    The distinction, whilst appearing semantic, is extremely important, especially as you are using your twisted view of chemistry and physics to make claims that any competent scientist would dismiss. [YEAH?]

    Tim, I know that you think oil percolated from the bowels of the crust (you still haven’t thought to address the point about isotope signatures), but is coal in your opinion plant-derived?

    BERNARD, i SUGGEST IT IS YOU WHO NEEDS TO GO BACK TO SCHOOL, DO TRY READING THOMAS GOLD’S BOOK – HE WAS JUST A PHYSICS PROF AT CORNELL, WHAT HAVE YOU EVER ACHIEVED?]

    Posted by: Bernard J. | March 26, 2008 8:11 AM

    Tim Curtin says:

    [[BBL said at #74: “H2O and CO2 don’t have bi-products released by fossil fuel burning; they ARE the bi-products of fossil fuel burning”.

    YES OF COURSE, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.]]

    No, Tim, what you said in post #69 that I was responding to was:

    [[Solar and wind power do not yield the release of free long stored H2O and CO2 bye-products. ]]

    Which is why I said:

    “And H2O and CO2 don’t have bi-products released by fossil fuel burning; they ARE the bi-products of fossil fuel burning.”

    Do you get it yet?

    Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | March 26, 2008 4:59 AM

    Tim Curtin.

    No, you clearly do not understand the photosynthetic process.

    Whilst carboniferous and hydrocarboniferous fossil fuels have been buried underground for millenia, the CO2 and water that derive specifically from their burning have not.

    Photosynthesis reduces CO2, and uses water as an electron donor in the process, to produce (remember – photosynthesis) the precursors to fossil fuels, and thus neither the ‘feedstock’ CO2 nor the water remain to be present in the chemical constituency of said fuels.

    Burning fossil fuels releases the carbon that has been stored for millenia, producing CO2 in the case of carboniferous fuels, and producing CO2 and water in the case of hydrocarboniferous fossil fuels.

    AGREED – TC, 27 MARCH 08

    The distinction, whilst appearing semantic, is extremely important, especially as you are using your twisted view of chemistry and physics to make claims that any competent scientist would dismiss.

    Tim, I know that you think oil percolated from the bowels of the crust (you still haven’t thought to address the point about isotope signatures), but is coal in your opinion plant-derived?

    Posted by: Bernard J. | March 26, 2008 8:11 AM

    #109Tim C said:

    I have had other activities, hence the delayed responses to Guthrie. The others have been worthless as always
    Read:

    Tim, have you written up your thoughts on Einstein’s famous equation, and it’s implications for atmospheric gasses, and submitted them to something like PNAS, the Royal Society’s Proceedings A, Science or Nature? If you’re correct there might even be a Nobel in it for you.

    THANKS – I KNOW THE ODDS ARE AGAINST ME, WITH THEH HIGH PRIESTS OF AGW ENSCONED AT THE RS ETC

    Guthrie, I actually think that Tim C’s “billenia” is kinda cute, although it is somewhat reminiscent of a psychological condition!

    Posted by: Bernard J. | March 26, 2008 9:31 AM

    #107Tim Curtin.

    No, you clearly do not understand the photosynthetic process.

    Whilst carboniferous and hydrocarboniferous fossil fuels have been buried underground for millenia, the CO2 and water that derive specifically from their burning have not.
    ]
    OF COURSE THEY HAVE BY DEFINITION

    Photosynthesis reduces ATMOSPHERIC CO2, and uses water as an electron donor in the process, to produce (remember – photosynthesis) the precursors to fossil fuels, and thus neither the ‘feedstock’ CO2 nor the water remain to be present in the chemical constituency of said fuels. NONSENSE

    Burning fossil fuels releases the carbon that has been stored for millenia, producing CO2 in the case of carboniferous fuels, and producing CO2 and water in the case of hydrocarboniferous fossil fuels. RIGHT!

    The distinction, whilst appearing semantic, is extremely important, especially as you are using your twisted view of chemistry and physics to make claims that any competent scientist would dismiss.

    Tim, I know that you think oil percolated from the bowels of the crust (you still haven’t thought to address the point about isotope signatures), but is coal in your opinion plant-derived? PARTLY! READ THOMAS GOLD.

    Posted by: Bernard J. | March 26, 2008 8:11 AM

    Dear sod/bi, show me the equivalent formulae for wind/solar and prove their equal yield in terms of FREE water and CO2.

    TC

  13. #13 Dano
    March 27, 2008

    TimC delays publication of his Galileo-like rubbishing of the climatealarmists’ tripe to grace us with his prodigious deepthoughts on the rightness of his envirohate.

    Everyone take a moment and thank TimC for spending his valuable time with the likes of us.

    Best,

    D

  14. #14 Bernard J.
    March 27, 2008

    Tim Curtin.

    I am profoundly aghast at your complete ignorance of chemistry, and I take high umbrage at the fact that you have used this ignorance in an attempt to misrepresent my words.

    I said:

    Photosynthesis reduces CO2, and uses water as an electron donor in the process, to produce (remember – photosynthesis) the precursors to fossil fuels, and thus neither the ‘feedstock’ CO2 nor the water remain to be present in the chemical constituency of said fuels.

    In that completely shambolic dog’s breakfast that you call a response at #112 you quote me as having said:

    Photosynthesis reduces [ATMOSPHERIC] CO2, and uses water as an electron donor in the process, to produce (remember – photosynthesis) the precursors to fossil fuels, and thus neither the ‘feedstock’ CO2 nor the water remain to be present in the chemical constituency of said fuels.

    OK where to start…

    First, a chemistry lesson for you as you are patently ignorant of even the high school basics.

    When an atom or a molecule is oxidised (by an oxidiser, which oxidises) it loses one or more electrons.

    When an atom or a molecule is reduced (by a reducer, which reduces) it gains one or more electrons.

    I explicitly indicated that the ‘feedstock’ CO2 is reduced (gains electrons from the reducing agent, or electron donor, water) during the process of photosynthesis.

    This is true, pure and simple.

    I DID NOT say nor in any other way use the word “atmospheric”, and your insertion of it into my quote was obviously explicitly employed to serve your purpose to imply that I was saying that photosynthesis lowers the amount of atmospheric CO2. I did not intend this meaning, and anyone with a week’s worth of mid-high school oxidative chemistry under their belt would know this.

    I especially did not intend to imply that that photosynthesis lowers the amount of atmospheric CO2, because as a trained biologist I am aware that plants respire a large part of the carbon they fix, (convert to carbohydrate, in case you don’t understand) almost immediately that they fix it, and that the remaining bulk of their carbon biomass is respired by micro-organisms on the plant’s death. This process is essentially one that is in equilibrium with the atmosphere – unless of course you count humantiy’s propensity for tipping extra CO2 into the atmosphere by rasing and burning vegetation.

    You might think that you have caught me out and that I have supported your “plants will suck all the CO2 out of the atmosphere” tripe, but you are simply exposing your woeful ignorance of basic science, and also your conniving propensity to twist the words of others.

    I think that am owed.

    At another point you quoted me thus:

    Whilst carboniferous and hydrocarboniferous fossil fuels have been buried underground for millenia, the CO2 and water that derive specifically from their burning have not.

    and said:

    [WHY NOT? IT IS THE BURNING THAT RELEASES THE LONG BURIED CO2 AND H2O]

    How many times must you humiliate yourself by claiming that the CO2 and water were buried? They were not. For the last time, the burning releases buried carbon, and in the case of hydrocarboniferous fuels, buried carbon and hydrogen previously chemically combined as hydrocarbon. The CO2 and water are produced de novo in the atmosphere in the presence of oxygen.

    I when I said:

    and thus neither the ‘feedstock’ CO2 nor the water remain to be present in the chemical constituency of said fuels.

    You replied elsewhere:

    NONSENSE

    It is not nonsense. And if you need to be convinced spend some time around an anoxic environment, where hydrocarboniferous materials are oxidised into sulphurous compounds that are neither CO2 nor water

    If the water ‘remains’ in the buried carboniferous fuels or hydrocarboniferous fuels, then so do all of the myriad other molecular combinations represented by the atomic constituents of the fuels, and this is patently absurd. You know, I could take cyanide, break it down into things like CO2, ammonia, urea or any number of other compounds able to be assimilated by plants, but after doing so it doesn’t mean that the cyanide is still somehow ‘in the plant’.

    Of course, you could be Zen about it and say that the ‘spirit’ of the CO2 and the water remain within the hydrocarboniferous fuels, but this is philosophy and has nothing to do with the chemical ‘accounting’ that you have deluded yourself into thinking that you are doing. The ‘potential’ of CO2 and water to come de novo from the oxidation of the hydrocarboniferous fuels is there, but so is the potential for any of thousands of industrial polymers, pharmaceuticals, stock feeds (or whatever) to do so, and no-one in their right mind would dream of saying that any of these substances are also ‘buried’ underground.

    Can you try any harder to make yourself look like a complete prat?

  15. #15 sod
    March 27, 2008

    Tim, i must have missed your answers in that quote-mess you created above.

    why wont you simply admit:

    1. you got Einstein wrong. the famous energy/matter formula has absolutely ZERO meaning in the context of burning fossile fuels. you know NOTHING about physics!
    if you can find a relationship, please enligthen us all by EXPLAINING it!

    2. you got the chemical process of burning fossile fuels wrong. you did not understand, that the oxygen used for the process is supplied by the AIR! we don t get “FREE” CO2 and H2O but instead pay with OXYGEN and with all sort of pollutions, starting with sulfur dioxide ( and oxides of nitrogen. you do not understand CHEMISTRY at all!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_plant

    you have so far brought up ZERO facts, supporting your claim on CO2 sinks. you misrepresent Henry s law. if you think it supports your case, you need to show this with CALCULATIONS!

    Dear sod/bi, show me the equivalent formulae for wind/solar and prove their equal yield in terms of FREE water and CO2.

    just because you keep repeating this moronic point:

    the vast majority of scientists DISAGREE with you on the claim, taht “FREE” CO2 is a good thing.
    the water question is even more easy: producing oil has COST in water. i am rather confident, that a calculation will show that wind power, by not USING water gives more “FREE” water” than burning fossile fuels!!!

    http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/powers/2004/1104.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_(oil_production)

  16. #16 Bernard J.
    March 27, 2008

    I will call myself on this one.

    I said:

    where hydrocarboniferous materials are oxidised into sulphurous compounds that are neither CO2 nor water

    If sulphate is the electron accepter, CO2 certainly can be produced de novo, but instead of water, compounds such as H2S are produced. Nevertheless this particular example still serves to demonstrate that the CO2 and water are not explicitly ‘buried in’ the hydrocarbon, and there are any number of hydrocarbon oxidation reactions that do not produce either CO2 or water.

    One is always well advised not to let another’s stupidity bring one’s guard down to spawn one’s own silliness, no matter the hour of the morning (AEDT), and of this I am guilty.

    But Tim Curtin is still well and truly in jail.

  17. #17 Bernard J.
    March 27, 2008

    Tim Curtin.

    One curiosity arising from his E=MC^2 is that on the one hand if we simply reduce energy in order to reduce emissions, and then plot the implied reduction in M, we get the very large reduction indicated by his equation, recalling that C^2 is the speed of light squared, while on the other hand if we only change the form of E by replacing fossil fuels etc with solar etc., what then happens to M, and what form does it take for equal amounts of joules in each case? Also possibly pertinent is that while conventional energy burning sends up both H2O and CO2 as part of M, while wind etc do not, what then?

    Please, please, I beg you – take this piece of wisdom into the office of any physicist or physical chemist, with a television crew to witness their despair as you make it patently obvious to those poor academics what the physical sciences have missed that was right under their noses for the last century, and place the resulting humiliation of these ignorant boffins up on Youtube for all to see.

    If they fail to understand by reading the above paragraph, show them your Einstien letter. That will surely remove the clouds of befuddlement from their eyes.

    THANKS – I KNOW THE ODDS ARE AGAINST ME, WITH THEH HIGH PRIESTS OF AGW ENSCONED AT THE RS ETC

    Your thesis is perfect for Energy and Environment, and it is surely a journal of repute that would be your springboard to eventual fame and glory.

    Surely.

  18. #18 John Mashey
    March 27, 2008

    Bernard J
    You are doing noble work, but:

    a) If you use Firefox, Greasemonkey+killfile are worth having.

    b) If you’re unfamiliar with the Dunning-Kruger Effect, you might look it up. It would explain much of this thread.

  19. #19 Max Lini
    March 27, 2008

    Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill.

    Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others.

    Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy.

    If they can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level, these individuals can recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill.

  20. #20 Bernard J.
    March 27, 2008

    Hi John (at #118)

    I am an avid fan of Firefox and its superior versatility, and although I am philosophically equivocal about Killfiling I have started with a certain other nincompoop on this thread. It is that morbid curiosty that I alluded to several days ago that keeps me kicking at Curtin’s carcass, and in particular it is a curiosity to see into which corner he will ultimately paint himself.

    The heirarchy at ANU must be wriggling in their seats to have him on their books…

    Ah yes, the Dunning-Kruger Effect. When my fellow postgrads and I hit the ‘long, dark tea-time of the soul’ parts of our PhDs we wondered whether we were actually afflicted with the opposite condition (does this have a name?!), but I have recently discovered that the best cure for this malady is in fact to speak with a DKE sufferer. Between them HPJ and TC have shifted my self-perspective to a much more healthy and positive place!

  21. #21 Tim Curtin
    March 28, 2008

    Einstein again!

    ‘Miklós Zágoni, formerly one of Hungary’s most outspoken supporters of the Kyoto Protocol (as well as being an environmentalist and physicist) says the equations used in global warming computer models are wrong.
    After studying work by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA’s Langley Research Center, Zágoni stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new theory to other climatologists. The data fit extremely well. “Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations,” Miskolczi states. Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit that prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.
    How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution.
    Miskolczi’s story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution — originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today — ignored boundary conditions by assuming an “infinitely thick” atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always.
    So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference … but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down.
    NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. “Money”.’

    Any comments?
    [Thanks to Amer Pundit]

  22. #22 Bernard J.
    March 28, 2008

    Tim C.

    Do you get your science from the frequently dubious and hair-brained “Science News” section of Nexus magazine? Or do you more usually dive into the Twilight Zone section?

    How often do you see “runaway greenhouse theories” as theories of primary concern with respect to climate change?

    Are you telling us that it is now impossible, with Miskolczi’s ‘new term’, for the climate to warm to temperatures seen in the past? To warm even another degree or two over current average? What to you consider is the ‘new’ assymptote?

    Oh, and I suggest that you discontinue your self-flattery with pretensions to being an Einstein. It doesn’t come over as deliberate irony, and you only confirm John’s insight about the Dunning-Kruger Effect by doing so.

    You really are a sad old emeritus aren’t you?

  23. #23 John Mashey
    March 28, 2008

    #122 Bernard J

    I read the actual Dunning-Kruger paper a while ago[at Bell Labs, for a few years I put together a group that mixed software engineers and psychologists, so I’ve retained a weird fondness for this turf; also I have some friends/relatives who are psychology professors].

    Their paper also describes how competent individuals often underestimate their performance and goes into the reasons. Although, in the real world, I think there are different reasons for this.

    If you are in, say the top 10% of competence in some domain, there’s a pretty good chance you know who the top 1% are, and may even work with them. Sometimes, you may even know somebody in the top .001%, and you compare… and get depressed. For instance, long ago, I wasn’t too bad a programmer … but I’ve worked with people like Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie, Brian Kernighan … which tends to keep one from having over-inflated ideas of one’s programming skill.

    Incompetent individuals don’t run into the top 10%, 1%, or .0001% so often, especially if they are isolated in some way.

  24. #24 Vagueofgodalming
    March 28, 2008

    I don’t suppose arguing here with Tim Curtin does much good or harm, but looking at his webpage suggests he is not a force for good in Papua New Guinea.

  25. #25 Tim Curtin
    March 28, 2008

    Bernard J (whoever he may be, is it not predicatable that all the most stoopid contributors to this site are always anonymous?) He said: “Do you get your science from the frequently dubious and hair-brained “Science News” section of Nexus magazine?” NO. “Or do you more usually dive into the Twilight Zone section?” NO

    “How often do you see “runaway greenhouse theories” as theories of primary concern with respect to climate change?”

    In the IPCC, all the time.

    Are you telling us that it is now impossible, with Miskolczi’s ‘new term’, for the climate to warm to temperatures seen in the past?

    YES, THE DIURNAL RANGE AROUND THE GLOBE EXCEEDS THE IPCC’S WORST “PREDICTIONS” – PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE IPCC EXPLICITLY INSISTS THAT IT MAKES NO PREDICTIONS OR FORECASTS

    Oh, and I suggest that you discontinue your self-flattery with pretensions to being an Einstein.

    WHY? FREEMAN DYSON HAS TWICE ENDORSED MY WORK. IF HE IS WRONG, FEEL FREE TO TO TELL HIM SO AT PRINCETON, IF YOU ARE UP TO THAT LEVEL OF GOOGLE RESEARCH.

  26. #26 Barton Paul Levenson
    March 28, 2008

    Tim Curtin posts:

    [[“How often do you see “runaway greenhouse theories” as theories of primary concern with respect to climate change?”

    In the IPCC, all the time.]]

    You have no idea what a “runaway greenhouse theory” actually is, do you? I recommend doing a google search for “Venus” plus “runaway greenhouse.” If you want more explicit treatment, try “Venus” plus “Ingersool” on Google Scholar.

    The Earth is in no danger of a runaway greenhouse effect. Not for another billion years or so, anyway. And the IPCC knows it.

  27. #27 Barton Paul Levenson
    March 28, 2008

    Sorry, that should have read “Ingersoll,” of course. I was probably thinking of Rasool and de Bergh, who also did a paper on the Venus runaway about 1970 (Ingersoll was 1969).

  28. #28 Dano
    March 28, 2008

    Wrt to Lini’s and Mashey’s ‘competence’ observations (esp 119 & 123).

    The good news is that, in the case of avid denialists attempting to widen the circle of their FUD propagation, the denialists show their cards in obvious, predictable ways. Most decision-makers see the denialists’ ‘tell’ and don’t push in their chips to the denialist pot. The marginal views of denialists, simply, don’t have play with most decision-makers at most levels. Really.

    IOW, denialists marginalize themselves and don’t get access to the 10%. Their efficacy so far (albeit less so these days) is to make it seem as if there is an overwhelming majority that feels X way or Y way, and these numbers must be heeded by decision-makers.

    The task is to point out the denialist’s marginalizedness**, not to refute every long-ago refuted point over and over and over and over again and again and again in some perverse whack-a-mole ritual.

    Best,

    D

    ** I love the English language…

  29. #29 guthrie
    March 28, 2008

    Tim, I’m curious- since when has Freeman Dyson, the well known physicist, and provocateur, endorsed your work? An actual cite is required.

  30. #30 Hugh
    March 28, 2008

    Dano, Sir

    If one really wishes to express one’s true admiration for the flexibility of written English then surely one needs to spell it…”marginalisedness”, does one not?

    Best :o)

  31. #31 Eli Rabett
    March 28, 2008

    FWIW, TimC has mixed up Einstein’s E=mc^2 which has nothing to do with what he is talking about with Einstein’s derivation of the relationships between the strengths of absorption and emission of light, which does, at least somewhat.

    He is busily engaged in tilting at a windmill that is knocking him on the head each time it revolves. Automated rakes.

  32. #32 Max Lini
    March 28, 2008

    lol

  33. #33 Tim Curtin
    March 28, 2008

    Guthrie: in two personal emails to me after I sent him my “Einstein” letter and my Submission to the Garnaut Review, Freman Dyson said he agreed with them but made the valid point that Roosevelt in fact of course ignored Einstein’s letter of August 1939 until just before Pearl Harbor, thereby lengthening the war and (inadvertently) maximising the holocaust.

    Sadly, a similar letter to Rudd warning him off Garnaut would have the same fate, for as the industry-by-industry analysis of the effect of Garnaut’s ETS in The Australian today shows, the impact will be as calamitous as that of an atom bomb or two. Eerily, today’s Earth Hour portends another Kristallnacht, with vigilantes attacking houses with lights on, soon to be followed by deniers having to wear Yellow Stars and get deported to the unbearable heat of the Antarctic. Just joking of course, but there are discernible fascist tendencies in the Greenies, including some of the above contributors to this thread (eg their calls for censorship etc).

  34. #35 Eli Rabett
    March 29, 2008

    Several people have looked at Miskolczi’s paper. If nothing else assumption (g) is bollocks. Another example of GIGO. Arthur commented on Rabett Run, RayP on Real Climate. NASA, as all federal agencies has an internal review process.

  35. #36 guthrie
    March 29, 2008

    Oh that. Well, that just goes to show Dyson went Emeritus a while ago. We, (meaning those of us who actually know some chemistry and suchlike) demonstrated your letter was a mess of unscientific wibblings with no basis in fact. I vaguely recall that you had an embarassing inability to consider the other factors that have caused an increase in crop production around the world. In fact, you would be better off just forgetting about it altogether, as I am sure Freeman Dyson has already done so. Mind you, reading Dysons wikipedia page reminds one to be humble, as one can see how the mighty fall.

  36. #37 Gerhard Kramm
    March 29, 2008

    Re: # 34

    Dear bi,

    thank you very much for citing the Science paper of Rahmstorf et al. (2007).

    In a letter to the local newspaper I wrote:

    “Last year Science published a paper (Rahmstorf et al., 2007, Science 316, p. 709) written by eight authors of the 4th report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in which recent climate observations were compared with climate projections. This paper documents a fundamental scientific misconduct because the first twelve years of the Mauna Loa CO2 observations were neglected because the projections disagree with the observations. In my comment to this paper (http://www.gi.alaska.edu/~kramm/index_files/pdf_files/0801.1870v1-1.pdf) I showed that in 1988 when the IPCC was established and thirty years of Mauna Loa CO2 data were available no correlation between a rise of the CO2 concentration and an increase of the mean near-surface temperature in the northern hemisphere did exist. Meanwhile, I wonder why the IPCC was established.”

    So much about the paper of Rahmstorf et al. Unfortunately, these guys try to make politics at the cost of the reputation of physical science.

    Best regards

    Gerhard Kramm

  37. #38 dhogaza
    March 29, 2008

    So much about the paper of Rahmstorf et al. Unfortunately, these guys try to make politics at the cost of the reputation of physical science.

    Unlike folks who make claims of scientific misconduct in the press, and who accuse mainstream climate scientists thusly “”By far, most of the IPCC members can be considered, indeed, as members of a Church of Global Warming. They are not qualified enough to understand the physics behind the greenhouse effect…”, nothing more than a public ad hom attack on the professionalism of a large number of scientists.

  38. #39 Tim Curtin
    March 29, 2008

    Thanks Guthrie for the Wiki ref on Freeman Dyson, which inter much alia notes that “Dyson regards the term “global warming” as a misnomer, pointing out that warming will not occur uniformly throughout the world, but will instead be subject to regional variations: As a result of the burning of coal and oil, the driving of cars, and other human activities, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at a rate of about half a percent per year. … The physical effects of carbon dioxide are seen in changes of rainfall, cloudiness, wind strength, and temperature, which are customarily lumped together in the misleading phrase “global warming.” This phrase is misleading because the warming caused by the greenhouse effect of increased carbon dioxide is not evenly distributed. In humid air, the effect of carbon dioxide on the transport of heat by radiation is less important, because it is outweighed by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor. The effect of carbon dioxide is more important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. The warming mainly occurs where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading, because the global average is only a fraction of a degree while the local warming at high latitudes is much larger.[20] ”

    Regarding political efforts to reduce the causes of climate change, Dyson argues that other global problems should take priority.

    ” I’m not saying the warming doesn’t cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I’m saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans.[17]….”

    “Well”, says Guthrie [who seems not to be known to Wiki other than as a folksinger], “that just goes to show Dyson went Emeritus a while ago. We, (meaning those of us [like Guthrie, long overdue for a Gore singing & dancing Prize] who actually know some chemistry and suchlike [including of course quantum mechanics, a field in which Guthrie is renowned ahead of Dyson, despite Wiki’s neglect of this aspect of his song and dance routine] ) demonstrated your letter was a mess of unscientific wibblings with no basis in fact.”

    Well, dear Guthrie, I am happy to follow ever so faltingly more in Dyson’s footsteps as outlined above than in your neo-Nazi ramblings.

  39. #40 Tim Curtin
    March 29, 2008

    Reverting to “Guthrie” and my description of him as a neo-Nazi, my basis for that assertion is his own denigration (at #136, “Oh that. Well, that just goes to show Dyson went Emeritus a while ago”) of perhaps our greatest living physicist as senile, when Freeman Dyson has published two books within the last year or so as well as having played a valuable role in the war against Hitler. What have been Guthrie’s achievements then or now?

  40. #41 Bernard J.
    March 30, 2008

    Tim Curtin.

    I will refrain from saying too much about Freeman Dyson, who was a very clever physicist in his time, because he is not here to defend himself, and to be frank I am not well acquainted with his professional work – unless one stretches to count his ‘out there’ ideas of stars surrounded and enclosed by the biospheres of advanced societies, or his dream of a plant engineered to grow on comets. All I would say is that if Freeman was taking flights of fancy such that he seriously considered these to be viable concepts, then he might be forgiven for (allegedly) supporting some of your babble in his autumn years. I will definitely follow guthrie’s reference to wikipedia after posting this though to see if it indicates the degree of Dyson’s ‘going Emeritus’.

    There is always a danger in selecting particular Nobel laureates, charismatic personalities and other figureheads as references: you might consider that those in the stratosphere of science (or at least those whom you cherry-pick) can (or perhaps have) fall(en) from their lofty heights. Kary Mullis comes to mind, with his notoriety over the non-HIV origin of AIDS, and his claims that CFCs are not ozone depleting. Ironically, if my memory serves me correctly, he is a climate change sceptic too, but my point is that past kudos in not a privilege to irrefutable reputation, and it is the consensus of the scientific body derived through repeated testing and scrutiny that is the best indicator of the validity of an idea. It doesn’t take a Nobel, or a two hundred article CV, to see when the emperor is wearing no clothes. If I recall the story it only took one small child to point out the bleeding obvious…

    And Tim Curtin, most of your recent ideas about physics and chemistry fail the Bleedin’ Obvious Test abysmally almost the moment you open your mouth.

  41. #42 Tim Curtin
    March 30, 2008

    Thanks Bernard J, yet another hiding his amazing talents in physics and chemistry in anonymity. You are right, appeals to authority are little better than the ad hom attacks in your postings. So just explain where Prof. Dyson is wrong in his views on climate change (available in full in his latest book, A Many-colored Glass, and especially the following:

    “The fundamental reason why carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is critically important to biology is that there is so little of it. A field of corn growing in full sunlight in the middle of the day uses up all the carbon dioxide within a meter of the ground in about five minutes”.

    I came across that after I had penned my ‘Einstein’ letter making the same point but it is now the basis of my work showing the likely harmful effects of reducing atmospheric CO2 back the levels of 1750. Show us where we are wrong.

  42. #43 Bernard J.
    March 30, 2008

    Oh, and Tim, guthrie’s reference of Dyson ‘going Emeritus’ has absolutely nothing to do with Freeman’s sterling work during the war. Need I draw attention to the fact that you are constructing, with no logical validity, a strawman in order to justify throwing yet another distasteful at a non-deserving participant in these discussions.

  43. #44 Bernard J.
    March 30, 2008

    Tim Curtin.

    Oh dear…

    Do you know, I’ve been waiting for about three days (having read that ‘paper’ of yours), for you to toss this paragraph into your mix:

    [t]he fundamental reason why carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is critically important to biology is that there is so little of it. A field of corn growing in full sunlight in the middle of the day uses up all the carbon dioxide within a meter of the ground in about five minutes.

    No qualifications, nuthin’.

    Do you really mean this, as it literally stands?

    Leave aside that the phytosphere has managed for eons without the ‘assistance’ of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, if a field of corn really could exhaust all of the CO2 within a metre of the ground within five minutes, I rather suspect that there’d be textbooks on gaseous diffusion being rewritten all over the world.

    Have you ever opened a flask of chlorine in an enclosed room? For pity’s sake, even a bottle of bleach would prove the point! I once worked in a lab 30m x 20m x 3m in which someone dropped a flask containing 50mL of 2-mercaptoethanol – the whole lab was cleared out by the smell in seconds, and that was with a tiny fraction of that 50mL evaporating. Yes, even very small amounts of gas (much lower than the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere) can diffuse at large laboratory/field scales in seconds. Throw in any sort of air movement via wind or convection, and it would be clear that your characterisation of Dyson’s statement is a little off the mark…

    Do you know what the velocity of a gaseous molecule through the atmosphere is? Do you really understand what CO2 (or other gas mixed throughout the whole atmosphere) sequestering process would be needed to remove all of that particular gas from a localised region such as a field, such that one established a concentration gradient to zero for 1 metre above the ground? Do you understand how high (altitude-wise) such a gradient would need to be to maintain a zero CO2 concentration at ground level? And what area around a central point would need to be established?

    Of course you do. I hope. Dyson (and you, presumably) were tilting at the idea that a field of corn can, in about 5 minutes at maximum photosynthesis, use as much CO2 as is contained in the air above the ground of that field for one metre – if the field and the air above it were an isolated system. But they are not isolated, and saying that the corn “uses up all the carbon dioxide” creates the impression that CO2 is somehow hard for the corn to ‘get a hold of’. The fact is that the corn does NOT exhaust the CO2 in the atmosphere above its field, and the fact is that there is no imminent threat of CO2 dropping to zero without being ‘sustained’ by human emissions.

    Before the Industrial Revolution, before humanity’s appearance on the planet, the biosphere had already done a pretty good job of sequestering an equilibrium mass of carbon as ‘biomass’. It is almost the definition of the purpose of life – to fill in every available niche, and it has always done so without driving the equilibrium such that there is a ‘precipitous’ drop in CO2 concentration. Quite simply, plants have evolved to photosynthesise with carbon dioxide at concentrations of the order of magnitude of ~300ppm. And a field of corn will not drop the concentration of atmospheric of CO2 to zero.

    And further, do you really imagine that 6 billion humans, or even 9 billion, represent such a vast increase in actual biomass as to suck all of the CO2 from the atmosphere? For a start there is the loss of a considerable part of the body of respiring animal life to account for, whose biomass is displaced into the atmosphere with respect to historic CO2 levels, in addition to the huge amount of plant life that we have burned or otherwise consigned to the gaseous state. And you seem to forget that the phytosphere itself exists only because it respires much of its CO2 back into the atmosphere when garnering the energy captured by photosynthesis.

    You know, I could go on and on, and on and on (ad nauseum), but I rather think that I have said enough to (hopefully) plant a seed, and I am probably wise to heed Dano’s advice about continuing to whack moles…

    Oh, and my ‘attacks’ are directed at the quality of your scientific (?!) statements, and not at whether you are a coward, a wife-basher, a paedophile, a neonazi, or all of these.

    Pull your head in Tim Curtin.

  44. #45 bi
    March 30, 2008

    Kramm:

    This paper documents a fundamental scientific misconduct because the first twelve years of the Mauna Loa CO2 observations were neglected because the projections disagree with the observations.

    “Projections” for the “first twelve years”? I think you’ve been smoking too much stuff from the tobacco lobby or something.

    The same “reasoning” telling us that Al Gore became filthy rich by cashing in on carbon credits — even before carbon cap-and-trade exists. The Vast Satanic Worldwide Conspiracy is so Satanic that it has Satanic time-travel technology. Maybe the IPCC accidentally travelled to the future so that it had to make projections about past measurements.

  45. #46 Bernard J.
    March 30, 2008

    At #143, I meant ‘distasteful ad hom‘ – I’d left out an ‘i’ and a ‘greater than’ sign…

    Polergees for any confusion.

  46. #47 Eli Rabett
    March 30, 2008

    As Gerhard Kramm once more demonstrates, the dangerous thing is not what you don’t know, but what you think you know that is wrong. Worse, when you shout your ignorance from the roof tops. We only have to look at something as unsophisticated at the 1988 Hansen GCM projections to see that they do an excellent job consistent with the 1958 (and earlier) CO2 measurements. The other GCMs do the same

    Kramm, of course, is certain, certainly wrong.

  47. #48 Tim Curtin
    March 30, 2008

    Dear Bernard J (does the J stand for Jerk? – for you are transparently incapable of distinguishing between my quotes from Freeman Dyson and my own statements.

    So let us begin with your claim that it was I who said that

    “[t]he fundamental reason why carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is critically important to biology is that there is so little of it. A field of corn growing in full sunlight in the middle of the day uses up all the carbon dioxide within a meter of the ground in about five minutes.

    No qualifications, nuthin’.”

    Actually, those were Freeman Dyson’s words.

    Bernard Jerk then adds: “Leave aside that the phytosphere has managed for eons without the ‘assistance’ of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, if a field of corn really could exhaust all of the CO2 within a metre of the ground within five minutes, I rather suspect that there’d be textbooks on gaseous diffusion being rewritten all over the world.”

    Actually just check out any scientific journal eg Global Change Biology for dozens of papers about the fertilizing effect of CO2.

    Jerk again: “Have you ever opened a flask of chlorine in an enclosed room… Throw in any sort of air movement via wind or convection, and it would be clear that your characterisation of Dyson’s statement is a little off the mark…”

    Jerk, please tell that to Dyson, not me. You are the typical schoolyard bully, taking on me, rather than the head prefect.

    Jerk again: “Do you know what the velocity of a gaseous molecule through the atmosphere is? … ”

    Well, no, but I do know from the identity I published in my “Einstein” letter that if in any given year the increase in atmospheric CO2 was 4.1 GtC while the anthropogenic emissions were 9.1 Gtc, then uptakes by the photosynthesis you deride have to have been 5 GtC.

    Jerk kindly added: “Of course you do. I hope. Dyson (and you, presumably) were tilting at the idea that a field of corn can, in about 5 minutes at maximum photosynthesis, use as much CO2 as is contained in the air above the ground of that field for one metre – if the field and the air above it were an isolated system. But they are not isolated, and saying that the corn “uses up all the carbon dioxide” creates the impression that CO2 is somehow hard for the corn to ‘get a hold of’. The fact is that the corn does NOT exhaust the CO2 in the atmosphere above its field, [at any height?] and the fact is that there is no imminent threat of CO2 dropping to zero without being ‘sustained’ by human emissions [not even with the Garnaut 90% reductions from the 1990 level?} Before the Industrial Revolution, before humanity’s appearance on the planet, [I thought my own forefathers were around before 1750, in fact I have their baptismal records to prove it] the biosphere had already done a pretty good job of sequestering an equilibrium mass of carbon as ‘biomass’. [That is why there was no economic growth before 1750] It is almost the definition of the purpose of life – to fill in every available niche, and it has always done so without driving the equilibrium such that there is a ‘precipitous’ drop in CO2 concentration [until IPCC, Stern & Garnaut]. Quite simply, plants have evolved to photosynthesise with carbon dioxide at concentrations of the order of magnitude of ~300ppm [why not 1000 ppm as in Dutch greenhouses?] And a field of corn will not drop the concentration of atmospheric of CO2 to zero.” What, never, at any time of day? Records from greenhouse managers show how CO2 levels fluctuate widely over 24 hours, a concept too far for jerks like Bernard.

    Jerk again: “And further, do you really imagine that 6 billion humans, or even 9 billion, represent such a vast increase in actual biomass as to suck all of the CO2 from the atmosphere? ” Well done again, you are almost getting there, just have some chats with your fellow jerks, Al Gore, Nick Stern and Ross Garnaut, to explain to them that eliminating anthropogenic GHG is not really very smart.

    Bernard J. again: “You know, I could go on and on, and on and on (ad nauseum), but I rather think that I have said enough to (hopefully) plant a seed, and I am probably wise to heed Dano’s advice about continuing to whack moles…|”

    Sadly, Bernard J’s Latin is no better than his math, physics, and chemistry, so much so that it is he who is most likely the “coward, wife-basher, a paedophile, a neonazi, or all of these” (using ipsissima verba).
    depp=true
    notiz=[no vowels for you unless you behave yourself]

  48. #49 bi
    March 30, 2008

    Well, given that Tim Curtin is a negative oracle — whatever he says, he really means the exact opposite — it’s clear that he has just given a rousing, impassioned, and unreserved vindication of all of Bernard J.’s points.

    For example:

    Not sadly, Bernard J.’s Latin is better than his math, physics, and chemistry. Which has nothing to do with the fact that he’s unlikely to be the “coward, wife-basher, paedophile, neonazi, or all of these”. Res ipsa loquitur.

    I couldn’t agree more, Tim Curtin!

    Dear Bernard J (the J clearly doesn’t stand for “jerk”). Yes, I’ve mindlessly quoted Freeman Dyson’s words. Because all of Dyson’s words are also my own words. Except, of course, they’re my own until you start trying to poke holes in them. Then I’ll hide behind Dyson’s apron.

    Thank you, Tim Curtin, for the unreserved confession.

    Oops, I unwittingly vindicated Al Gore’s position. But that was my intent all along!

    Bravo, Curtin!

  49. #50 Bernard J.
    March 30, 2008

    Tim Curtin.

    I know that the quote was originally Dyson’s, and if you read my post carefully you will notice that I said that you’d throw it into the mix, and I did so without ascribing it to you as your composition. And if you’d read my post really carefully you would have noticed that several paragraphs later I specifically referred to the quote as “Dyson’s statement”.

    Does this make you the jerk?

    And Tim, I know all about the ‘fertilising effect’ of CO2. Although you need to be cautious about calling it a fertiliser, as traditionally these are plant nutrients added to the soil to enhance growth.

    There are many plants that will grow more rapidly with enhanced CO2 concentrations. There are also others that show little response to increased CO2, and many that exhibit lowered nutritional value where they do.

    There is also very strong evidence to show that if atmospheric CO2 was increased to the concentration that you advocate, the pH of the oceans would decrease to the point where many calciferous-based lifeforms would struggle to survive, and whole ecosystems would be severely damaged or even collapse.

    There are many reasons why a willy-nilly increase of atmospheric CO2 is not a Good Idea.

    I said:

    Before the Industrial Revolution, before humanity’s appearance on the planet…

    You know full well that I was referring to two benchmark periods, at very different scales of time. And yet you reply with:

    I thought my own forefathers were around before 1750, in fact I have their baptismal records to prove it

    as if I didn’t know that humanity was around before the Industrial Revolution. Come on Tim, this is such a petty attempt at denigration that even you should do better than this. Is this really the only level at which you are able to work?

    Dutch greenhouses, huh? You keep doing it – I was born in the Netherlands. And whether in the Netherlands or elsewhere in the world, where crops are grown in greenhouses there is great care to ensure that, in cases where CO2 supplementation is used, the greenhouses are well-sealed – that pesky diffusion thing that I mentioned before rapidly results in the expensively bottled CO2 diffusing its way out into that lifeless thing called an atmosphere.

    So what you have is an isolated system, and of course there will be very noticable fluctations in CO2 in this instance, as the mass of photosynthesising plant matter compared to the mass of (isolated) CO2 is much, much higher than if the greenhouse plants where growing in the open.

    Oh, and another reason for those fluctuations – if there is not 24hr illumination, those pesky crops will respire at night, inconveniently (for you) blowing quite a lot of CO2 back into the atmosphere as they address their own internal energy requirements. In some closed systems such as aquaria this can occur to the extent that animals may be suffocated.

    Tim old man, you only open your mouth to change feet, don’t you?

    You can throw all the personal ad homs at me that you care to; it worries me not. I rather think that anyone with half a brain, testing both your claims and mine, would find much less supported material on your side, and personal insults won’t change that. Of course, you’re probably stung my my unkind words with respect to the ludicrous things that you say, but ultimately that is your responsibility, not mine – you say them.

    As much as I try to be polite to people in my normal life, I can’t find a pressing reason to be so in your context, and many pressing reasons not to. However even in this case I only reflect upon your actions and your poor science, and for this I do not apologise.

    I am sorry if my approach in this offends you…

  50. #51 Bernard J.
    March 30, 2008

    Oh, and Tim:

    “coward, wife-basher, a paedophile, a neonazi, or all of these”

    are your insults to others, not mine. I have accused no one of any of these vile things, not even you, but you do like to throw around the implication of these things.

    If by saying “using ipsissima verba” you are implying that these are my words, not yours, you are being despicable.

    Yet again.

  51. #52 Gerhard Kramm
    March 30, 2008

    Re # 147

    Eli Rabett,

    I showed that Rahmstorf et al. (2007) neglected the first portion of the Mauna Loa CO2 observations. This is a fact. And this is an example of foolish statistics. Unfortunately, James Hansen and Richard Somerville, well respected colleagues, served as co-authors. Anybody with internet access has the possibility to check it because the Mauna Loa CO2 data and the temperature of the MetOffice’s Hadley Centre are available on the internet.

    I also showed that, certainly, in 1988, when the IPCC was established, no correlation between the available Mauna Loa CO2 data (1958-1988) and the mean near-surface temperature of the northern hemisphere did exist, neither on a monthly scale nor on a annual scale. This is a fact, too.

    Your statement that (let me quote it) “Kramm, of course, is certain, certainly wrong” gives evidence that you are not able to check my results even though it is only based on simple statistics.

    I am working in the field of theoretical meteorology for nearly three decades. Believe it or not, I am well familiar with the theoretical basis of General Circulation Models (GCMs) and I know their limitations. This is the reason why I did not use such models. To use such GCMs for climate predictions is irresponsible.

    Please read “Global Climate Models Violate Scaling of the Observed Atmospheric Variability” of Govindan et al. (2002, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2). One of the co-authors is Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, the Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and the boss of Rahmstorf. The abstract of this paper reads:

    We test the scaling performance of seven leading global climate models by using detrended fluctuation analysis. We analyze temperature records of six representative sites around the globe simulated by the models, for two different scenarios: (i) with greenhouse gas forcing only and (ii) with greenhouse gas plus aerosol forcing. We find that the simulated records for both scenarios fail to reproduce the universal scaling behavior of the observed records and display wide performance differences. The deviations from the scaling behavior are more pronounced in the first scenario, where also the trends are clearly overestimated.

    Current studies have confirmed these results. It is not surprizing to me that this paper and similar others were not cited in the chapter 8 of the 4th report of the WGI of the IPCC. My question is why not.

    Gerhard Kramm

  52. #53 guthrie
    March 30, 2008

    Tim Curtin will presumably have heard of Linus Pauling, who after a fruitful career died believing that megadoses of Vitamin C could treat cancer and other illnesses. Not to mention the sad case of J A DAvison, a biology professor who did some good work before retirement, but now can be seen babbling to himself in a corner:
    http://john.a.davison.free.fr/

    In the case of Dyson, we have someone who has done some great work, but has a tendency to make outrageous statements, I suspect because he enjoys the response.

  53. #54 P. Lewis
    March 30, 2008

    Dyson also says in Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the Universe

    A year later, I met Crick again. The war was over and he was much more cheerful. He said he was thinking of giving up physics and making a completely fresh start as a biologist. He said the most exciting science for the next twenty years would be in biology and not in physics. I was then twenty-two years old and very sure of myself. I said, “No, you’re wrong. In the long run biology will be more exciting, but not yet. The next twenty years will still belong to physics. If you switch to biology now, you will be too old to do the exciting stuff when biology finally takes off”. Fortunately, he didn’t listen to me. He went to Cambridge and began thinking about DNA. It took him only seven years to prove me wrong. The moral of this story is clear. Even a smart twenty-two-year-old is not a reliable guide to the future of science. And the twenty-two-year-old has become even less reliable now that he is eighty-two.

  54. #55 Gerhard Kramm
    March 30, 2008

    Re: # 145

    hi bi,

    ignoring available data to fit any agenda is, clearly, a scientific misconduct. The first twelve years of the Mauna Loa CO2 observations were ignored by Rahmstorf et al. (2007) to send a political message because during that period there was a decrease in the mean near-surface temperature of the northern hemisphere. However, this has nothing to do with common scientific standards. You and Eli Rabett may accept such political behavior in science. I do not.

    If you are familiar with the German language, please feel free to read this article of the Spiegel-online on Stefan Rahmstorf. Der Spiegel is a well known German news magazine.

    For your information: I never started to smoke. Only babies need dummies.

    Best regards

    yours

    Gerhard Kramm

  55. #56 Eli Rabett
    March 30, 2008

    The problem, dear Gerhard, is that the “decrease” you are babbling about was, if anything well within the noise and quite consistent with the forcing for the global anomaly. Everyone is invited to look at this version produced by noaa of the global temperature anomalies .

    Since we have experience with the sort of agitprop you are trying on, we note that you carefully said NORTHERN Hemisphere. Why would that be. Perhaps because in the 1960s the north cooled a bit while the south warmed, so on average the global was flat within natural variability? You wouldn’t be trying to sell us a dummy would you?

    When you put all the known forcings into the GCMs you get an excellent fit to the observed global temperature anomaly record. What has happened in the last three or four decades is that greenhouse gas forcing has dominated.

  56. #57 Tim Curtin
    March 31, 2008

    Trust Eli, using yet again his alias to conceal his conflict of interest as a hired hack at NASA/GISS, the same gang led by Jim Hansen that shamelessly suppresses weather stations showing cooling, and has ruthlessly presided overrelocation of hundreds of genuine rural weather stations across the Americas to car parks and other spots beautifully located under the outlets of air conditioners (bacause GISS can’t afford to pay for cabling from electronic stations in fields to the offices of Hansen’s fat lackeys). This is the same Hansen, BTW, who today wrote to Kevin Rudd and all his fellow travelling state premiers demanding immediate closure of all coal mines and coal fired power generators in Australia. Steve McIntyre’s http://www.climateaudit.org documents Hansen’s frauds, matched in his today’s post by the UK’s Hadley CRU. From personal information I happen to know that the German Met Bureau also deliberately “smoothes” actual temperatures upwards (just like Hadley).

    Meantime here is a link to some physics + chemistry
    http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
    which underpins the author’s conclusions as below. I bet that neither guthrie nor Bernard jerk will be able to refute ANY of the arguments therein, all of which confirm my own positions.

    Summary – Exactly what have we learned here?

    1. The “Greenhouse Effect” is a natural and valuable phenomenon, without which, the planet would be uninhabitable.
    2. Global Warming, at least in recent times, is real.

    3. CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas; 95% of the contribution is due to Water Vapor.

    4. Man’s contribution to Greenhouse Gasses is relatively insignificant. We didn’t cause the recent Global Warming and we cannot stop it.

    5. Solar Activity appears to be the principal driver for Climate Change.

    6. CO2 is a useful trace gas in the atmosphere, and the planet would actually benefit by having more, not less of it, because it is not a driver for Global Warming and would enrich our vegetation, yielding better crops to feed the expanding population.

    7. CO2 is not causing global warming, in fact, CO2 is lagging temperature change in all reliable datasets. The cart is not pulling the donkey.

    8. Nothing happening in the climate today is particularly unusual, and in fact has happened many times in the past and will likely happen again in the future.

  57. #58 guthrie
    March 31, 2008

    Tim, I have an alternative conclusion I want you to disprove:

    Time Curtin knows nothing about science, and is prepared to fight to the death to preserve this lack of knowledge.

    The stuff on the middlebury url contains no evidence, merely the usual denialist lies and misdirections. It is not even worth responding to, given that everything it says has been refuted time after time.

  58. #59 Tim Curtin
    March 31, 2008

    It is always kind of schadenfreude to have one’s worst fears fulfilled, and guthrie (the folksinger) just did that in spades. He cannot offer a single refutation, thereby confirming that the AGW hypothesis is disintegrating faster than the Wilkins shelf, along with the exposures of the frauds in the GISS/Hadley-CRU data.

  59. #60 Tim Lambert
    March 31, 2008

    Note for new readers: Tim Curtin is not a parody.

  60. #61 Barton Paul Levenson
    March 31, 2008

    Bernard J posts:

    [[There is also very strong evidence to show that if atmospheric CO2 was increased to the concentration that you advocate, the pH of the oceans would decrease to the point where many calciferous-based lifeforms would struggle to survive, and whole ecosystems would be severely damaged or even collapse.]]

    I presume you mean “decreased.” And no, there isn’t.

  61. #62 Barton Paul Levenson
    March 31, 2008

    Bernard J.,

    Apologies for that last post. I misunderstood what you were saying. [Gilda Radner voice:] Never mind!

  62. #63 Barton Paul Levenson
    March 31, 2008

    Tim Curtin posts:

    [[The “Greenhouse Effect” is a natural and valuable phenomenon, without which, the planet would be uninhabitable. ]]

    True.

    [[Global Warming, at least in recent times, is real.]]

    True again.

    [[CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas; 95% of the contribution is due to Water Vapor.]]

    False. CO2 contributes 26% of the clear-sky greenhouse effect:

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/KiehlTrenbBAMS97.pdf

    [[Man’s contribution to Greenhouse Gasses is relatively insignificant.]]

    27% of the present atmospheric complement of CO2 is artificial. The preindustrial level was about 280 parts per million by volume; the present level is 385 ppmv.

    [[ We didn’t cause the recent Global Warming and we cannot stop it.]]

    Wrong on both counts. See above.

    [[Solar Activity appears to be the principal driver for Climate Change.]]

    Yes, generally, but not the present global warming, since solar activity has been flat for 50 years. We’ve been measuring it from satellites like Nimbus-6 and -7 and the Solar Maximum Mission.

    [[CO2 is a useful trace gas in the atmosphere,]]

    True.

    [[ and the planet would actually benefit by having more, not less of it,]]

    False.

    [ because it is not a driver for Global Warming]]

    Yes it is.

    [[ and would enrich our vegetation, yielding better crops to feed the expanding population. ]]

    No it wouldn’t. That would be true only if CO2 were the main nutrient lacking in world crop growth.

    [[CO2 is not causing global warming, in fact, CO2 is lagging temperature change in all reliable datasets. The cart is not pulling the donkey.]]

    False. Temperature leads CO2 in a natural deglaciation, but for the last 200 years CO2 has led temperature. Let me know if you want the figures.

    [[Nothing happening in the climate today is particularly unusual, and in fact has happened many times in the past and will likely happen again in the future.]]

    False. The pace of the present warming is unprecedentedly fast. And there has never been climate change of this magnitude while a world industrial civilization existed which had its agriculture and economy adjusted to a stable climate.

    ]]

  63. #64 Bernard J.
    March 31, 2008

    Hi Barton.

    You had me scratching my head for a moment there, but no worries!

    Afterward, in fact, it prompted me to have a quick peak at our favourite lazy-man’s source of references in case our resident bozo, the one who seems to display the intellectual equivalent of Anton-Babinski syndrome, decided to play cute with that post and try to use it to support his claims about increasing CO2. At the end of the piece there are some useful links for anyone who might feel like chasing this point up further.

    Tim Curtin, you especially would benefit from looking at some of this – it is a sobering counter to your wild idea that the more CO2 the better. Try the Royal Society paper here, or the Nature paper here .

    Oh, and Barton seems to have said first, in answer to your six ‘points’, all the things that I would have said myself. Nice trick though, Tim – to say that if I don’t ‘refute’ things that I happen to agree with (ie points 1 & 2), then you are somehow vindicated.

    What a shame that it is not so.

    Oh, and like that other shameless troll from a couple of weeks ago, you have left more than a few questions unanswered. I will ask again:

    How often do you see “runaway greenhouse theories” as theories of primary concern with respect to climate change?

    Are you telling us that it is now impossible, with the advent of Miskolczi’s ‘new term’, for the climate to warm to temperatures seen in the past? To warm even another degree or two over current average? What to you consider is the ‘new’ asymptote in a greenhouse gas warming scenario?

    I am curious.

  64. #65 Barton Paul Levenson
    March 31, 2008

    Just in case anyone cares, I did some Sims tests (for Granger causality) on NASA GISS temperature anomaly and CO2 time series for 1880-2007. Starting all regressions from 1890, lags of from 1-10 years indicated 1 and 4 years were the optimal lags for anomaly (Akaike and Schwarz information criteria, respectively), and 1 and 8 years for CO2. Here’s what I got with those lags:

    CO2 => Anom lag = 1 F = 35.39 p < 0.001
    CO2 => Anom lag = 4 F = 5.413 p < 0.054
    Anom => CO2 lag = 1 F = 8.155 p < 0.001
    Anom => CO2 lag = 8 F = 2.452 p < 0.086

    So there apparently is some feedback — temperature Granger-causes CO2 as well as CO2 Granger-causing temperature — but CO2 causing temperature is a heck of a lot stronger. (Of course a lot of statisticians don’t take Granger-causality very seriously these days, but I couldn’t resist…)

  65. #66 Barton Paul Levenson
    March 31, 2008

    Damn, that didn’t come out very well. Forgot to add the HTML break tags. Let me try again:

    CO2 => Anom lag = 1 F = 35.39 p < 0.001
    CO2 => Anom lag = 4 F = 5.413 p < 0.054
    Anom => CO2 lag = 1 F = 8.155 p < 0.001
    Anom => CO2 lag = 8 F = 2.452 p < 0.086

  66. #67 Gerhard Kramm
    March 31, 2008

    Re: # 157

    Hi Tim,

    Eli Rabett is nothing more than a sniper. He needs a pseudonym , otherwise it would be well known for everybody how great his “expertise” is.

    Nevertheless, I do not believe that James Hansen has something to do with him. Even I disagree with him in many aspects regarding climate, I think that James Hansen is very smart. He does not need the support of such a carrot muncher.

    Best regards

    yours

    Gerhard Kramm

  67. #68 Bernard J.
    March 31, 2008

    Tim Curtin.

    Being pedantic I have actually bothered (unlike you obviously ever did) to tracked down an original work predicting and testing the concentration of CO2 above a corn field growing at maximum rate in the mid-day sun. It wasn’t difficult.

    Lemon et al (Science 174:4007 pp371-378, 1971), in a paper entitled “The sun’s work in a corn field”, both predicted and measured CO2 in the atmosphere from the ground to 600cm above the ground, from 11.45am to 12.15pm.

    At the ground itself ambient CO2 increased by about 2ppm, and the greatest decrease occured at approximately 100-120cm above the ground – this decrease was a whole – wait for it – 5ppm!

    I have the paper right here in my hands.

    You are flat-out wrong, your friend Dyson is wrong (or was misquoted), and there is simply nothing you can do to contradict the evidence of experiment. But I am sure that you will try!

    I wonder what else you might be wrong in…

  68. #69 sod
    March 31, 2008

    If you are familiar with the German language, please feel free to read this article of the Spiegel-online on Stefan Rahmstorf. Der Spiegel is a well known German news magazine.

    hm, just wrote along answer, don t know if it got posted or is lost.

    so just in short: i have the feeling that Gerhard Kramm is trying to mislead those who can t read german with his link to the article.

    the article actually AGREES with Rahmsdorf, but argues that he is using too strong terms, actually providing an extra forum for sceptics (whom the authors think to be wrong)

    most important paragraphs: (excuse my translation, it s late)

    Dass Menschen für den Klimawandel entscheidend mitverantwortlich sind, bezweifelt fast niemand mehr.

    nearly nobody doubts, that man is responsible for climate change.

    2. Teil: Forscher gegen Skeptiker: Wie Rahmstorf einer marktschreierischen Minderheit ermöglicht, sich als verfolgte Speerspitze des kritischen Journalismus darzustellen

    scientists vs sceptics: how rahmsdorf allows an attention seeking minority to present themselfs as pursued spearhead of critical journalism

    i don t know, what Kramm thinks the article is saying, or what he wants you to think that it says, but i m rather sure that he is wrong on it.

  69. #70 Max Lini
    March 31, 2008

    Models have CO2 26% on its own and 9% when removed, and ocean surface pH falling from 1751-1994 by .075 and expect another .3 to .4 by 2100, which would put them at 7.7 to 7.8

  70. #71 z
    March 31, 2008

    “CO2 is not causing global warming, in fact, CO2 is lagging temperature change in all reliable datasets. ”

    See also my forthcoming paper: “Chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them”.

  71. #72 z
    March 31, 2008

    ” A field of corn growing in full sunlight in the middle of the day uses up all the carbon dioxide within a meter of the ground in about five minutes.”

    You mean all these years, agribiz has been foolishly using fossil fuel to make high nitrogen fertilizer to raise crop yields tenfold, when they could have just burned it near the plants? D’oh!

  72. #73 z
    March 31, 2008

    “Nothing happening in the climate today is particularly unusual, and in fact has happened many times in the past and will likely happen again in the future”

    Possibly; not on earth during the discrnible historical record, of course. But possibly on Mars, or Venus.

    Hmm. If hot and carbon dioxidey are so good for plants, then Venus should be a veritabole greenhouse (haha). And if just carbon dioxide will do it, then Mars should be full of plants. We just need to find them.

  73. #74 Dano
    March 31, 2008

    Note for new readers: Tim Curtin is not a parody.

    I disagree TimL.

    There are still many Hollywood comedy writers not working full time. I say they are on The Internets, keeping their chops sharp.

    Best,

    D

  74. #75 Tim Curtin
    March 31, 2008

    Ignoring the gibbon monkeys and their strawmen (nobody said CO2 is a sufficient condition for life and growth, but it is necessary and valuable at concentrations much higher than the present. For example, in one of at least a dozen papers showing this last year in Global Change and Biology, Davis et al (2007) 13, 2308-2316, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01444.x state in their Abstract: “The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that eCO2 will increase the establishment success of oak seedlings in an old field environment.The study was conducted with CO2 levels
    controlled by free air CO2 enrichment (FACE)….The results
    showed that under hot and dry conditions, eCO2 can act like a nurse plant for tree
    seedlings growing in bare and unshaded areas, increasing seedling survival and growth,
    and thereby expanding the establishment window for trees encroaching into a grassland
    environment.”

    Meantime the Kiehl & Trenberth paper helpfully linked by BBL at #163 – thanks BBL – does in fact show that the radiative effect of water is more than double that of CO2; K&T do not mention secondary feedbacks, Houghton 2004 p.91 & IPCC AR4 WG1 p. 116 emphasize water as “the most important”, doubling the CO2 effect again, for total ratio of 3:1. I agree that as it stands Peden’s comment is incorrect, presumably he meant to refer to relative proportions by volume.

    BTW, further to my paper that shows the logarithmic decline in the CO2 growth rate since 1958, I see that the IPCC’s linear extrapolation in 1990 used a 0.61% growth rate to project the 2000 level to 375 ppm from 353 in 1990, while the actual was 369.64, and the linear growth rate (at Mauna Loa) from 1958 to 2006 is now down to 0.4%, despite ever faster growth of emissions. I don’t suppose uptakes of CO2 by photosynthesis could have anything to do with this?

  75. #76 Ian Gould
    April 1, 2008

    “You are flat-out wrong, your friend Dyson is wrong (or was misquoted), and there is simply nothing you can do to contradict the evidence of experiment. But I am sure that you will try!”

    Don’t be silly, Tim C will just ignroe your comments and dismiss you as one of the “gibbon monekys”.

    Tim c. is not a parody. He is a sad reminder of the need for the older among us to get regular neurological tests and seek medical treatment at the first sign that our faculties are starting to go.

  76. #77 Ian Gould
    April 1, 2008

    I’m waiting for the first denialsit to use the negative temperature gradient for US temperature over the period July 2007 to December 2007 as proof of global cooling.

  77. #78 Tim Curtin
    April 1, 2008

    Here is my tidied up offering from above as I would like to respond to Bernard J’s comments.

    Let us begin with his comment on Freeman Dyson’s statement

    “[t]he fundamental reason why carbon dioxide in the atomsphere is critically important to biology is that there is so little of it. A field of corn growing in full sunlight in the middle of the day uses up all the carbon dioxide within a meter of the ground in about five minutes.”

    BJ then said Do you really mean this, as it literally stands? I replied that these are Freeman Dyson’s words, not my own.

    BJ: “Leave aside that the phytosphere has managed for eons without the ‘assistance’ of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, if a field of corn really could exhaust all of the CO2 within a metre of the ground within five minutes, I rather suspect that there’d be textbooks on gaseous diffusion being rewritten all over the world.”

    Well, there are dozens of textbooks and journal articles that all descrive how quickly either in greenhouses or in the open the ambient plant-level CO2 can be absorbed. Shell is busy earning ETS credits in Holland by piping CO2 into local horticulturalists’ greenhouses.

    JB: “Have you ever opened a flask of chlorine in an enclosed room? ete etc” No, I have not. Throw in any sort of air movement via wind or convection, and it would be clear that your (sic) characterisation of Dyson’s statement is a little off the mark…” Yet again, BJ, please write Dyson, not me, I am just the messenger, they are his words not mine.

    BJ: “Do you really understand what CO2 (or other gas mixed throughout the whole atmosphere) sequestering process would be needed to remove all of that particular gas from a localised region such as a field, such that one established a concentration gradient to zero for 1 metre above the ground?….Do you understand how high (altitude-wise) such a gradient would need to be to maintain a zero CO2 concentration at ground level? And what area around a central point would need to be established?”

    BJ, just check the FACE experiments (I have cited here articles in Global Change Biolgy and elsewhere that explain what you seem to have difficulty in grasping, that the ambient level of CO2 at ground level is not very rich, and certainly far from optimal, for otherwise the FACE trials would not achieve their spectaculuar increases in yield in field, not greenhouse, conditions.

    BJ (shorter version): “Dyson (and you, presumably) were tilting at the idea that a field of corn can, in about 5 minutes at maximum photosynthesis, use as much CO2 as is contained in the air above the ground of that field for one metre – if the field and the air above it were an isolated system.” Read up on the FACE trials.
    BJ: “… and saying that the corn “uses up all the carbon dioxide” creates the impression that CO2 is somehow hard for the corn to ‘get a hold of’. The fact is that the corn does NOT exhaust the CO2 in the atmosphere”

    Dyson did not say the total atmosphere, only that within a meter of the groundabove its field.

    BJ: “the fact is that there is no imminent threat of CO2 dropping to zero without being ‘sustained’ by human emissions” .

    Well, I have published reasons why reducing emissions to zero will reduce the present uptakes of 5GtC p.a. thereby reducing crop and fishery yields. I look forward to your published paper explaining why I am wrong.

    BJ: “Before the Industrial Revolution, before humanity’s appearance on the planet, the biosphere had already done a pretty good job of sequestering an equilibrium mass of carbon as ‘biomass’.”

    What was the volume of food crop and farm animal production in 1750?

    BJ: “It is almost the definition of the purpose of life – to fill in every available niche, and it has always done so without driving the equilibrium such that there is a ‘precipitous’ drop in CO2 concentration”.

    Exactly, that is why we had that Malthusian equilibrium until 1750 or so.

    BJ: “…plants have evolved to photosynthesise with carbon dioxide at concentrations of the order of magnitude of ~300ppm.” What was the tonnage of production at that level, and what was the world’s population in 1750?

    Anyway, enough is enough, I finally have grasped that my contributions are unwelcome to Tim Lambert, who would clearly like Deltoid to consist exclusively of the self congratulating witticisms of D, Z, Eli, Gould, et al et ad infinitum. If you would like to continue debating with me privately, you and BBL and Kramm are welcome and know where to find me.

  78. #79 sam-Hec
    April 1, 2008

    Tim Curtin wrote at 4:11 am 3-31-08
    “The cart is not pulling the donkey.”

    When the cart is weighted right…

    http://www.boyshome.ro/photos/donkey.jpg

  79. #80 guthrie
    April 1, 2008

    Tim, unless there is somewhere else you have published, getting a letter into an economcis journal which appears not to have peer reviweed it in any way, shape or form (Yes, a climatology paper requires looking at by climatologists, chemists, physicists), to require someone else to publish a paper to refute your patently wrong stuff is silly.

  80. #81 sod
    April 1, 2008

    a simple look at what Dsyon actually wrote, shows us immediately (we knew already) that Tim was trying to mislead us my quoting out of context:

    The fundamental reason why carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is critically important to biology is that there is so little of it. A field of corn growing in full sunlight in the middle of the day uses up all the carbon dioxide within a meter of the ground in about five minutes. If the air were not constantly stirred by convection currents and winds, the corn would stop growing.

    as most of knew already, it s an experiment of mind.

    http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html

  81. #82 Harold Pierce Jr
    April 1, 2008

    ATTN: Barton Paul!

    Have you figured out why Tim can’t get your initials right?

  82. #83 Harold Pierce Jr
    April 1, 2008

    RE: #152
    Hello Gerhard!

    Has anybody tried to do climate models wherein the only ghg forcing is from water vapor?

    BTW Go read #21. The actual amount of CO2 in real air is much less than 388 ppmv.

  83. #84 luminous beauty
    April 1, 2008

    “Has anybody tried to do climate models wherein the only ghg forcing is from water vapor?”

    Yes. (clue: water vapor isn’t a forcing, it is a self-limiting feedback.)

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

  84. #85 Gerhard Kramm
    April 1, 2008

    Re # 169

    Hi sod,

    this report of the Spiegel-online does not criticized Rahmstorf’s opinion on climate change, but his behavior in attacking anybody who disagrees with him.

    Best regards

    Gerhard Kramm

  85. #86 Gerhard Kramm
    April 1, 2008

    Re #183

    Dear Harold,

    that is a good question. Obviously, a lot of global warming activists do not consider water vapor as a radiative forcing. However, what is radiative forcing? An excerpt from the Chapter 2 of the 4th report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Working Group I, “Climate Change 2007 – The Physical Science Basis” [Forster et al., 2007] reads

    > The definition of RF from the TAR and earlier IPCC assessment reports is retained. Ramaswamy et al. (2001) define it as ‘the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus longwave; in W m- 2) at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values’…. Radiative forcing can be related through a linear relationship to the global mean equilibrium temperature change at the surface (ΔTs): ΔTs = λ* RF, where λ* is the climate sensitivity parameter (e.g., Ramaswamy et al., 2001). < Obviously, it is stated that the tropopause region can warm the nearly 65 K warmer Earth's surface. This is nothing more than physical nonsense.

    When I was looking for a Global Warming Potential of water vapor in various IPCC-reports, I did not find any value. By the way, this Global Warming Potential (GWP) is an interesting quantity. In the NRC-report "Radiative Forcing of Climate Change" (2005) it is explained as follows:

    > An index describing the radiative characteristics of well-mixed greenhouse gases that represents the combined effect of the different times these gases remain in the atmosphere and their relative effectiveness in outgoing infrared radiation. This index approximates the time-integrated warming effect of a unit mass of a given greenhouse gas in today’s atmosphere, relative to that of carbon dioxide. < Unfortunately, the GWP does not occur in relevant physical equations, neither in the radiative transfer equation nor in the balance equation of internal energy (or enthalpy). The radiative transfer equation, of course, is not a conservation equation because it is dealing with intensities for which no conservation equation exists. And the time explicitly occurs only in the balance equation for internal energy (or enthalpy).

    Finally, let me quote an e-mail I sent to Ron Fournier of The Associated Press several months ago:

    > As one can find in the IPCC 2007 release “Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis – Summary for Policy Makers” the IPCC Working Group I, however, stated “Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas”. This statement documents the use of words as one can find, for instance, in George Orwell’s novel “1984” because this working group did not mention (a) that water vapor is, by far, the most important greenhouse gas, and (b) that the largest portion of the atmospheric CO2 concentration has natural origin (at the beginning of the industrial revolution the atmospheric CO2 concentration was of about 280 ppmV; today we have of about 380 ppmV). Water vapor is also release in combustion processes, but only uneducated people would denote it as an anthropogenic greenhouse gas. <

    Best regards

    Gerhard Kramm

  86. #87 luminous beauty
    April 1, 2008

    Gerhard,

    The spontaneous emission of bogons from your last comment over-loaded my bogonometer.

    I guess I’ll have to estimate from empirical bogosity field measurements the old fashioned way.

    Result: Bogosity^2 = 0.997

    Best regards

  87. #88 guthrie
    April 1, 2008

    Gerhard, I appreciate that english may not be your first language, but the simple fact is that you have completely and utterly misunderstood the statement:

    “”Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas””

    I’ll take it apart for you one or two words at a time.
    Carbon dioxide – CO2, we all know what that is, right?
    is the most - well, my grammar is too poor to explain them properly, but you do get the idea, don’t you? Most means largest, greatest, biggest.
    important – biggest, largest, most relevant.
    anthropogenic – meaning human caused. I.e. produced by humanities activities.
    greenhouse gas- meaning a gas which is involved in “the greenhouse effect” by slowing the loss of heat from the atmosphere.

    To take your point A- water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, but that is irrelevant, unless you wish to demonstrate that human produced water vapour is the most important human produced greenhoue gas, b) the CO2 we are interested in is that extra 100ppm produced by humans, you know, the anthropogenic component, of the current Co2 levels.

    Can any of the other readers recall this phrase that Gerhard uses:
    “Obviously, it is stated that the tropopause region can warm the nearly 65 K warmer Earth’s surface. This is nothing more than physical nonsense.”

    I’m sure I’ve seen that before somewhere.

  88. #89 sod
    April 1, 2008

    Hi sod, this report of the Spiegel-online does not criticized Rahmstorf’s opinion on climate change, but his behavior in attacking anybody who disagrees with him. Best regards Gerhard Kramm

    sorry, but you are still misleading people who don t speak german.

    the article does NOT simply criticize him for attacking people who disagree with him. BUT it does accuse him of the WAY of doing that. the article says, that by using terms like “blacklist of journalists” (who give unreasonable room for “sceptic” positrions outside the climate mainstream) he is givine UNINTENDED support tto this UNREASONABLE sceptic positions, by allowing them to PRETEND to be “critical scienctist” struglling against censorship.

    the article is crystal clear: it SUPPORTS the Rahmsdorf position. it SUPPORTS rahmsdorf attacks on “sceptics”. it does DISAGREE with the terms and words used, in those attacks.

  89. #90 Eli Rabett
    April 1, 2008

    Kramm is still trying to shove Gerlich and Tscheuschner up the hill. It comes from them, but, of course, like Kramm’s nonsense it is a strawman of many colors. What the greenhouse gases can do (whether they are colder than the surface or not) is slow down the rate at which the surface cools. They do this by absorbing part of the radiation from the surface and then re-radiating it back, e.g. a positive feedback.
    If you want the math rich version about why G&T are wrong take a look at Arthur Smith’s comment on Arxiv

    A recently advanced argument against the atmospheric greenhouse effect is refuted. A planet without an infrared absorbing atmosphere is mathematically constrained to have an average temperature less than or equal to the effective radiating temperature. Observed parameters for Earth prove that without infrared absorption by the atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth’s surface would be at least 33 K lower than what is observed.

    A less mathematical, but longer version can be found at Rabett Run, which, as long as it is is but a fraction of the original on dot.earth.

  90. #91 Dano
    April 1, 2008

    [klaxon sounds]

    [Turns off klaxon]

    Hey! How come my bullsh*t meter keeps going off?!?

    Oh, wait: Kramm is here. Never mind.

    Best,

    D

  91. #92 Gerhard Kramm
    April 1, 2008

    Re #190

    Hi carrot muncher,

    I already read Arthur Smith’s article, even though it is not “peer-reviewed”. First, Arthur Smith confirmed the result of G & T for the globally averaged temperature in the example of their section 3.7.4. Smith also derived a solution for a rotating globe. Obviously, this result also shows that the uniform temperature derived from the planetary radiation balance has nothing to do with a globally averaged temperature. Consequently, the criticism of G & T on this radiation balance is quite justified. This is one of their merits. Of course, Arthur Smith’s conclusions differ from those of G & T, but this is not a problem for responsible scientists because this group of scientists will learn from each other.

    Gerhard Kramm

  92. #93 Gerhard Kramm
    April 1, 2008

    Re # 188,

    Hi guthrie,

    based on the observations we must assume that the largest portion of the current atmospheric CO2 concentration has natural origin.

    Water vapor is emitted by any combustion process. The clouds over smoke stacks mainly consist of droplets formed by water vapor condensation. Is water vapor an anthropogenic or a natural greenhouse gas?

    Remember the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) was not written for physical scientists. This means that the authors of this SPM formulated their statements to highlight the importance of CO2. They did it in the sense of George Orwell. He was well familiar with propaganda because during the WW II he was a part of the propaganda machine.

    By the way, the table of the sea level rise in the SPM contains some mistakes. In the chapter 5 of the 4th report of the IPCC’s WGI these mistakes are corrected. However, I did not find a footnote about this correction. Why not? Scientists are usually able to check such data. Have policy makers the same competence in checking scientific results?

    Best regards

    Gerhard

  93. #94 Tim Lambert
    April 1, 2008

    Shorter Kramm: A sweater cannot keep you warm because it is colder than your body temperature.

  94. #95 P. Lewis
    April 2, 2008

    Dr Kramm says

    Water vapor is emitted by any combustion process.

    And, quite simply, he is wrong.

  95. #96 Tony Wall
    April 2, 2008

    re P. Lewis: why? all equations I know of show that burning hydrocarbons (funny name that, I wonder what it means?) yields both water (aka H2O) and carbon dioxide (aka CO2). How so?

  96. #97 P. Lewis
    April 2, 2008

    Parse Dr Kramm’s actual statement.

  97. #98 Tony Wall
    April 2, 2008

    P.Lewis; This what Dr Kramm said: “Water vapor is emitted by any combustion process. The clouds over smoke stacks mainly consist of droplets formed by water vapor condensation. Is water vapor an anthropogenic or a natural greenhouse gas?”

    I await your own parsing with interest, but given the sort of stuff we get from Tim Lambert, I suppose you will come back with a statement that water vapor causes the combustion process.

  98. #99 P. Lewis
    April 2, 2008

    given the sort of stuff we get from Tim Lambert, I suppose you will come back with a statement that water vapor causes the combustion process.

    Then you’d be supposing wrongly, Tony.

  99. #100 Ian Gould
    April 2, 2008

    For the slow of comprehension, how much water vapor is produced by the oxidation of iron?

    How about when you combust magnesium in a pure carbon dioxide atmosphere?

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.